South African Court Strengthens Transparency by Ordering Eskom to Disclose $4.2 Billion Coal and Diesel Contracts

In a landmark decision, South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal has mandated that Eskom, the state-owned electricity utility, must publicly disclose its contracts with coal and diesel suppliers. This ruling marks a significant step towards transparency in a sector historically characterized by secrecy, financial instability, and diminished public trust.

Eskom is responsible for generating approximately 90% of South Africa’s electricity, primarily through coal sourced from local mines. The utility allocates around R70 billion (approximately US$4.16 billion) annually for coal and its transportation. Until now, the details of these contracts have remained undisclosed, raising concerns about accountability and governance.

Background of the Case

The legal battle began in 2024 when the High Court of South Africa ordered Eskom to reveal all its coal and diesel contracts. Eskom contested this ruling, leading to an appeal. However, on March 23, 2026, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed Eskom’s appeal, asserting that vague claims of commercial secrecy are insufficient when the public seeks to understand how public funds are utilized. The court ruled that all active coal and diesel contracts must be made public.

This ruling is poised to be one of the most significant decisions regarding electricity transparency in recent years. Although the case was initiated by AfriForum, a group advocating for the rights of Afrikaners, its implications extend to the broader South African society.

Legal and Ethical Implications

South Africa has an access to information law that empowers citizens to request and receive state records. Given that Eskom is a state-owned entity, the public has a legitimate interest in its financial dealings. Over the past two decades, the South African government has guaranteed around R350 billion (approximately US$20.7 billion) of Eskom’s debt, ultimately absorbing R230 billion (about US$13.7 billion) of the utility’s liabilities. In light of such substantial public investment, the ethical and legal justifications for maintaining secrecy are increasingly tenuous.

The ruling reinforces the principle that public bodies must prioritize transparency. The court emphasized that when a public entity holds information, it is generally required to disclose it, with secrecy being the exception that must be justified.

The Court’s Reasoning

The judges highlighted that the prices of coal and diesel are already publicly available. They noted that Eskom procures these fuels through open, competitive tender processes. Once a contract is awarded through such a process, it becomes challenging to argue that the terms remain confidential.

Eskom’s argument that disclosure could harm its future bargaining position or facilitate collusion was dismissed by the court. The utility failed to provide concrete evidence to support its claims, relying instead on broad assertions. This aspect of the ruling is crucial as it affirms that public interest should take precedence over vague commercial concerns.

Broader Context and Future Implications

The ruling sets a precedent that may hinder Eskom and other state entities from concealing vital public-interest documents under ambiguous claims of commercial harm. In a nation where trust in electricity governance is already fragile, this decision is particularly significant. Eskom has faced years of financial challenges and serious corruption allegations, making public scrutiny essential for accountability.

In a related case in late October 2025, the court ruled that the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) had acted unconstitutionally by failing to allow public participation in determining annual electricity price hikes. This ruling underscored the importance of transparency in electricity pricing, which affects consumers directly.

The current ruling on fuel contracts aligns with this broader theme: when the public cannot access the documentation behind electricity decisions, it cannot effectively evaluate their legality or fairness.

The Shift Towards Off-Grid Solutions

This judgment also reflects a growing trend among South Africans to seek alternatives to the traditional electricity grid. Many households and businesses are exploring solar and battery options due to the unreliability and high costs associated with Eskom’s services. However, the transition to off-grid solutions is not feasible for everyone, as a significant portion of the population still relies on Eskom and local municipalities for electricity distribution.

Eskom directly supplies electricity to numerous users, while municipalities purchase bulk electricity from the utility for resale. This interdependence underscores the necessity for transparency within the primary electricity system.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

While the court did not mandate that every Eskom document be released, it established that public bodies cannot simply invoke “commercial sensitivity” to avoid disclosure. They must substantiate claims of potential economic harm with concrete evidence.

The court’s ruling did not rely on the public-interest safety valve, which allows for disclosure when public interest outweighs confidentiality concerns. Eskom’s failure to justify the secrecy of its contracts strengthens the ruling, reinforcing the notion that openness should be the default stance of public entities.

In South Africa, where access to electricity is a constitutional right linked to dignity and basic economic life, the public has a compelling claim to understand how the utility manages public funds. This ruling serves as a reminder that in a constitutional democracy, citizens should not be expected to finance an electricity system that lacks transparency.

Source: www.zawya.com

Keep reading for the latest cybersecurity developments, threat intelligence and breaking updates from across the Middle East.