




Open letter by ANC stalwarts -Sent to Secretary General Gwede Mantashe with a request that it be given to the ANC NEC (26.05.2017)











CAPE TOWN, South Africa, May 24, 2017 – The Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises held an extraordinary meeting on Tuesday to discuss the issue of the reappointment of Eskom’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr Brian Molefe.
Acting Chairperson Ms Zukiswa Rantho said last week the Committee agreed unanimously to call a meeting where the Board and the Minister are to appear before the Committee and explain what is happening at the power utility. Ms Rantho said: “The meeting today wants to know why is Mr Molefe back at Eskom, has Mr Molefe retired, was he retrenched, did he take early retirement or the new one that has been reported was that he was on unpaid leave, these are some of the answers that we need today.”
The Committee was of the view that legal advice that has been received will not be used to shield Eskom from being accountable before the Committee. The comments from the Committee came after Eskom’s Board Chairperson, Dr Ben Ngubane, said he had received legal advice from his counsel after he had filed an affidavit on Monday, 22 May 2017. Dr Ngubane said he was advised that the matter cannot be debated other than in a court of law. “I have to listen to counsel as they are representing us in a court of law,” said Dr Ngubane.
Members indicated that the Committee had also received legal advice regarding today’s meeting and the Committee had been advised that it should not get into the merits and demerits of the case. Members of the Committee stated that Eskom and the Executive are accountable to Parliament.
According to the legal advice from Parliament’s Legal Office, it states that “there is a constitutional duty to perform oversight and the intention of calling the Minister and Board is not to influence the court. Whilst the matter is sub judice (meaning it is before the court), this does not mean that Parliament cannot perform its oversight function, as long as the deliberations are not on “the merits of the case”.
In response to the presentation by Eskom and the Minister of Public Enterprises, the Committee questioned what pressurised such a strategic institution to hire someone where a question mark has not been cleared based on the Public Protector’s State of Capture Report. The Committee indicated that Eskom needs to state the basis of employment of Mr Molefe as the issue is still in the public domain.
The Committee said Mr Molefe, in his resignation letter, said he was stepping down from the power utility based on good governance following the release of the State of Capture report by the former Public Protector.
The Committee wanted to know if the papers filed in court by the Minister that Mr Molefe was on unpaid leave whilst being a Member of Parliament are true. Furthermore, the Committee queried why the post of the chief executive would be advertised and interviews conducted if Mr Molefe was on unpaid leave. The Committee said it will not accept the explanation provided before the Committee that he (Mr Molefe) was on unpaid leave as Section 47 of the Constitution would not allow this.
A response from a Board member indicated that Mr Molefe had resigned last year. Regarding the reappointment of Mr Molefe as CEO, the Board supported his reappointment based on the legal advice that the power utility received and on Mr Molefe’s performance whilst in the employ of Eskom.
The Committee made a recommendation that the Eskom Board and the Minister should be subjected to an inquiry to check if they (the Board) exercised its fiduciary responsibilities and duties. A parliamentary inquiry needs to be instituted against the Board and forensic investigation needs to be conducted to reach a determination of what must happen. The Committee agreed that further engagements need to be conducted amongst the members to discuss a way forward on the possible inquiry.
Following its deliberation, the Committee supported the decision for a parliamentary inquiry in line with National Assembly rules to look into the Board of Eskom.
On Eskom’s legal argument that Mr Molefe was appointed under the terms of the 2014 Memorandum of Incorporation (MoI), the Minister stated that the early retirement agreement didn’t have to be shown to her. The 2014 MoI does not enlist the Minister as party to the contract of employment of a Group CEO, whist the 2016 MoI explicitly enlists the Minister as a party to the contract of employment of Group CEO.
The Committee is of the view that the Minister failed to exercise her oversight duties as the 2016 MoI gave the Minister powers to appoint and dismiss the Group CEO of Eskom.
Ms Rantho said: “The Committee is concerned with the state of governance at Eskom. There seems to a breakdown in communication between the shareholder and the state-owned company.”
“The Committee is concerned with the breakdown of corporate governance principles at Eskom. In this regard, the Committee views the reappointment of Mr Molefe with serious concern,” said Ms Rantho.
She added that “we will further seek advice on how to deal with the decision of the reappointment of the Chief Executive”.
In its deliberation the Committee requested the power utility to provide the Committee with documents such as minutes correspondence and decisions taken on the reappointment of Mr Molefe.

“BREAKING: In a reply to my Parliamentary question, Minister of Public Works Nathi ‘firepool’ Nhleko, has said that there are no upgrades planned for Zuma’s Nkandla residence. Meanwhile, The chief director of Public Works, Barnie Ntlou told the Sunday Times that work will go ahead at the Presidents residence. Who’s fooling who?” (Mmusi Maimane, 22.05.2017).





