Former Eskom CEO Matshela Koko has appealed to the North Gauteng High Court to grant him a chance to defend himself and overturn a ruling that declared a controversial contract for work at Kusile Power Station unlawful and invalid. The contract, awarded to multinational ABB, was declared invalid after a legal challenge by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), Eskom, and ABB, who sought to nullify the agreement and replace it with a new one.
Koko, who intervened in the case, argued that the court’s decision, issued on April 5, 2024, was based on allegations of criminal conduct against him, particularly related to the “Koko process,” “Leago Scheme,” and “Impulse Scheme.” He contends that these allegations heavily influenced the ruling, but he was not given a fair opportunity to present his defense, violating the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard).
The former CEO believes that the court’s decision unfairly ties his name to the allegations of corruption, which has already damaged his reputation. He warns that affirming the ruling without hearing his side would reinforce the perception that he was involved in illegal activities. Koko stressed that if allowed to intervene, he could provide a defense that could potentially lead to a different outcome and protect his reputation from further harm.
Koko’s legal troubles stem from his arrest in October 2022, along with several others, including family members, on corruption charges related to the Kusile contract. He was accused of soliciting bribes from ABB, which secured lucrative contracts at the power station. However, the charges were dropped a year later due to an unreasonable delay in proceeding with the case. Despite this, Koko’s name remains tied to the scandal.
He argues that if the court affirms the decision without allowing him to intervene, it would breach his right to a fair defense. Koko believes the decision could also set a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the door for civil claims against him and validating the allegations made by the SIU, Eskom, and ABB.
While the SIU and other parties argue that the ruling was based on concerns over the procurement process, Koko claims the founding affidavit is inaccurate and that the ruling was not thoroughly grounded. He insists that the review proceedings offer him the only legal forum in which he can defend himself after his criminal case was struck off the roll.
Koko is seeking to intervene in the review proceedings to ensure that his side is heard and to prevent further legal action that could damage his reputation. He believes that justice will be served if he is allowed to present his defense and protect himself from unfounded allegations.