{"id":718422,"date":"2023-09-14T13:08:51","date_gmt":"2023-09-14T11:08:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/?p=718422"},"modified":"2023-09-14T13:09:30","modified_gmt":"2023-09-14T11:09:30","slug":"de-ruyter-becoming-governments-eskom-fall-guy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/government\/718422\/de-ruyter-becoming-governments-eskom-fall-guy\/","title":{"rendered":"De Ruyter becoming government’s Eskom ‘fall guy’"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) says the Special Investigating Unit’s (SIU) targeting of former Eskom chief executive Andre de Ruyter reeks of scapegoating, with authorities looking to “shoot the messenger” instead of tackling massive issues he flagged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a presentation to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) this week, the SIU laid into De Ruyter for launching an unsanctioned investigation into corruption at Eskom, in which an “unauthorised” private company gained access to information at the state-run power utility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SIU said that De Ruyter had no authority to do so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Outa CEO, Wayne Duvenage, disagrees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking to SABC News<\/a>, Duvenage said it was De Ruyter’s fiduciary duty as the accounting officer of Eskom to investigate corruption, and he had “the absolute right” to introduce any investigations he deemed necessary to achieve this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“If he didn’t do this, he could’ve been held liable for not taking action,” he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He added that the SIU’s stance that the investigation – unsanctioned by the board – was unlawful or was a result of maladministration is also hypocritical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“We’ve seen the government use private investigation firms all the time, and these investigations are sanctioned and introduced by the relevant executive of those departments without any board approvals,” he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duvenage said these private investigations by government departments run into the millions of rands with no board approval, yet no maladministration accusations have been made. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“There’s a lot of smoke here, and if this goes to court, Outa can’t see any judge finding the former CEO guilty of maladministration. De Ruyter never went over budget; money was granted to him, and he may have felt that he didn’t need to inform the board because that could’ve jeopardised the investigation,” he added. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duvenage said that it’s in the public interest to get to the bottom of corruption in the country and questioned whether De Ruyter really transgressed unlawfully in this regard. Outa doesn’t believe he did. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said that it is concerning because it appears as if the government is trying to “shoot the messenger” rather than focusing on what the actual report rooted out. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The report is the main focus, and De Ruyter is simply a scapegoat,” he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lead opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), has also called on MPs and law enforcement agencies to display the same energy when pursuing corruption at SOEs that they’re displaying in pursuit of the former Eskom CEO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SIU threatens action<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier this week, the Special Investigative Unit (SIU) noted that it is considering its next steps to hold De Ruyter and others accountable for an unauthorised investigation into the power utility. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This would extend to the private company that conducted the investigation \u2013 the George Fivaz Forensics and Risk (GFFR) \u2013 the private businesses and business groups who funded the project, and any Eskom employees who gave up information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Presenting an update on its investigation into the matter to the  Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) on Tuesday (11 September)<\/strong><\/a>, the SIU said that de Ruyter effectively went rogue and launched the investigation all on his own, with the Eskom board having no input into who he appointed to the task, providing no funding for the investigation to take place, and receiving no reports on the findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCan private parties investigate a state institution without the necessary authority? It cannot be, and this should not be permitted and allowed,\u201d the SIU said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given this, the SIU said that \u201cconsideration should be given\u201d to hold de Ruyter to account for this breach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
De Ruyter and his backers are in big trouble<\/a><\/blockquote>