(Outtake from the) Hani Memorandum Point 2: “We have been forced to draw the conclusion that the payment of salaries to people working in offices is very detrimental to the revolutionary outlook is of those who receive such monies. It is without doubt that such payments corrupt cadres at any level and have the effect of making people perform their duties or fill offices because of money inducement rather than dedication to the cause – they become in effect merely salaried employees of the movement. It is high time that all members and cadres of the ANC, be they in M.K. or not, should receive equal treatment and be judged only on the basis of their dedication and sacrifice to the cause we serve. The principle of thorough selection of cadres should be on the basis of merit and such selection should never be delegated to an individual – this will prevent individuals owing allegiance to those who appoint them rather than to the Revolution” (MacMillian – ‘Debate: the Hani Memorandum’).
Cyril Ramaphosa has been the loyal subject and the appointed Deputy President under the Presidency of Jacob Zuma. He has defended the President countless times, even as he been named in recent months as the part of African National Congress that is “Anti-Zuma Faction”. So the knowledge of his disappearing loyalty has been known since March 2016, still he has not been moved in the midst of changes of cabinet. That is because President Jacob Zuma does not want to challenge to many of the fractions inside the Party. Only the ones needed to please the donors and the ones keeping his village afloat.
So that Deputy President Ramaphosa who hasn’t been stirring the pot or even tried to challenge the President, is clearly now going out of the gates, blazing like he is Mmusi Maimane. Like he is in opposition, as he clearly stated in the memorial speech to Chris Hani today:
“Despite the good work that continues to be done by cadres and deployees in all spheres, the ANC’s programme in government and in communities lacks sufficient coherence and focus. The allegations that there are private individuals who exercise undue influence over state appointments and procurement decisions should be a matter of grave concern to the movement. These practices threaten the integrity of the state, undermine our economic progress and diminish our ability to change the lives of the poor. These activities, if left unchecked, could destroy the revolution. It is therefore critical that the allegations of ‘state capture’ are put to rest, that wrongdoing is exposed and that illicit practices are brought to an end” (News24, 2017).
That DP Ramaphosa are attacking the ANC, the party he is in the midst of and have left unchecked. The ANC have let the Zuma and his cronies do as they please, therefore, the admiration for justice now seems like a way of forging his own way. Since he has let the ‘Capture of State’ happen and the Constitutional Court judgement fail on his watch. As well, as the evident stopping of the ‘No Confidence’ votes in Parliament. So it is not like his words fits his actions. That he wants to now see the illicit practices to an end, seems more like political ploy, together with the knowledge of what sort of rhetoric was used to change Financial Ministers.
That he as a Deputy President been a crony is well-known, that he has supported and made sure that the powers of Jacob Zuma has gone unchecked is clear. Since he has had no issues with the scandals of Nkandla, Eskom and others. The list is so long when it comes to President Zuma, that the books combining the and digging in to it, would be small library to have enough space for it. Therefore, even if his words is powerful today, I have hard time believing it as sincere. Even if these words are stark.
“There is a strong sense among many of our people that the ANC no longer represents their hope for a better life. Many believe that the ANC is no longer a trusted repository of the aspirations of our people for freedom, dignity, peace and justice. Recent political developments have thrown into sharp relief the divisions within our movement and brought to the fore broader grievances about the direction of the country” (News24, 2017).
That he said this and that the people doesn’t trust the ANC is because of the acts of men like Cyril Ramaphosa, whose loyalty to Zuma has for long been more important than the constitution or the National Assembly. Where the ANC has ruled with iron fist for the better life of Zuma cronies and not for the citizens. Therefore, the trust has dwindled, the process of electoral fatigue isn’t the reason, but the misuse of power. That’s been rubber-stamped by the National Assembly Baleka Mbete and the rest of the loyal cadres in the ANC.
So if the ANC should decide on an official succession to Jacob Zuma, it should be someone who is credible and outside the parameter of Zuma’s reach. If it is someone in the current leadership who has been sponsored or been involved in the corrupt behavior of Zuma. So, if the ANC in the next conference and next challenge for the throne. Peace.
Reference:
MacMillian, Hugh – ‘The ‘Hani Memorandum’ – introduced and annotated’ link: http://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/hani_memorandum.pdf
News24 – ‘Full speech by Cyril Ramaphosa at Chris Hani memorial lecture’ (23.04.2017) link: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/full-speech-by-cyril-ramaphosa-at-chris-hani-memorial-lecture-20170423






