Eskom fights to keep coal contracts secret

Eskom and civil rights organisation AfriForum will face each other in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) today over the utility’s refusal to grant access to its coal and diesel contracts.

This comes after Eskom appealed an initial High Court ruling that rejected the utility’s refusal, with AfriForum set to defend its case in front of the SCA on Friday, 20 February. The matter is expected to be heard for one day.

In a recent press release, AfriForum explained that the High Court ordered Eskom to provide the organisation with copies of all active contracts relating to the purchase, transportation and distribution of coal and diesel.

The utility was also ordered to provide AfriForum with copies of unredacted contracts for the supply of electricity to neighbouring countries.

However, Eskom appealed this ruling, approaching the SCA to argue that it was justified in refusing access to the contracts in terms of Section 42 and Section 36 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). 

These sections in the legislation relate to the protection of commercially sensitive information.

“AfriForum maintains that Eskom failed to provide adequate factual grounds to justify its refusal and merely relied on generic references to commercial sensitivity without demonstrating probable harm,” the organisation said. 

“The High Court correctly found that disclosure is the rule under PAIA, and exemption from disclosure is the exception.”

AfriForum’s manager of local government affairs, Morné Mostert, said this matter goes beyond a technical dispute about statutory interpretation. 

He explained that coal procurement constitutes Eskom’s single largest expenditure item, involving the purchase of more than 100 megatons of coal annually. 

“In light of documented procurement irregularities at Eskom, findings of the State Capture Commission and reported control deficiencies in Eskom’s own financial statements, transparency in relation to these contracts is not optional – it is constitutionally required,” Mostert claimed.

“AfriForum argues that once an organ of state enters into public procurement contracts of this magnitude, the public is entitled to scrutinise the pricing and terms to ensure that consumers are not bearing the cost of inflated or irregular agreements,” the organisation said.

Mostert alleged that Eskom’s attempt to withhold this information under broad claims of commercial confidentiality undermines accountability and erodes public trust. 

“The public has a right to know whether coal and diesel contracts are market-related and lawfully concluded,” he said. 

“Accountability cannot exist behind redactions and secrecy. The High Court correctly held that Eskom did not discharge the burden required under PAIA to justify refusal.”

“AfriForum will continue to defend the principle that state-owned entities are accountable to the public and that transparency is a constitutional imperative, not a discretionary courtesy.”

Daily Investor reached out to Eskom for comment. The utility noted that the matter was heard at the SCA on 20 February 2026, and judgment was reserved.

“Eskom will not comment on the matter at this stage until the SCA has delivered the judgment,” the company said.