JOHANNESBURG, GAUTENG – Civic leaders are raising the alarm over an unverified Eskom and City of Johannesburg power deal, threatening legal action if the terms remain hidden. Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) CEO Wayne Duvenage insists the public is being deliberately misled about the agreement, which was supposedly designed to prevent catastrophic blackouts and protect paying residents from becoming collateral damage in a massive financial dispute.
The standoff centers around a R5.3 billion debt owed by the municipality to the national power utility. According to Duvenage, this massive shortfall is the direct result of the city’s mismanagement, plummeting revenue collection rates—which have dropped from over 90% to significantly lower levels—as well as widespread illegal connections and infrastructure refurbishment costs.
To resolve the crisis, a proposed agreement reportedly involves ring-fencing the municipality’s revenue accounts. Under this unverified arrangement, City Power would continue to collect revenue from ratepayers, but Eskom would assume operational control over the funds. This would ensure the utility is paid first, leaving the city with its estimated 15% share. Duvenage noted that OUTA actually supports Eskom taking control of these accounts to secure their payment, arguing that electricity theft and non-payment are operational risks the city must manage rather than excuses to shift the blame.
However, the physical contract remains unseen. While the Minister of Electricity has publicly claimed an agreement is in place, Duvenage points out that Eskom has not confirmed this. Instead, the utility has warned that because the city has reneged on past agreements, a new, formal, and strictly adhered-to contract is required. Without it, Eskom will proceed with controlled power shutdowns.
This lack of clarity has sparked suspicions of political maneuvering. Both Eskom and the city recently launched a public consultation process under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), allowing citizens and businesses to submit input before potential power cuts begin. This process is scheduled to close next Wednesday. Duvenage suspects the premature announcement of a “deal” was a deliberate tactic by the city and the Minister to suppress public objections during the PAJA window.
While national elections are still four and a half months away, Duvenage emphasized that this electricity crisis will reach a head within the next few weeks. He dismissed the notion that the dispute is tied to the upcoming elections, stressing that the immediate need is total transparency for a public that has been kept in the dark.
In response, OUTA and the Johannesburg Community Action Network have issued a strict legal ultimatum. They are demanding the immediate release of the signed agreement within two business days. Furthermore, the civic groups have requested a 30-day extension on the PAJA comment deadline.
Duvenage warned that if the authorities refuse the extension, OUTA has strong legal grounds to challenge the lawfulness of the impending power cuts in court. He also noted that if the city and Eskom fail to produce the documents, the matter will be taken to a judge to compel disclosure. “It is going to be very embarrassing for the authorities if there isn’t such an agreement after they have publicly stated that there is,” Duvenage stated, adding that his organization refuses to be “sitting ducks.”
While some commentators have suggested that allowing Eskom to cut the power would force the public to feel the pain and hold the city accountable at the ballot box, OUTA firmly rejects this approach. Duvenage argued that it is deeply unfair to inconvenience residents who are diligently paying their bills for the municipality’s failures, insisting the problem sits squarely with the city’s leadership.
Eskom was invited to provide comment on the ongoing dispute but had not responded by the time of publication.