Eskom Must Reveal Coal & Supply Contract Details – A Win For Accountability in SA

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Bloemfontein delivered its judgment today (23 March 2026) in the matter Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Another v AfriForum NPC (case no. 1049/2024) [2026] ZASCA 34.

The Court unanimously dismissed Eskom’s appeal against the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) ruling from March 2024, ordering the power utility to hand over the disputed coal and diesel supply contracts to AfriForum.

Background and Case Timeline

AfriForum launched a Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) request in 2022 seeking details of Eskom’s active contracts for the purchase, transportation and distribution of coal and diesel, plus unredacted electricity-supply agreements with neighbouring countries. Eskom refused, citing commercial confidentiality and potential harm to itself and suppliers (invoking PAIA sections 36 and 42).

In March 2024 the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria rejected Eskom’s refusal outright. Judge Motsamai ruled that disclosure was the default under PAIA and that Eskom had failed to prove any real risk of harm from releasing the documents. Eskom appealed to the SCA, arguing the contracts contained sensitive pricing, supplier identities and commercial terms that could damage its negotiating position.

The SCA heard the appeal on 20 February 2026. Today’s judgment, written by Judge Elizabeth Baartman, upheld the High Court in full.

Key Findings:

• The public has a clear right to access these contracts because Eskom is a state-owned entity spending public money.
• Eskom and the third-party suppliers provided no concrete evidence that disclosure would cause the harm they claimed (e.g., competitive disadvantage or supplier withdrawal).
• Commercial sensitivity claims must be substantiated with specific proof; broad assertions are insufficient.
• Transparency outweighs confidentiality in this context, especially given Eskom’s status as a public utility.

What Will Eskom Need to Disclose Now?

Eskom is required to provide AfriForum with copies of all active contracts relating to:

• Coal and diesel purchase
• Transportation and distribution
• Electricity exports to neighbouring countries

The order appears to require the contracts to be revealed substantially as they stand, with limited redactions only for genuinely protected personal information, not commercial terms.

Implications for Eskom and Its Coal Procurement

Eskom purchases more than 100 million tonnes (megatons) of coal annually, which is by far its single biggest operating expense. For years this procurement has been dogged by allegations of over-pricing, poor-quality coal (high ash, low calorific value) and irregular tender processes that contributed directly to boiler damage, frequent plant breakdowns and the 17-year era of load-shedding.

The Zondo Commission (Judicial Commission of Inquiry into State Capture) devoted entire volumes to Eskom’s coal contracts, where it found extensive evidence of corruption, including:

• Fronting companies linked to ANC-connected individuals
• Inflated prices
• Bypass of proper procurement rules
• Direct links to state-capture figures (e.g., the Tegeta/Optimum deal and others)

AfriForum’s Morné Mostert stated today that the ruling finally allows independent scrutiny to check whether current and recent contracts are “market-related and lawfully concluded,” referencing the Zondo findings, documented procurement irregularities and weaknesses in Eskom’s own financial statements.

Immediate and longer-term consequences include:

• Transparency breakthrough — Civil society, journalists, opposition parties and investigators (SIU, Auditor-General) can now analyse exact pricing, supplier performance, quality clauses and penalties. This could expose ongoing or historical overpayments and corrupt deals.
• Potential legal and financial fallout — If contracts are shown to be irregular or non-compliant, Eskom (or the state) could face claims for damages, contract cancellations or claw-backs. Suppliers implicated in corruption may face further probes.
• Pressure on current management — The disclosure comes at a time when Eskom is trying to stabilise generation and reduce reliance on coal. Any revelations of wasteful expenditure will complicate tariff applications before NERSA and damage public trust.
• Precedent value — Strengthens PAIA enforcement against SOEs; future attempts to hide major procurement deals will be harder to defend.
• Political angle — While the ruling itself is purely about access to information, the Zondo-linked corruption implications could reignite calls for accountability against politicians or officials who benefited from the old contracts.

Accountability Must Be Upheld

Eskom has not yet issued a formal statement on today’s judgment (as of the latest reports). AfriForum has welcomed the outcome and indicated it will review the documents promptly and consider further action such as possible referrals to law-enforcement agencies.

After nearly four years of litigation, the wall of secrecy around Eskom’s coal procurement has finally been breached and is a win for public interest that has for decades been denied. The utility must now comply with the order, and the public and oversight bodies should finally gain the ability to examine the contracts that have long been suspected of fuelling both financial losses and South Africa’s energy crisis and bloated energy prices that have threatened the entire manufacturing sector in the country.

Major steel producing companies and more recently the ferro-chrome industry has faced shutdowns due to high energy costs in South Africa. Another industry facing a similar constraint is automotive manufacturing, with energy intensive processes that have become a headache for company execs battling to maintain global competitiveness while having to mitigate high energy costs.

Every sector of the economy has in some form been impacted with local energy prices increasing by over 172% in the last decade, way above the average inflation rate. Energy Price inflation has held back economic growth, new job creation and investments for some time. Should there have been avoidable inflation caused by poor or corrupt supply contracts, then there should be an appropriate level of accountability for those implicated.