The Presidency’s Rudi Dicks, who also heads the National Energy Crisis Committee (NECOM) secretariat, believes the controversial decision to classify the electricity crisis a National State of Disaster will support an acceleration of the implementation of the Energy Action Plan and ensure greater security of electricity assets currently exposed to crime, vandalism and sabotage.

Speaking after President Cyril Ramaphosa confirmed in his State of the Nation Address that the ‘Impact of the Severe Electricity Supply Constraint’ had been declared a disaster with immediate effect and that an Electricity Minister would be appointed “to assume full responsibility for overseeing all aspects of the electricity crisis response”, Dicks argued in favour of the more “centralised” approach being pursued.

Speaking during a webinar hosted by the South African National Energy Association, he said a state of disaster was particularly important to allow Eskom to speed up the procurement of those goods and services required to enable it to improve the performance of the coal stations, as well as to buy “dispatchable emergency energy”.

Ramaphosa announced in his speech that Eskom would “procure emergency power that can be deployed within six months to close the immediate gap”, raising fears about the potential for corruption.

“We need to ensure that Eskom management has the ability to make quick decisions … particularly when it comes to the ability to fix the power stations and deal with some of the constraints that are there on their internal procurement processes,” Dicks said, adding that there was also definitely a need to speed up certain regulatory processes, without providing specifics.

While promising that the state of disaster would not infringe on the rights of citizens, Dicks nevertheless underlined the security aspect, which he said was important for dealing with the current sabotage, crime and corruption, particularly as it related to coal, spare parts and fuel oil at some power stations.

Energy Intensive Users Group CEO Fanele Mondi expressed circumspection, however, saying clarity was still required as to what powers would be granted under the state of disaster.

“We will have to proceed with caution, because I think our recent experience with the Disaster Management Act, especially around Covid procurement, was unbecoming.

“We also think that the issue of abuse of power ... has got to be monitored quite closely.”

In addition, Mondi had questions about the decision to appoint a new Electricity Minister.

The EIUG welcomed the development “insofar as it indicates urgency from the side of the government, as well as the need for leadership and commitment to the action plan”.

“Our concern, obviously, is the overlapping roles that may exist [with other Ministers] which we hope the government will try to find a way of managing carefully.”

In addition, the “gravitas” and experience of the individual appointed to the post was highlighted as key, as an appointee that is not knowledgeable of the industry, could actually slow down implementation.

“[The individual] has got to be able to hit the ground running.”

Both the State of Disaster and the proposed appointment of an Electricity Minister have been heavily criticised by opposition political parties, as well as organised business formations, with Business Unity South Africa (Busa) indicating that it was “not convinced that declaring a State of Disaster will help address the crisis”.

“It must be seen as a low point in the life of our society that mismanagement and lack of governance has created circumstances in which a State of Disaster has to be declared,” Busa CEO Cas Coovadia said.

“Business is concerned about the potential of a repeat of corruption we saw under the Covid-19 State of Disaster, although we welcome the announcement that the Auditor-General will oversee use of resources.”

Coovadia described the appointment of a Minister for Electricity in the Office of the President as “a bad idea that will add to the confusion and turf wars rather than solve the problem”.

“It is yet another example of failure to take bold decisions and opting instead for the soft but expensive option of adding another ministry rather than holding those Ministers responsible for the crisis accountable.”