DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC ENTERPRISES

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY

QUESTION No: 2206

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 5 June 2015

Adv A de W Alberts (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:

(1) Whether, with reference to her reply to question 1070 on 29 May 2015, in which she stated Denton’s never did any work for Eskom she is aware that the specified company states on its website that it indeed did serve Eskom with advice (details furnished), (a) when was the work done and (b) what was the (i) nature of the work and (ii) total cost of the work that the specified company performed for Eskom; if not;

(2) whether she will investigate the claim by the specified company; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether she will reconsider the appointment of the specified company in the light of the possibility that this company has indeed done work for Eskom, has an existing relationship with Eskom and therefore cannot act independently and impartially; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant sdetails?  NW2518E

REPLY:

(1) Yes. As indicated by the specified company, some of the practitioners now employed by the specified company have previously done work for various companies, including Eskom. The specified company however, has not previously been engaged by Eskom.

(a) Not applicable. The specified company has not previously been engaged by Eskom.

(b)(i) Not applicable. The specified company has not previously been engaged by Eskom.

(b)(ii) Not applicable. The specified company has not previously been engaged by Eskom..

(2) No, as the specified company has not previously been engaged by Eskom.

(3) No. The appointment of the specified company remains the prerogative of the Eskom Board. The Eskom Board followed due process in appointing the specified company and they were satisfied that the specified company is able to act independently and impartially.

Issued by Parliament, June 15 2015