Postponed: Minister of Electricity on the current status of the Energy Crisis in South Africa and its effect on the Western Cape

Meeting report

Absence of Minister

The Chairperson began by noting the absence, with apology, of the Minister of Electricity, Mr Kgosientsho Ramokgopa. The Minister had mentioned the previous day that he would not be able to attend the meeting, due to having to attend to another urgent matter.

This made the Members very upset, and they began to voice their frustrations.

Ms C Murray (DA) acknowledged the many efforts and sacrifices made to meet with the Minister, and said it was unfair that he could not avail himself. The Committee should invite the Minister again. The Committee Members had many commitments and duties to fulfil, so this was very unfair.

Mr G Bosman (DA) said that he was disappointed but not surprised at this news, because this was the fourth instance where the Minister was cancelling at the last minute. He proposed that they discontinue the meeting, as the plan was to meet with the Minister. He found this behaviour very disrespectful. The Department needed to take its duties seriously and not send long PowerPoint presentations to the Committee the night before.

Mr F Christians (ACDP) expressed his disappointment, and suggested they discontinue the meeting. To have received a 32-page presentation the night before was completely unacceptable. He was very angry about this. He would not continue with the meeting, as this was disrespectful.

Ms D Baartman (DA) referred to Rule 119 of the Western Cape Provincial Parliament (WCPP) Rules. She said the Minister had been requested to attend meetings on several occasions, but he had rescheduled many times and eventually failed to attend them. The WCPP had lost a full day of committee meetings due to the inconvenience caused by the Minister.

She supported the motion to postpone the meeting. Further, she proposed that they request an urgent meeting with the programming authority to re-invite the Minister, failing which they should proceed with the process of summonsing the Minister.

Mr P Marais (FF+) commented that the Minister had proved his incompetence by failing to attend the meeting. The infrastructure of Eskom had been destroyed by incompetent governance. Once energy was restored, what would they do with all the added infrastructure? Could they protect the Western Cape’s minimum requirement for electricity? The province’s economic growth was in danger of being destroyed. The Minister could tell bulls*** stories to the other eight provinces, but he could not do it here.

Members raised points of order regarding Mr Marais's language, and he apologised and withdrew his comment.

He then suggested that the Committee inform President Ramaphosa, since he was the one who had vouched for the Minister.

Ms Murray supported the previous comments and stressed that they should postpone the meeting. On the suggestion of summoning the Minister, she pointed out that the Committee Members had constituents to account to -- this was not a political chess match; it was about accountability. She suggested that the Chairperson form a timeline of correspondence with the Minister and look into re-inviting him. If this failed, they should begin the process of summoning him.

Ms A Cassiem (EFF) expressed disappointment at the Minister’s failure to attend meetings, asserting that he had proved to be incompetent. This was disrespectful of the Members’ precious time, and there were other matters she wanted to raise with him. She supported discontinuing the meeting.

Mr Christians added that they would have to proceed with the summons route, because the Minister had developed a pattern of not attending meetings. He listed all the meetings he had had to cancel to accommodate the Minister. A whole day had been wasted. Their constituents were asking questions.

Mr C Dugmore (ANC) said that the Minister of Electricity had never indicated to the Chairperson of the Committee that he was unwilling to attend meetings, and he was aware of one apology where the Chairperson had informed them that he had to attend an urgent Cabinet meeting. He therefore requested copies of the correspondence between the Chairperson and the Minister, for verification purposes.

He reminded the Committee that the Mayor of Cape Town had also been absent when the Committee wanted to ask why the city was imposing such high electricity tariffs. The Premier of the Western Cape had contacted Mr Dugmore’s office and stated that a question could not be submitted to the Premier without notice. This was a situation within the legislature where they could not ask questions to the local government about any matters concerning the city. This was the only city in the country which would not permit this.

He proposed they discontinue the meeting. Had the Chairperson received notice previously about the Minister’s absence? If so, why was the meeting not postponed? Lastly, he proposed that the Chairperson request a meeting date from the Minister within the next two weeks.

Mr Bosman said that Mr Dugmore was attempting to ‘muddy the waters’ and bring up other matters irrelevant to the meeting. He disputed the invitation of anyone else from the City of Cape Town, pointing out that in fact the Mayor was in the National Assembly, accounting to Parliament. They should not ignore the facts, which were that the Minister had shown contempt on four occasions by rescheduling and cancelling at the last minute. This was unacceptable. The meeting should be discontinued, and they should assess the legal route of summonsing the Minister.

Mr Christians admonished Mr Dugmore for not assisting the Committee in having the Minister present at the meetings, and instead raising other irrelevant topics. This was unacceptable. Through his actions, the Minister had established himself as unreliable. While Mr Dugmore was the leader of the official opposition, he did not speak on Mr Christians’ behalf. Mr Dugmore should provide assistance, and not make excuses for the Minister. The meeting should be discontinued, and the Minister should be summonsed.

