Former Eskom CEO Matshela Koko slams the NPA

Matshela Koko is the managing director of Matshela Energy and a former Eskom executive. Picture: Supplied

Matshela Koko is the managing director of Matshela Energy and a former Eskom executive. Picture: Supplied

Published Oct 4, 2023


Koko who along with others is embroiled in a R2 billion Eskom corruption court saga has once again lashed out at yet another court delay.

This time, his matter at the Middleburg Magistrate’s Court in Mpumalanga was delayed after it was reported that there was no Afrikaans interpreter to help with the continuation with the case.

The matter has since been postponed to Thursday, October 5 2023.

The Magistrate’s Court was on Tuesday expected to hand down judgment in the application brought by the former Eskom executive and nine others to have the fraud, corruption and money laundering case struck off the roll.

Over the past few years, the case has seen one delay after another, leading many to believe that the state is not ready to proceed with the matter.

An exasperated Koko took to his social media page once again to detail his frustration at the handling of the case

“Judgment for the 342A inquiry was set down for today. It did not happen. Instead, the court directed that the investigations officer take the stand to clarify six issues raised in his affidavit.

“All of a sudden, the investigation officer was no longer proficient in English. Guess what? The investigations officer deposed to the affidavit for the 342A inquiry in English but he could not testify to the same affidavit in English,” Koko lamented.

Just under a month ago, on September 5, Koko lashed out at another postponement in the case when the case was moved to September 21 when arguments about the numerous delays and postponements were set to be heard in court.

Koko and the others are charged for the R2.2 billion corruption at Kusile Power Station.

It is alleged that the former acting Eskom CEO played a role in awarding a contract to a Swiss engineering company and sub-contractors, including a company in which his stepdaughter was a director.

However, in court, magistrate Stanley Jacobs indicated that an investigating officer was due to testify, and defence lawyers objected and asked for a short adjournment.

According to reports, the state had not informed the defence lawyers that the court sought clarity from the investigating officer before the ruling on unreasonable delay.

Jacobs said there were five issues he sought to clarify with the investigating officer before ruling on the matter.

The magistrate adjourned the proceedings in a bid to swop interpreters with another court but that did not seem to help resulting in the postponement.