- To download a copy of the summons, click here. (0.41 MB)
Former Eskom executives conspired with the Gupta brothers and their business associates for six years to syphon funds from the power utility, a summons revealed.
The 73-page summons, filed by Eskom with the Special Investigating Unit, with the North Gauteng High Court on Monday seeks to recover R3.8-billion from former executives, board members and members of the Gupta family and their associates. There are twelve defendants in the matter and include former Chief Executive Officer Brian Molefe, former Chief Financial Officer Anoj Singh, former Group Executive for Generation Matshela Koko, who also served as acting chief executive. Eskom's former head of legal, Suzanne Daniels and former Board Chairperson Ben Ngubane, and former board members Chwayita Mabude and Mark Pamensky are also named.
Gupta brothers Atul, Rajesh, Ajay and their business associated Salim Essa are also listed as defendants.
Between 2012 and 2018 the defendants "conspired" together with 13 others, including Gupta-linked firms Regiments Capital and Trillian Capital Partners, the summons read.
"The object of the conspiracy was the corrupt, alternatively irregular, diversion of resources from organs of state in South Africa, and, in particular, South African state-owned enterprises, improperly to benefit the Gupta brothers, their family, and entities controlled by the Gupta brothers and/or Essa."
The document lists examples of how public funds were diverted to benefit the Gupta family and their entities and references the Estina Dairy Project, the diversion of funds to Gupta-linked firm Homix and even the corruption at Transnet under the leadership of Molefe and Singh.
Pertaining to Eskom, the summons indicates that Molefe and other executives breached their fiduciary duty to Eskom.
Defendants have 10 days upon being served the summons to indicate their intention to defend it.
Earlier this week Daniels told Fin24 she had not received the summons but that, "any summons shall be vigorously defended once received." Koko also declined to comment on the mater, as he had not received the summons and required clarity on Eskom's case against him.