South Africa's Power Utility Blacklists Over 100 Suppliers in Crackdown on Fraud and Corru
State utility blacklists suppliers over integrity breaches affecting public electricity access
South Africa’s state power utility has barred more than 100 suppliers from doing business with it, following investigations into misconduct stretching back more than a decade. The sanctions, imposed between February 2023 and March 31, 2026, target companies found guilty of serious integrity breaches that undermined public confidence in Eskom’s purchasing practices.
For ordinary South Africans, the stakes are direct. Eskom’s procurement failures have long been linked to the country’s electricity crisis, and corrupt or collusive supplier relationships have drained public resources that should have kept the lights on. The misconduct cases under review originated primarily between 2016 and 2022, though some investigations traced back to 2015. The offences included fraud, corruption, collusion, misrepresentation and other breaches of ethical standards. Each supplier faced disciplinary proceedings through Eskom’s Supplier Review Committee, the body responsible for assessing misconduct and determining penalties.
Dan Marokane, group chief executive of Eskom, framed the enforcement action as essential to restoring public trust. “Fraud, corruption, procurement irregularities and supplier misconduct have affected public confidence and highlighted the need for decisive, transparent and sustainable consequence management across Eskom’s supply chain,” Marokane said. He added that the utility is working to eliminate unethical conduct from its operations and strengthen accountability across its vendor relationships.
Eskom has also accelerated its disciplinary process to address a backlog of cases. The utility now aims to finalise newly referred supplier matters within 90 days, a shift designed to demonstrate measurable progress in confronting wrongdoing. Marokane noted that the utility is simultaneously reducing case delays, speeding up investigations and enforcing meaningful consequences against companies found culpable.
The reach of these sanctions extends well beyond Eskom itself. A significant portion of the restricted suppliers have been referred to the National Treasury, the government body that maintains a database of companies barred from state contracts. As of August 20, the National Treasury had listed 35 companies and 45 directors or owners connected to those firms on its restricted supplier database. Companies placed on this list face a prohibition from conducting business with any state institution for the duration of their restriction period, a consequence that ripples across the entire public sector.
Meanwhile, the process has drawn scrutiny. The Association of Private Security Owners South Africa (TAPSOSA) alleged that 26 black-owned companies were referred to the National Treasury without proper due process, claiming the organisations were targeted unfairly and without adequate procedural safeguards. Eskom rejected those allegations, stating that all referrals followed established governance procedures and that suppliers were restricted only after misconduct investigations concluded and after being given opportunities to respond to the allegations against them.
Eskom also denied claims that any companies were singled out for acting as whistleblowers, and questioned the basis on which TAPSOSA claimed to represent the affected suppliers. The utility noted that TAPSOSA was not directly involved in the disciplinary matters concerning the companies in question.
The enforcement initiative reflects a broader effort to strengthen procurement controls and improve governance standards within Eskom’s supply chain. The utility stated that its supplier review framework aligns with National Treasury regulations and forms part of wider initiatives aimed at combating corruption and protecting public resources. By extending consequences beyond its own operations, Eskom is signalling that supplier misconduct carries systemic weight and that accountability reaches across state institutions.
Whether the 90-day target for new cases holds, and whether the TAPSOSA due-process dispute prompts any independent review, will test how durable that accountability commitment proves to be.
Q&A
How do Eskom's supplier misconduct cases directly affect ordinary South Africans?
Eskom's procurement failures and corrupt supplier relationships have drained public resources that should have kept the lights on, contributing to the country's electricity crisis and undermining citizens' access to reliable power.
What is the scope of the sanctions imposed on suppliers?
More than 100 suppliers have been barred from doing business with Eskom between February 2023 and March 31, 2026, for offences including fraud, corruption, collusion, misrepresentation and breaches of ethical standards. Thirty-five companies and 45 directors have been referred to the National Treasury's restricted supplier database, prohibiting them from conducting business with any state institution.
What changes has Eskom made to its disciplinary process?
Eskom has accelerated its disciplinary process to address a backlog of cases, aiming to finalise newly referred supplier matters within 90 days. The utility is simultaneously reducing case delays, speeding up investigations and enforcing meaningful consequences against companies found culpable.
What due-process concerns have been raised about the enforcement action?
The Association of Private Security Owners South Africa alleged that 26 black-owned companies were referred to the National Treasury without proper due process and without adequate procedural safeguards. Eskom rejected these allegations, stating that all referrals followed established governance procedures and that suppliers were restricted only after misconduct investigations concluded and after being given opportunities to respond to allegations.