MAKHUDU SEFARA | To be a hero, De Ruyter needs to back up his claims

Former Eskom CEO Andre de Ruyter stirred a hornet’s nest with his half-baked, infantile commentary about the ANC and Eskom corruption, earning himself some brownie points elsewhere. He must learn to do better.

There is much more we need from him before he could be forgiven for putting us through levels of load-shedding hitherto unseen in our country. So if you’re going to make an attempt for the crown, let the effort show. Be bold. Be possessed of the courage required to move our country out of pits we are in. Don’t force us to join the dots. We might end up suspecting poor David Mabuza, the leader of government business, of things he knows nothing about, for example.

But here’s why De Ruyter is no hero.

First, De Ruyter’s bombshell is that there’s a big man in our politics, bigger than a minister, who is involved in corruption at a grand scale that is not hideable. If De Ruyter has evidence, he must tell us who this is. He must dare that politician to take him to court. Sue me, he must tell that politician.

With evidence in his possession, he would not need to go into exile, running away from a shadowy but unnamed character who might kill him. In fact, naming the politician will provide a layer of protection against De Ruyter. Killing De Ruyter after naming you is akin to announcing yourself as a killer. Who would want to do that?

In truth though, naming the corrupt senior ANC politician shifts the onus of proof to De Ruyter. A failure to adduce evidence would have catastrophic consequences. So it’s easy for a failed CEO to use a senior corrupt ANC member as a crutch, deflecting attention away from his failed stint at Eskom.

So without a name, De Ruyter is a failed cadre — I apologise for using Karl Marx and Friederichs Engels parlance on him. But he is that cadre deployed by the ANC under whose leadership power outages got worse, the Eskom debt remained at more than R400bn and the nation lost hope in the utility.

Second, De Ruyter says he reported corruption at Eskom to a minister who, surprise-surprise, has not done anything about it. A minister who told him to be “pragmatic” and let others “eat” a bit. A minister unsurprised that De Ruyter has found out who the big, corrupt politician is. So again I ask, who is this minister?

If De Ruyter is trying to help, why muddy his help in codes we can’t decipher? Where are his balls? He is a former CEO, now. He owes his previous ministers and the Eskom board nothing, hopefully. So why can’t he speak freely about something he strongly believes in?

Is this Pravin Gordhan, minister of public enterprises, to whom the Eskom board reports? Is that why Gordhan was feeling touchy, telling De Ruyter to leave politics to politicians? Which other minister could he have possibly reported corruption to? Bheki Cele, minister of police?

But, you see, this guess work is the very point of this soporific: if De Ruyter is trying to help, why muddy his help in codes we can’t decipher? Where are his balls? He is a former CEO now. He owes his previous ministers and the Eskom board nothing, hopefully. So why can’t he speak freely about something he strongly believes in?

Third, I have no patience for people who pretend to blow whistles only after they have resigned — when there isn’t much to lose. If De Ruyter was a courageous leader who fought off a motley crew of ANC scavengers at Eskom, what stopped him from telling the nation of the ANC corruption before his resignation, which, by the way, came only when board chair Mpho Makana wanted to discuss key performance indicators (KPIs). We all know our weaknesses, don’t we? But don’t be disingenuous, pretending to be an anti-corruption crusader who, for three years, could not find the words to share about the ANC’s Eskom corruption.

Granted, it is more than likely that this corruption exists, that the big corrupt politician exists, and that poor De Ruyter walked on landmines. It may well be true. He has had three years to document it. What is unacceptable, three years after the fact, is averments, claims, unnamed politicians and missing words.

By all means, genuine whistle-blowers deserve much more than this country provides. We published the harrowing details of Mathapelo More, who endured much pain for her courage to speak up against allegations of corruption at Daybreak Farms. That is a whistle-blower. Not a failed CEO of Eskom, who leaves us guessing who is corrupt and provides no evidence.

Four, the more I hear stories about De Ruyter’s cyanide poisoning, the more I am reminded of the 10 mystery babies we never got to see. Poisoning is a serious attack. We will, hopefully, hear from the great doctors who pulled De Ruyter back from the pearly gates of heaven. Without expert opinion or corroboration, it’s easy to dismiss claims, by a CEO under siege, of poisoning. At least, his poisoning doesn’t need him to go to Russia for weeks, right? We, and him, must be grateful for small mercies.

In the final analysis, we set the bar very low to get a slow guy like De Ruyter as Eskom CEO. He should not have been appointed. And certainly should have been released as soon as he resigned. Realising that people will be reflecting on his disastrous term, why not unleash a half-cooked scandal through an interview where the host would not insist that you name the people you accuse and provide evidence? Without evidence, what we have is rumours from a guy who wants to deflect attention from his disastrous rein. For him to remotely be considered a hero, he must put evidence on the table.