The Chairperson promised to relay all the correspondence with the Minister to the Committee.

Mr Dugmore reiterated his question: when was the Chairperson informed of the Minister’s absence? He advised Mr Christians to re-read the rules referring to the leader of the opposition, stating that this would be the leader of the official opposition party in the legislature. He issued an invitation to the community energy co-operatives in the Eastern Cape in Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality to share their work on alternative energy co-operatives, to boost revenue and to supply energy to the grid.

The Chairperson responded that he had received a communication at 19h01 the previous evening and decided to alert everyone at the meeting.

Mr Dugmore interjected to ask why the meeting was not subsequently postponed after hearing the news of the Minister’s absence. Why was this not done in the group chat?

The Chairperson responded that it was his ruling to inform everyone in the meeting, rather than in the group chat.

Mr Marais said that continuous failure to attend meetings and providing excuses could be interpreted as disrespect. Refusal to attend proved the person’s intent to prioritise one issue over the other. The excuses were unacceptable. He supported the route to summons, and they should also inform the President of the country.

Ms N Nkondlo (ANC) said she also shared the genuine frustrations and concerns that had been previously raised. She suggested that perhaps Mr Dugmore was making a point about consistency, and not providing excuses. She did not support the suggestion to subpoena the Minister, but should instead register their concerns. She recalled in a previous meeting that the municipality had delivered their presentation only at the meeting, and there was no suggestion then to subpoena -- this was unnecessary. They should rather register their concerns. She did not support the ‘dramatic’ actions suggested previously.

Ms Cassiem stressed that they needed to focus on getting the Minister to present to the Committee. She acknowledged Mr Dugmore’s points as important, because they had unanswered questions from the Mayor of the City of Cape Town. May they return to discussing this?

Ms Baartman clarified that not all the Members were on the respective WhatsApp groups. They did not govern and legislate by means of WhatsApp groups, therefore it made no sense to send a communication to postpone a meeting on group chats. Due to the current situation of load-shedding in the province, the Ad hoc Committee was constituted by a unanimous resolution from the House. There were many other parties involved, too. She took exception in terms of Rule 59, which allowed them to voice their anger and concern at the Minister’s absence. This reflected on the Members’ integrity. She reminded all that permission needed to be granted for a question to stand over, and those questions had to be answered either in written form or orally.

She recalled the meeting to which Ms Nkondlo had referred earlier. The Chairperson had said that the municipality that had not issued their presentation should return, and the municipality had provided extra information.

She proposed that the meeting be postponed, and that the Chairperson request an urgent meeting from the programming authority to meet with the Minister urgently to complete the agenda, failing which to request legal assistance to proceed with a summons.

Ms M Maseko (DA) seconded Ms Baartman's proposal.

Ms Murray asked that they consider putting forward ten days for the Minister to respond to the request for a meeting date, and that the Chairperson include the grave disappointment expressed by Members at the meeting in the email requesting a new meeting date. She asked the Chairperson to consider sharing the timeline of communication with the Minister. She did not think they should rush to summons him, but rather indicate that should the Minister fail to attend the meeting again, the Committee would move forward with the summonsing process. They should balance what was urgent with what was important. They had accommodated the Minister beyond expectation.

Mr G Brinkhuis (Al Jama-Ah) asked for clarity on who had provided the date for the meeting.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee had asked the Minister for a date and time, to which he had rescheduled twice and then eventually mentioned he would be absent, with an apology.

Ministry of Electricity's response

Mr Subesh Pillay, Chief of Staff: Ministry of Electricity, clarified that the decision for the Minister to be absent with apology had not been taken lightly at all. The Minister did not wish to undermine the province’s legislature. On three occasions, they had addressed the Western Cape’s Executive Committee (EXCO). He was aware of the Committee’s role in the legislature. The arrangement of the meetings had stretched over two months due to clashes with other commitments. He stressed that it was not true that the Ministry was not represented at the meetings.

The Chairperson immediately interjected to say that the Committee had not invited the Ministry, but the Minister. He was adamant about this.

He wanted to proceed with the proposal put forward, but Mr Dugmore interjected on a point of order because the Chairperson had interrupted Mr Pillay and had not let him conclude. The Chairperson should exercise fairness and allow Mr Pillay to conclude his statement. This was permitted.

Mr Pillay continued, and said he agreed that the invitation had been extended to the Minister and not officials of the Ministry. The Minister had requested a team of four officials to present on his behalf. He did not wish to deprive the legislature of information. He was happy to work with the Committee Secretary about rescheduling another meeting with the Minister. All nine legislatures in the country had submitted requests to the Minister to address meetings. There was a plethora of executives, all requesting the presence of one Minister. One engagement had to be prioritised over the other, but this did not mean this Committee was not equally important.

