At the time this piece was being published online, talk radio stations were abuzz with the debate over the rationality of the Eskom’s board suspension of the parastatal’s top brass over their competence. Some raised very relevant points and, of course, unfortunately, as it often does, the debate turned into a racial issue, with some claiming that the board’s decision was counter-transformation (whatever that meant).
Surely, answers to the following questions are due, and fast at that:
- Why was the appointment of the CEO made in the first place? In 2014, some analysts questioned his competence to head such a critical body to the country’s economy, but the board stood by its decision. Does the recent suspension vindicate their reservations?
- Why wasn’t the erstwhile CEO, Brian Dames, not suspended when, under his tenure, the deadlines of new power station projects were not being met and there was no guarantee that the power supply was going to be stabilised?
- Are the suspended CEO and other executives scapegoats of corporate governance flaws in the board or really incompetent?
