Limpopo municipalities owe Eskom R1. 6 billion; blame infrastructure tampering and theft
Municipalities across Limpopo owe Eskom a staggering R1.6 billion in unpaid electricity bills, with the bulk of the debt linked to persistent issues such as electricity theft, infrastructure tampering, and non-payment by end-users.
This was revealed by Electricity and Energy Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa over the weekend during a South African Local Government Association (SALGA) indaba attended by local mayors, municipal officials, councillors, and Limpopo Premier Dr Phophi Ramathuba.
Ramokgopa warned that the escalating debt — part of the national municipal debt to Eskom, which now totals R78 billion — poses a major threat to the stability of South Africa's electricity supply and the financial viability of the power utility.
Of the 27 municipalities in Limpopo, those in the Waterberg District – namely Modimolle/Mookgophong, Thabazimbi, and Bela Bela – are the worst offenders. While these municipalities have been approved for debt relief through the National Treasury, only Bela Bela has met the necessary conditions, having signed an active partnering service level agreement with Eskom.
'A similar agreement was signed by the previous Thabazimbi council, but it was never implemented,' said Ramokgopa. 'We have also received commitments from Musina, Makhado, and Mogalakwena municipalities to improve payment compliance, but action must follow those words.'
Ramokgopa placed much of the blame for persistent power supply challenges in Limpopo on illegal activities such as meter bypassing, infrastructure vandalism, and unauthorised electricity connections, particularly in densely populated urban and rural communities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
3 days ago
- The Citizen
City Power tackles portion of Joburg CBD's 180 delinquent buildings
City Power state the entity is still owed R1.6 billion by Johannesburg customers. City Power have been scouring Johannesburg's streets in search of properties illicitly consuming electricity. The entity was in the CBD on Thursday, where it removed illegal connections from several buildings and businesses. The disconnection drive is part of a week-long operation focusing on areas in and around the CBD. Hijacked buildings City Power spokesperson Isaac Mangena said the illegally connected buildings posed a security risk not only to inhabitants, but also to the municipality's electricity grid. 'At the moment, there are 184 properties classified as problem buildings within the city, with 62 of them suspected to have been hijacked and 122 not abiding by the city's bylaws,' stated Mangena Mangena noted that the buildings were all in poor structural condition, featuring overcrowding and exposed wiring. 'Such settings are highly combustible and prone to devastating fires. The illegal connections also place excessive pressure on the network, destabilising the system,' he said. City Power states that customers still have an outstanding debt of R1.6 billion with the entity and that this week's operation could help in retrieving up to R30 million. 'City Power remains steadfast in its mission to address non-payment by defaulting customers,' concluded Mangena. Suspected stolen meters Highlights of Thursday's operation included the disconnection of three hijacked buildings and a shoe-repair store in Commissioner Street found to have a suspicious meter. 'It was found operating on a residential meter rather than a business meter, and the meter, suspected to have been stolen from a township, was removed. The property was disconnected on the spot,' confirmed Mangena. City Power states it will continue these operations until the illegal usage of municipal electricity infrastructure is halted. 'These unlawful connections disrupt businesses and factories, causing production losses that often result in job cuts. 'Ordinary paying customers are then left to endure frequent outages caused by the strain of these illegal activities,' Mangena concluded. Police made multiple arrests and confiscated piles of electrical wiring. NOW READ: Here's how much you could be fined if you refuse City Power's meter audits
IOL News
4 days ago
- IOL News
Ramakgopa urges Eskom to withdraw court challenge on electricity trading licences
Minister for Electricity and Energy, Kgosientso Ramakgopa and Eskom CEO Dan Marokane during the media briefing on the State of the National Grid on Wednesday. Image: GCIS Banele Ginidza Minister for Electricity and Energy, Kgosientso Ramakgopa, has urged Eskom to withdraw its ongoing court challenge against the Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) regarding the awarding of electricity trading licences to private companies. This appeal comes as Ramokgopa emphasised the need for a regulatory environment that fosters competition rather than legal disputes. Ramakgopa's remarks highlight a growing divide amongst business stakeholders. While some, such as Business Leadership South Africa (BLSA) and Business Unity South Africa (BUSA), have been vocal critics of Eskom's decision to litigate, the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) has sided with the utility. In response to the pushback, Ramakgopa advised Eskom, "not to burden the judges to come into this domain," underscoring his belief that court intervention would complicate an already intricate sector. "Nersa then initiated the process of reviewing and coming up with the rules. The initial timeline was that they will do that within 12 months. I asked Nersa that the pressure is such that we need to conclude those rules as soon as possible," Ramokgopa said during a media briefing on Wednesday. "And Nersa has agreed that we'll truncate that to three months without compromising the quality of the impact and what the rules will look like. And in that context, I said to Eskom it's not advisable that you go to the courts. And with the highest respect we have with the judiciary, don't invite the judiciary into a space that is really technical, if you like." Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ However, Ramokgopa acknowledged that introducing competition in this nascent market could be precarious. He explained that the market's current conditions might lead to a dilemma where private entities, driven primarily by profit motives, tend to serve only the higher ends of the market, thus neglecting poorer consumers and potentially decimating local municipalities as they lose their customer base. "Because this is a nascent space we are starting, none of us have been in this space before. There's naturally going to be friction, interpretation, misinterpretation of what this reform means," he said. "There's going to be conversations and, in some instances, disagreement on the pace of these reforms. The issue whether the regulator is capacitated enough to be able to manage and oversee these reforms. "Is this monopoly that is Eskom ready to relinquish that monopoly and accept that they are new players? And what the Eskom team had raised was that we are not opposed to the reforms, but what we want is clarity with regards to the rules." Ramakgopa said what the SA Local Government Association was saying was that what this dispensation does was that munnicipalities were going to lose their best customers who underpin and guarantee them the revenue stream, and they will be left with those that can't afford. "So that's the argument," he said, adding that whether Eskom and its board took that decision was outside of the entity's scope. "I've raised it with the chair. Don't enter the court process. Let's not muddy the space. We have agreed, next time doing that, the shareholder will also oversee the process," Ramokgopa said. "It's a particularly unhelpful approach to muddy the waters. Allow the space and for us as the players, there's friction. And in that period, the expectation is that let's clear the rules. And then once we have cleared the rules, then proceed with the issuing of the license. "I have raised that to the chair and its something that they will go back and ensure that we are able to address it. I have no answer now whether they have initiated it or not, the conversation took place yesterday." BUSINESS REPORT
IOL News
4 days ago
- IOL News
Brian Molefe's legal troubles deepen as AIG sues for R4. 4m over defence costs
Insurance company AIG South Africa is gunning for former Eskom chief executive Brian Molefe in a multimillion-rand lawsuit. Image: Simphiwe Mbokazi / Independent Newspapers uMkhonto weSizwe Party MP and former Eskom chief executive Brian Molefe is facing more legal woes after an insurance company slapped the erstwhile Transnet boss with a R4.4 million lawsuit. AIG South Africa signed a written management liability insurance policy with Eskom in April 2017. In terms of the policy, AIG agreed to provide liability cover to the power utility's directors, officers, and employees, including those in its subsidiaries. Each insured person was insured independently and separately for their respective interests, according to the policy. Molefe, in his capacity as chief executive of Eskom, qualified as an insured person under the policy and was eligible, subject to its terms and conditions, to indemnification during his time at the state-owned entity. The policy made provision that AIG will advance cover for liability insurance, being the obligation to pay to or on behalf of an insured person any loss incurred by the insured person. In Molefe's case, AIG agreed to pay for his defence costs on condition that if it was found by a court that he had gained a profit or an advantage to which he was not legally entitled or that there was a commission of a dishonesty or deliberate fraudulent act, then he would have to repay the costs that had been disbursed or that would be disbursed to him or on his behalf. The insurance company disbursed the sum of approximately R4,398,849 (about R4.4m) for his defence costs. However, various judgments were delivered against Molefe by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) and the Constitutional Court, which determined that his conduct was unlawful. The matter relates to Molefe unsuccessfully applying for leave to appeal to both the SCA and the apex court, an earlier Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, judgment finding that his reinstatement as Eskom chief executive was at variance with the principle of legality and reviewing and setting aside the board's decision to accept his early retirement proposal in November 2016. The high court also reviewed and set aside the decision by then Public Enterprises minister Lynne Brown to appoint and reinstate Molefe to the position of Eskom chief executive and declared that any payment or sum of money received by Molefe under any purported pension agreement between him and Eskom is invalid and ordered him to repay such amounts within 10 days. AIG informed Molefe of its intention to institute legal proceedings and claim the provision of his defence costs, and that he accepted the benefits conferred on him by the policy and agreed to be bound by its terms. The company told Molefe in October 2017 that it would advance defence costs to him on a without prejudice basis, and, on the basis that should it eventuate in due course that he was not entitled to an indemnity under the policy, he would refund such costs in full and on demand. Molefe maintained that he did not agree to the provisions of the policy and is not bound by it, as well as that he did not agree to repay the defence costs He also insisted that an arbitration clause in the policy compelled AIG to refer disputes on the recovery of the defence costs to arbitration and raised a special plea in the pending action by the company that its case be dismissed or stayed pending resolution of the arbitration. On August 1, Judge Allyson Crutchfield ordered that the disputes in respect of the claim instituted by AIG shall not be referred to arbitration. The judge found that Molefe's stance that he is not bound by the policy while simultaneously relying upon and claiming the enforcement of the arbitration clause in respect of AIG's claims was untenable and not sustainable in law.