Motion to postpone meeting

Ms Baartman referred to Section 9 of the province’s Constitution. The legislative authority of the Western Cape was vested in the Provincial Parliament. She reminded all that she had already put forward a motion which had three parts:

• to postpone the meeting,
• to request an urgent meeting slot with the programming authority,
• failing which, to proceed with the summons process.

The motion had already been seconded, so could they begin with voting?

The Chairperson said he would take more questions and comments before proceeding with voting.

Mr Bosman wanted to know what other engagement was taking place over the Committee meeting.

Mr Marais said he partly agreed with the motion, except for the part about re-inviting the Minister. How many more chances would they have to give the Minister, who had already proved to be unreliable? They should rather discard this, and approach the Speaker about legal assistance to begin the summons process. Mr Pillay had muddied the situation even further by mentioning the many provinces that had invited the Minister, who was very busy. This was unacceptable.

Mr Dugmore reiterated the comment raised earlier about the Chairperson providing timelines and copies of correspondence with the Minister. He requested that they formally invite the Mayor of Cape Town to answer some urgent questions on the high electricity tariffs, and the punitive practice of deducting amounts when residents purchase prepaid electricity when in arrears on other accounts.

Reacting to this, many Members impatiently interjected on a point of order.

Ms Maseko stressed that they needed to return to the voting so that they could make a decision before addressing any other matters.

Mr Christians agreed that they return to the voting urgently, as this was the reason for the meeting. The other items which Mr Dugmore had raised were completely irrelevant. He should stick to the agenda for the meeting.

Mr Marais admonished Mr Dugmore for including irrelevant items on the meeting agenda. He objected to any discussion in this regard.

Mr Dugmore interjected to make an amendment to the proposed motion.

To this, Mr Bosman mentioned that when asked earlier, Mr Dugmore had failed to mention the amendment.

Mr Dugmore contested this.

Mr Bosman reiterated the rules of voting before any debates may continue. They should stick to the rules.

Ms Baartman suggested that perhaps the Procedural Officer should read out the names, and for all to vote accordingly in order to have an accurate reflection of the vote. This was permitted.

Ms Lizette Cloete, Senior Procedural Officer, confirmed the list of names. There was a suggestion to read out the names so that the Members could indicate their support or non-support. This was permitted.

Twelve Members showed their support, and three did not support the first motion proposed by Ms Baartman.

Mr Dugmore tried to make an amendment, but the Chairperson said he could not do this -- he had to either support or not support. Mr Dugmore then requested that the motion be written out in words in the group chat, but Ms Baartman said she had already put forward her motion twice, and no rule said it should be written in the group chat, so she would not do this. Once a motion had been made, there could be no amendments. She frustratedly reiterated her three-part motion for a third time.

Ms Murray asked, if someone was absent whilst voting was taking place, whether it was treated as ‘in absentia’ or regarded as a refusal to vote.

Mr Dugmore stated for the record that the Chairperson had not permitted his attempt to propose an alternative motion.

Ms Nkondlo admonished Ms Murray for her comment, saying she had not been able to vote earlier because she had to step out momentarily. Ms Murray was being condescending towards her. Members should not attempt to chair the meeting -- this was unacceptable. She said that she did not support the motion. Following this, more Members expressed their support, as voting continued.

The Procedural Officer tallied the votes. There was some slight contestation, but eventually, the votes were recorded correctly.

Mr Dugmore proposed another motion. The motion was that this meeting should not proceed, and the Chairperson should contact the Minister and request a date for a meeting within three weeks. This motion was seconded.

Some Members noted that this motion was very similar to the previous motion.

Mr Dugmore agreed that the first part was the same, but the second part was different.

Ms Baartman said she struggled to see the difference between the two motions.

Ms Nkondlo acknowledged the support for the earlier motion, and also noted other proposals made by other Members. Why was there a need to suppress Mr Dugmore’s motion? The same respect needed to be given to both motions. The motions were not the same, they were different. Let the voting for the second motion commence.

Mr Christians acknowledged that the motions were different in terms of time, as the second motion stressed meeting the Minister in three weeks. Perhaps they could remove the first part, which was identical to the first motion, and retain the second part?

Ms Baartman urged that they begin voting, noting her objection to the ‘three weeks’ part because this would make it not urgent. Three weeks was a very long time.

The motion was amended to retain only the second part and not the first part.

There were 11 votes against the second motion and four votes in support of the motion.

Ms Murray did not support the motion because three weeks was too long a time -- ten days would have been better. Ms Cassiem did not support the motion because she felt they had already waited for too long for the Minister.

Closing comments

The Chairperson noted the motions and the votes, and said that the timeline and the correspondence would be shared with the Committee.

Mr Dugmore interjected to ask that his earlier requests for a meeting with the Mayor and the Nelson Mandela Bay community co-operative be discussed at the next meeting, since it was clear that these would not be discussed in the current meeting.

This was permitted.

The meeting was adjourned.