Eskom’s executives were frustrating both the parastatal’s board and the war room team with unreliable and incomplete information on the capacity of the organisation and hence the suspension of four executives on March 11, the Labour Court heard yesterday.
The court hearing followed suspended Eskom chief executive Tshediso Matona’s move to have his suspension set aside.
Paul Kennedy, an advocate for Eskom, said giving relief to Matona would not stop power cuts nor change the ratings downgrade by ratings agency Standard & Poor’s, which last week downgraded Eskom to BB+, which is junk status or below investment grade.
Kennedy tried to refute the argument by Andrew Redding, an advocate representing Matona, that the suspension had brought his client irreparable reputational and personal harm. “He is still being paid his salary, he is still receiving all benefits as a chief executive of Eskom, where is the serious irreparable harm there?”
He said Matona’s removal as an interim measure was to help avoid him putting Eskom employees under pressure and also allow processes to continue without interference and unreliable information.
Kennedy argued that Matona had been derelict in his duties by providing unreliable information to the board and could not satisfy the board’s queries on such inadequacies as cost overruns on major projects like the Kusile and Medupi developments.
He said there had also been serious problems in the procurement chain where Eskom’s executives had shown poor planning in securing coal and diesel at excessive prices, impacting the security of electricity supply.
Redding said the suspension was a breach of contract on the part of Eskom and that effecting disciplinary action against Matona without affording him an opportunity to make representation was unconstitutional, arbitrary and unlawful.
“On March 11 there were no allegations of misconduct brought against Matona, he did not know what the complaint against him was, there had been no mention that he was unreliable or that his conduct fell short of what is expected of him,” he said.
Redding said Eskom felt that it had to deal with the power crisis in an unconstitutional manner and “effectively fluff the law”.
He said the suspension was a continuing wrong and an infringement on Matona’s right to his dignity.
Terms of inquiry
Kennedy conceded, on interjection by Judge Benita Whitcher, that Eskom had not been too clear itself about the terms of the inquiry but said it was definite that it had a three-month lifespan after which a decision either way would be made.
The matter reached a sticking point on whether the court could or should give interim or permanent relief to Matona as there was a parallel process at the Council for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration from whom Matona had also sought relief on his suspension.
Kennedy said the country and the economy were in crisis and the Eskom executives had not succeeded in addressing problems, which pushed government to delegate no less than the Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa to step in but those efforts were frustrated by the quality of information from the Eskom executives.
“Confidence has to be restored and won’t happen by the applicant walking back.”
Judge Whitcher reserved judgment to this morning.