De Ruyter and his backers are in big trouble

The Special Investigative Unit (SIU) says it is considering its next steps to hold former Eskom CEO Andre de Ruyter responsible for an unauthorised investigation into the power utility.

This would extend to the private company that conducted the investigation – the George Fivaz Forensics and Risk (GFFR) – and the private businesses and business groups who funded the project and any Eskom employees that gave up information.

The SIU’s ire relates to the so-called “intelligence reports” underpinning De Ruyter’s explosive allegations of high-level corruption at Eskom, which he revealed during an interview with news channel ENCA in February.

At the time, De Ruyter alleged that senior politicians and high-level government officials were mixed up in criminal syndicates and corruption, bleeding the power utility dry.

When later called to account for his allegations, de Ruyter revealed that he had commissioned a private investigation into corruption at Eskom, which had revealed these alleged criminal networks.

This drew immediate attention from South Africa’s intelligence and investigative authorities, who were completely unaware of these investigations, calling into question the processes involved, the permissions given, and the legality of the act.

Presenting an update on its investigation into the matter to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) on Tuesday (11 September), the SIU made it clear that its position is that the investigations commissioned by de Ruyters were not allowed.

It 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.

The SIU found that a portion of the funding for the project was sourced from the business group Business Leadership South Africa (BLSA), headed by former Eskom board member Busi Mavuso.

The other funders remain unknown for now, the SIU said.

The SIU’s preliminary findings do not spell good news for those involved.

The group said that De Ruyter was not authorised to undertake the investigation in question. From its assessment of the intelligence reports, it is also evident that GFFR had access to extensive Eskom information and data.

“Can private parties undertake investigations into a state institution without the necessary authority? It cannot be, and this should not be permitted and allowed,” the SIU said.

Given this, the SIU said that “consideration should be given” to hold de Ruyter to account for this breach.

However, as he is no longer employed by Eskom, the unit said it is still considering the nature of the action required, and the Eskom board will be advised in due course.

But de Ruyter is not alone in the SIU’s crosshairs.

The SIU said that the Fivaz company could also face action, as it “reasonably ought to have known that they can’t conduct an investigation into a state institution without the necessary authority”.

This is also true for BLSA and Mavuso, it said.

“The SIU will consider the nature of the action to be recommended and advise the (Eskom) board,” it said.

Further to this, the SIU said that it would also look to identify other Eskom employees who cooperated with the unauthorised investigation and who provided information to support it, and “appropriate action will be recommended against them”.

Read: De Ruyter’s intelligence reports exposing corruption at Eskom – Hawks taking action