Registered users can save articles to their personal articles list. Login here or sign up here

Eskom cleared of Hitachi scandal

Public Protector says no indication could be found that the ANC in fact exerted political pressure on Eskom to award the contract to the Hitachi Consortium.

Eskom has noted the observations, conclusions and recommendations published in the Public Protector’s two reports released Wednesday (Report on the Preliminary Investigation Relating to Electricity Load Shedding Implementation and the Report on an Investigation into an Allegation of Improper Conduct by the Former Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Eskom Holdings Limited, Mr V Moosa, Relating to the Awarding of a Contract).

On the report relating to the awarding of the boiler contract for the Medupi Power Station, we welcome the Public Protector’s finding that there was no undue influence by our former Chairman Mr Valli Moosa in the awarding of the contract to the Hitachi Consortium. In his report, the Public Protector further noted that “from the independent audit of the procurement process relating to Medupi Boiler Contract, no indication could be found that the ANC in fact exerted political pressure on Eskom to award the contract to the Hitachi Consortium.  

The fact that the boiler contract was initially awarded to another tenderer and that the subsequent decision to award it to the Hitachi Consortium was based on merit and after obtaining independent legal advice, supports the contention that the contract was not awarded to Hitachi Consortium because of its relationship with the ANC.”

The Public Protector has further recommended that Eskom’s Company Secretary takes urgent steps to ensure that all the members of the Eskom board are provided with the copy of Eskom’s Conflict of Interest Policy and the Guidelines for the Directors, and brief them on its application and on the law applicable to conflict of interest referred to in his report.  This is a standard practice of the Eskom board and in keeping with good corporate governance.  Eskom therefore accepts this recommendation.

The Public Protector’s finding of no undue influence is in line with findings of an independent review conducted by Deloitte.  The board of Eskom, and at the recommendation of the former Chairman Mr Valli Moosa, resolved to put in place additional interventions to ensure the integrity of the process leading up to the awarding of the boiler contract to the Hitachi Consortium.   This recommendation of the former Chairman to put in place additional interventions is in line with Eskom Conflict of Interest Policy.

The board explicitly requested Deloitte to include in the review a conflict of interest assessment of all board members, executives and other persons involved in the tender process.  The independent review found the awarding of the contract to the Hitachi Consortium was fair, transparent, equitable, cost effective and competitive and not biased towards any pre-determined outcome. The issue of Chancellor House was specifically highlighted in the independent review report tabled and discussed by the board. 

The board was satisfied that its former Chairman Mr Valli Moosa had conducted himself with integrity and had not unduly influenced the awarding of the contract.  This has been confirmed by both the independent review and the Public Protector.  


Comments on this article are closed.

This is conclusive proof of one thing only – that the ANC’s undue influence extends beyond simply awarding contracts, and solidly into the “public protector” himself. The fact that the contract went to an ANC connected company, and would benefit the ANC financially should be grounds enough for anyone to determine undue influence. It’s as clear as day… and now it’s equally clear how independent and impartial the public protector really is.

What value could the anc via Chancellor House possibly add to the Hitachi Consortium other than as a leach? Or will parts of the boiler be constructed in Luthuli House? This is corruption, plain and simple and symptomatic of most (all?) BEE deals, irrespective of what Deloittes says…who coincidentally employed Niehaus (briefly)for what reason other than his anc contacts (and failed to check his qualifications – or lack thereof in the process…lol)!!

Remember this is the same public protector that cleared the govt and ANC over the arms deal. And the same one who cleared the Oilgate transaction. The acid test – woudl you buy a used car from thsi man? I would not.

The ANC is in DEEP trouble. More and more dirty deals, corruption is surfacing each day. The arms deal is not dead yet either. They will do anything to avoid further embarrassment and the so called public protector has shown that he is deeply in their pockets.

There was a time , since I was politically aware in 1976 but no doubt extended before that, until about 1990’s that every day one read the papers, there was dishonesty reported about the Nationalist goverment, or something immoral or reprehensible that made me feel sick. I was so glad in 1994 when it appeared that decent honourable men and women had taken over and were taking sensible moral decisons that I coudl be proud of as a South African. It slowly degraded to the situation we have today where there is almost nothing that the ANC or the government does that I agree with morally and am proud of as a South African.

The Public Protector needs Deloitte’s to back up their investigation and I suppose Deloitte’s will need Carl Niehaus to back up their findings!

Load All 4 Comments
No more Comments, leave a reply.


ZAR / Euro



Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: