To avoid being exposed to legal action and security risks, former Eskom CEO André de Ruyter has refused to tell Parliament the identity of a "senior politician" who is implicated in corruption at the power utility.

De Ruyter on Wednesday was questioned by members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) on matters regarding corruption, theft, maladministration, sabotage, and cartels, among others. These allegations stem from his interview with eNCA's Annika Larsen earlier this year.

In the interview, De Ruyter claimed that politicians were involved with syndicates or cartels operating in Mpumalanga, where most of Eskom's coal-fired power stations are located.

Referring to the interview, ANC member of Parliament Bheki Hadebe asked for the name of the high-level politician mentioned in these allegations.

De Ruyter tried to sidestep the question multiple times and would not even reveal at which level of government the politician is involved. He indicated that he had informed Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan and President Cyril Ramaphosa's national security advisor, Sydney Mufamadi, of the information he had. He said that they would be best placed to provide more information about the identity of the person.

De Ruyter also said that he had reported the suspected criminal activity as a legal duty in terms of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (Precca).

Scopa chairperson Mkhuleko Hlengwa has also intervened in the questioning to get De Ruyter to name the official. However, De Ruyter raised concerns of a "potential security risk" that would arise from the disclosure.

De Ruyter was also concerned about being drawn into legal battles over his disclosures to Parliament. "I am unable to make any statement that could potentially put me at risk of any legal action - whether civil or criminal - because of the fact that there is a highly litigious environment that has arisen around Eskom and my tenure as an executive at Eskom," he said.

"I would be loathe to expose myself to any further legal action, particularly in a public forum like this one," he added.

De Ruyter also argued that naming the politician would impact ongoing investigations.

Hadebe informed De Ruyter that he would be protected in terms of the Powers and Privileges Act of Parliament, but still, that was not enough assurance for him. "Even if I were to enjoy the protection of parliamentary privilege, the concerns I have in terms of security would still apply," he said.

De Ruyter would later reveal, through questioning by DA member of Parliament Alf Lees, that he has not received any death threats since an apparent attempt on his life by cyanide poisoning in December 2022.

De Ruyter was also probed on reports of an intelligence and forensic investigation into fraud and corruption at Eskom. The R50-million investigation was not financed by Eskom. 

Responding to questions from ANC MP Sakhumzi Stoffels Somyo, De Ruyter said Eskom was not a contracted party and that the investigation was funded by donors.

De Ruyter would not name the private donors.

News24, however, earlier reported that Business Leadership SA (BLSA), had contributed to the funding of the investigation by the company George Fivaz Forensic and Risk (GFFR). The company is owned by former police commissioner George Fivaz and apartheid operative Tony Oosthuizen was involved in the investigation. News24 has not published the findings from these intelligence reports due to a lack of evidence to back claims against politicians.

BLSA issued a statement later on Wednesday indicating that it did indeed agree to provide funding for a "risk assessment" over a "defined period" which would be used to complement the work of law enforcement authorities. At the time it agreed to providing funding, the service provider GFFR had not been selected.

However, BLSA indicated it was comfortable with the eventual appointment of GFFR, given George Fivaz's reputation as "a person of integrity" and his ongoing collaboration with SA law enforcement.

"Any illegal activities uncovered by the risk assessment would be communicated to the relevant law enforcement authorities," it said.

The organisation said that it supports different branches of government with technical, financial and other resources to achieve socio-economic growth and development objectives.

De Ruyter said on Wednesday that because no public funds were used for the investigation, the matter was out of Scopa's purview.

DA MP Benedicta van Minnen had also asked De Ruyter about the state of political interference at Eskom.

He shared that decisions taken by the government in 1998 that prevented Eskom from adding new generation capacity, shows that political interference has had a negative impact on the electricity supply in South Africa.

At the same time, there has been a lack of political intervention when it comes to tackling the "rampant criminality" at Eskom that has also contributed to load shedding. But he admitted that there had been some progress, citing Ramaphosa's State of the Nation Address in February this year, there have been 43 arrests at several of Eskom's operations in Mpumalanga due to an intelligence operation. He also noted that soldiers had been deployed at power stations where coal was stolen.

Resignation

De Ruyter opened up about his decision to resign, which was largely due to interference from the newly appointed board.

While De Ruyter had a "positive" working relationship with the previous board, chaired by Professor Malegapuru Makgoba, the situation was different with the new board chaired by Mpho Makwana.

He said the new board has "immersed" itself in operational details, which could be characterised as "overreach". That overreach contributed to him leaving Eskom. He said that he found out about meetings that were held with subordinates, and instructions were given without his knowledge. "That made my life difficult. I experienced that as disempowering." He shared this was a similar experience for some of his executive colleagues.

"I think the executive is the people who should run the company and be held to account by the oversight of the board," he said.

"But I am happy to leave that to my successor to manage, to ensure adequate separation between the non-executive board and the executive and management, so lines are drawn for good corporate governance."

Asked about whether Gordhan had similarly intervened in operations, De Ruyter said that the minister is known for having a style that is "extremely involved in operational detail".

He recalled that Gordhan would speak to middle-ranking officials in the organisation, bypassing him and the chief operating officer and the head of generation. "Whether it was to gain information or verify information, I don't know. But it made life, as the responsible accounting officer, quite difficult. Many cooks in the kitchen do not always result in a good meal," said De Ruyter.

As a way forward, Scopa will send further written questions to De Ruyter. These will include question about interventions by Gordhan in micromanaging the board.

Scopa will have two more meetings on the matter on 3 May and 9 May.

Eskom issued a brief note following De Ruyter's appearance before Scopa. The utility said that there is "nothing new" that has surfaced that is not already being dealt with by law enforcement agencies. "Eskom remains steadfast on a path to restore the ethical fibre of the company," the utility said.