JOHANNESBURG, GAUTENG – Civic organizations are demanding immediate clarity regarding a purported agreement between Eskom and the City of Johannesburg aimed at averting a catastrophic electricity crisis. OUTA CEO Wayne Duvenage has called for the urgent publication of the deal’s terms, warning that millions of paying residents are being kept in the dark amid a complex financial and regulatory standoff.
The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA), alongside the Johannesburg Community Action Network, insists that the tangible terms of the alleged deal must be published immediately. The agreement was reportedly designed to prevent a complete shutdown of the city’s power grid. However, civic leaders warn that without public verification, law-abiding residents are being treated as collateral damage in a high-stakes financial and regulatory poker game they did not create.
During a recent media briefing, Duvenage expressed skepticism over the existence of the deal, suggesting that the Minister of Electricity is attempting to downplay the issue by falsely indicating that an agreement is already in place. According to Duvenage, Eskom has not confirmed such an arrangement. Instead, the national power utility has made it clear that without a formal, adhered-to agreement—especially given that the city has reneged on past accords—they will be forced to implement controlled power shutdowns.
“The city is not paying their bills, and it is the residents who are paying,” Duvenage stated, describing the situation as full of “smoke and mirrors.” He emphasized that the City of Johannesburg has been entirely out of line in managing the process, leaving the public confused and frustrated.
While national elections are still four and a half months away, Duvenage noted that this crisis will unfold over the next few weeks. Both Eskom and the city recently initiated a public engagement process under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), allowing businesses and citizens to provide input before potential power cuts commence. This process is scheduled to close next Wednesday.
When asked if the announcement of a deal was a tactic to suppress public objections during the PAJA process, Duvenage suggested there was deliberate misleading by the city and possibly the Minister of Electricity, while Eskom remains silent. OUTA has formally written to both Eskom and the Minister requesting the agreement but has yet to receive a response.
In response to the confusion, OUTA has issued a legal demand for the immediate release of any signed agreement within two business days. Furthermore, the organization has requested a 30-day extension on the PAJA comment deadline. Duvenage confirmed that if this extension is denied, OUTA has strong legal grounds to challenge the lawfulness of the impending power cuts in court.
“We are not going to be lying down and sitting ducks,” Duvenage warned, adding that it would be highly embarrassing for the authorities if they are forced by a court to produce an agreement that does not actually exist.
The financial stakes are high, with Eskom currently owed R5.3 billion by the municipality. This debt is attributed to poor revenue collection, illegal connections, and infrastructure refurbishment costs. The proposed, yet unverified, deal reportedly involves ring-fencing revenue accounts. Under this arrangement, City Power would continue collecting revenue from ratepayers, but Eskom would gain operational control over the funds, ensuring they are paid first before the municipality receives its estimated 15% share.
Duvenage firmly placed the blame on the city’s leadership, arguing that electricity theft and non-payment are operational risks that the municipality must manage. He pointed out that the city’s revenue collection rate has plummeted from over 90% to well below acceptable levels. While some have suggested that allowing Eskom to cut power would force the public to feel the pain and exercise their democratic votes in the upcoming elections, OUTA strongly opposes this approach, as it would unfairly inconvenience paying residents.
Eskom was invited to provide comment on the matter but had not responded at the time of publication.
