Page 1 of 3

21 July 2018

Dear Ms Bezuidenhout

IN THE DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY HELD AT SANDTON BETWEEN ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LTD AND
SUZANNE DANIELS

Thank you for your query.

My response is as follows:

The Eskom Board and management’s narrative that there is no vendetta against me is not borne
out by the findings of Advocate Cassim and the speed with which the board and management
implemented the recommendation without providing me with the right to appeal and have that
appeal considered, prior to implementing the sanction, as per the Eskom disciplinary procedure.

I have indicated that I am not surprised by the findings and recommendation as Advocate Cassim
really paid lip service to my version and even though I provided substantive documentary and oral
evidence, it is not evident in the document sent to my legal representative that he even purported
to consider same. With due respect, the findings show a very rudimentary understanding of the
facts and the issues at play in Eskom since 2015 and a severe lack of empathy for my situation
when one has consideration of the denigrating comments he makes when he refers to me in the
document.

The current charges were served on me on 12 March 2018, immediately after the CCMA ruling in
my favour on 8 March 2018 which ordered my reinstatement. Eskom’s witness confirmed that he
received instructions to investigate on 21 February 2018 which was just 6 days after my meeting
with the chief executive and my not accepting to consider the options he purportedly had in mind
for Eskom and I to part ways. I am hard pressed to draw any other conclusion than that this is an
extreme form of enmity on the part of the Eskom board and its executive management towards
me.

Eskom vociferously maintains that I have not been singled out and my response to this is, “South
Africans, the Eskom board has not been honest with you hereon”.

The Bowmans Report of August 2017 implicated seven individuals. Two of those individuals
remain in the employ of Eskom without recourse and/or sanction, almost a year after Eskom
became aware of the malfeasance. No disciplinary process has even been initiated as confirmed
by Eskom during my disciplinary hearing.
 Page 2 of 3

It is important to note that the five people Eskom claims to have taken action against actually
resigned without facing any action but reacted to the threats on the part of the Eskom board and
management. We appear to have inherited a leadership ethos that seeks to ignore the
fundamental tenets of the law and in a number of court judgements during their tenure, judges
have expressed negative statements in respect of the conduct and integrity of the new board and
the chief executive.

My series of suspensions and being presented with various versions of charge sheets took place
while certain of my executive colleagues, who did not raise a finger to stem the pillaging of
Eskom and stood by in flagrant breach of their fiduciary duty to safeguard the interests of Eskom,
remain in the employ of Eskom and do not face disciplinary action, notwithstanding substantial
evidence incriminating them. This evidence was garnered from the various legal and forensic
investigations over the years and these reports gather dust in someone’s office while the
malfeasance continues.

This executive inaction or conspiracy of silence should disqualify them as prescribed officers of
Eskom. These very same colleagues have been members of Exco since the late 90’s and have
presided over many coal crises and the first spate of load shedding in 2008 and continue to be
the custodians of the energy value chain when we’re facing more coal shortages and load
shedding once again.

I understood my victimisation under the previous leadership regime to be for purely acting
against their interest. In my view, the current Eskom Board and management represented the New
Dawn which we were all enthralled about as the new members of the board were drawn directly
from President Ramaphosa, who took an oath to rid our country of the scourge of corruption.

President Ramaphosa himself has admitted that he didn’t know the depth of state capture until
the Gupta emails surfaced - this was our deputy President and head of government business at
the height of state capture activities.

I took up the challenge to connect the dots and took a conscious decision as a South African
citizen to play my role in the clean up of the company that I was employed at and I do not regret
taking that decision for one moment.

However, it dismays me that I am now being vilified, insulted, degraded and humiliated for my
“so-called whistleblowing” as the Eskom case presenter argued in the hearing. You will see that
this line of reasoning resonated with Advocate Cassim and while emphasising that he is not
competent to make findings in this regard, he sets out his views.
 Page 3 of 3

Eskom board and management publicly distanced itself from my testimony at Parliament. Eskom’s
board and management has issued a number of media statements and undertaken interviews in
which I was the subject matter, seeking to discredit me and taking the issues public prior to
engaging me.

A reasonable non-corrupt, law abiding employer would have celebrated my whistleblowing and
numerous disclosures. Therefore the position adopted by this board and management begs the
question as to why Eskom did not celebrate my whistleblowing, and also raises the further
question as to what ulterior motive it may harbour.

I owe it to myself to be depicted in a manner that is consistent with the real facts as I stated in
Parliament and all the other disclosures I have made. In the coming week, I shall consult with my
legal team to determine the exact nature and scope of the recourse I shall be seeking against
Eskom.

Yours sincerely,

SUZANNE DANIELS

Unsigned as electronically submitted.