The day it was announced that Mr. Andre de Ruyter would be taking over as the CEO of Eskom, I was busy giving a political presentation to a big asset management firm. During the Q&A portion of the presentation, someone who had seen the announcement on his phone informed me of the appointment and asked my comment. 

My response was that De Ruyter was being handed a poisoned chalice (an unfortunately accurate metaphor given recent events). It was also clear to me that unless De Ruyter could do the impossible and fix Eskom in a very short period of time, he would be blamed for loadshedding at some stage in the future.  I was also concerned at his level of political insight. 

Those comments three years ago have sadly proven to be correct. 

Last week all hell broke loose after De Ruyter gave an interview to ENCA. The ANC in particular took huge offence and from all quarters launched vicious attacks on him. He was then asked to leave his position at Eskom with immediate effect – a month earlier than was previously agreed.   

At first glance it is difficult to understand the outcry. Surely, no one denies anymore that there has been large scale corruption in Eskom.  Minister Pravin Gordhan has for years been highlighting the devastating effect of corruption on the power utility and cartels have frequently been mentioned. Also, is anybody surprised that some political operatives are involved?  So, there was frankly very little new in what De Ruyter was saying. 

So why then the drama?

I’m not sure why De Ruyter decided to do this interview. I have no doubt that he wants to get the extent of corruption at Eskom into the public domain, which is honourable. However, would it not have been more strategic to pass his information to one of the many excellent investigative journalists in the country? As we have seen time and time again, these journalists would meticulously follow the trail, connect the dots and then provide the country with all the evidence needed. 

Instead, for legal reasons, De Ruyter had to resort mostly to speculation or make vague suggestions – which left us none the wiser and put him once more in the firing line. 

Apart from questioning the wisdom of doing the interview, perhaps the real blunder came about 40 minutes into the interview. It was here that De Ruyter moved away from facts and ventured into ideology.  His comments about the ANC still being attached to Marx and Lenin are not only factually incorrect, but the dismissive manner in which he raised the issue would seriously trigger many in the ANC, not least Minister Pravin Gordhan. 

Describing the fact that ANC members still call each other “comrade” as “frankly embarrassing” was another example of a serious lack of understanding of sensitivities in the governing party, our political history, and the wider racial dynamics in the country. 

There were a number other examples like these. 

I know that it is easy to be lulled into a sense of trust during an interview and then to say too much.

However, the fact that De Ruyter- three years into the job- didn’t understand these political sensitivities is indicative of the lack of political insight that I warned about three years ago.

At the same time, I think the ANC’s over-reaction was equally unwise and unnecessary. Surely, they could have just said something like: “We have, with deep concern, taken note of Mr. De Ruyter’s comments. We would encourage Mr. de Ruyter to provide all the information to the relevant law enforcement agencies. We will also further investigate the matter and should his allegations proven to be true, action will be taken.”

Instead, it now looks like the party is yet again defensive, covering up corruption, protecting some political role player/s and attacking the whistle blower. 

There are many collective and personal dynamics at play here. For Min. Gordhan, for example, this whole situation must be a terrible dilemma. He is also in the firing line for having been the political principal during De Ruyter’s time and not solving (although it was near insoluble) the Eskom crisis. In addition to his own political survival, he must also be extremely worried about his legacy. He has rightly emphasized that he finds all corruption abhorrent and has always fought against corruption. Yet, although his name was not mentioned by De Ruyter, it has now been inferred by many that he did not take the necessary steps after De Ruyter informed him of serious corruption by political role players. 

The ANC has challenged De Ruyter to provide the necessary evidence to the police in the form of a charge. One can of course also argue that the ANC should provide the country with evidence for their accusations that De Ruyter is rightwing and that he undermined the stability of the country. Yes, loadshedding is seriously destabilising, but unless the ANC can provide evidence (other than the laughable accusation that he spent too much time in trying to secure long term alternative green energy solutions) that De Ruyter deliberately failed to take action to reduce loadshedding, these statements are both defamatory and inflammatory. In any case, if that was so, as his political masters, they should have taken the necessary steps to change the situation. 

Ultimately, of course, we all desperately want the electricity issue to be resolved.  Let’s be clear, however, that every energy expert worth their salt in this country agrees that loadshedding is here to stay for the foreseeable future. 

Unfortunately, that foreseeable future includes a crucial pre-election season. A major concern would be that the ANC begins to believe their own spin, blames load-shedding on the "right-wing" former CEO, and runs our power stations into the ground to keep the lights on before election day.

If the grid collapsed in such a scenario, South Africa would descend into chaos. This is a time for cool heads to prevail, for personal insults and ideological fighting to be put aside and for our nation's best minds to come together to find a way through this crisis.