The Impulse Scheme: A Contrived Narrative
January 31, 2025—Concerns over the integrity of the Impulse Scheme at Eskom have been raised following Captain Wilhelm Schreiber’s affidavit, Gotz-Dietrich Wolff’s Section 204 Witness Statement and the Statement of Fact attached to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement involving ABB South Africa.
The documents indicate a narrative that seems more focused on implicating individuals like Matshela Koko, the former Interim Group Chief Executive of Eskom, and Markus Bruegmann, the former Group Vice President of Power Generation at Asea Brown Boveri(ABB), rather than uncovering the truth about the alleged corruption at the Eskom’s Kusile Project. The inconsistencies within these accounts warrant a thorough investigation into the motives behind this storyline and its significant implications.
This conclusion is drawn from significant discrepancies in the timeline and events described in the documents, which raise questions about the accuracy and intent behind the narrative.
The State of the Nation explores the key points that suggest the Impulse Scheme was manipulated, the implications of these discrepancies, and the broader context of the alleged corruption.
Key Discrepancies in the Narrative
The key discrepancies in the narrative include the false payment date, the mediation attempt, and the initiation of the Impulse Scheme.
Schreiber’s affidavit states that ABB’s payment to Leago Engineering of R9,791,703.12 was made on May 28, 2015; however, the actual payment date was June 26, 2015, which falls within the 30-day contractual payment terms.
This inconsistency challenges the claim that the supposed fallout between Mokwena and Koko in May 2015 was due to ABB’s payment on May 28, 2015, which was not passed on to Koko.
The documents claim Sunil Vip, ABB Senior Executive, attempted to mediate the conflict between Mokwena and Koko in or around May 2015 after the payment was not shared with Koko.
There could not have been any mediation in or around May 2015, as ABB’s payment to Leago Engineering took place a month later, on June 26, 2015. Additionally, the only documented meeting between Vip and Koko at the Da Vinci Hotel occurred in August 2015, and Mokwena was absent.
The documents indicate that the Impulse Scheme was launched after a failed mediation attempt in May 2015. However, in court records at the Johannesburg High Court, Koko refutes the occurrence of such a mediation attempt.
Since ABB paid Leago Engineering on June 26, 2015, the timeline regarding the mediation attempts and the initiation of the Impulse Scheme is incorrect. If the mediation attempt had taken place, documentary evidence shows that it could not have occurred in or around May 2015, as the payment had not yet been made.
This discrepancy indicates that the narrative may have been manipulated to fit a specific storyline.
Implications of the Discrepancies
The discrepancies in the timeline and events described in the documents have significant implications for the narrative’s credibility.
Suppose the payment date, mediation attempt, and initiation of the Impulse Scheme are inaccurately portrayed. In that case, Captain Wilhelm Schreiber’s affidavit, Gotz-Dietrich Wolff’s Section 204 Witness Statement and the Statement of Fact attached to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement involving ABB South Africa may have been manipulated to create a false narrative.
This manipulation could implicate Koko and others in corrupt activities, thereby serving the interests of unnamed parties.
The false payment date and incorrect timeline raise questions about the intent behind the documents.
If the narrative was manipulated, it suggests that there may have been an ulterior motive to implicate Koko and others in the Impulse Scheme.
This could be part of a broader strategy to discredit certain individuals or to shift blame away from other parties involved in the corruption.
The discrepancies in the narrative could have a significant impact on legal proceedings.
The prosecution’s case against Koko and others could weaken if the documents are inaccurate or manipulated.
The credibility of key witnesses and the reliability of the evidence presented would be questioned, potentially leading to a dismissal of charges and civil claims against law enforcement agencies.
The manipulation of narratives also highlights the broader context of corruption within Eskom, ABB and law enforcement agencies.
The involvement of multiple parties, including high-ranking officials and international companies, suggests that the corruption is widespread and systemic.
The discrepancies in the narrative may indicate a more considerable effort to conceal the extent of the corruption and protect certain individuals or entities from scrutiny.
Access to Privileged Information
The documents also reveal that ABB accessed privileged Eskom information, including internal budget details. If this is proven, it raises concerns about the fairness and transparency of the tender process.
Specifically, Koko allegedly showed Bruegmann an internal Eskom document providing for Eskom’s budget of R2 – 2.25 billion for the Kusile C&I Contract during a meeting on or about April 6, 2014.
Despite knowing Eskom’s budget, ABB South Africa submitted its tender on October 15, 2014, for approximately R2.5 billion, which exceeded the alleged budget shown by Koko.
The access to privileged information would have given ABB an unfair advantage in the tender process.
By knowing Eskom’s budget, ABB could tailor its tender to align with the budget constraints, thereby increasing its chances of securing the contract.
The fact that ABB’s tender surpassed the alleged budget set by Eskom raises serious concerns. How could ABB South Africa submit a tender of approximately R2.5 billion, which exceeded the budget that Koko allegedly presented to Bruegmann on April 6, 2014?
They reportedly had access to this budget information and were aware of two other competitors for the contract. Koko claims in court documents that no such internal Eskom document existed that could have been leaked on April 6, 2014, suggesting that this assertion is merely a tactic to imprison him.
Contestations and Lack of Evidence
In court papers, Koko in the North Gauteng High Court submits that no such internal Eskom document existed providing for Eskom’s budget of R2 – 2.25 billion for the Kusile C&I Contract and that ABB South Africa did not have privileged Eskom information.
If the physical evidence of the internal Eskom document cannot be produced or verified, it is reasonable to question its existence.
This lack of verifiable evidence would weaken the credibility of the claim that ABB had access to specific Eskom budget information.
If the internal Eskom document providing the budget cannot be produced or verified, it casts doubt on the claim that ABB had access to this specific budget information.
The assertion that Koko provided ABB with privileged information becomes questionable without physical evidence.
ABB South Africa submitted its tender on October 15, 2014, for approximately R2.5 billion, exceeding the alleged R2 – 2.25 billion budget.
If ABB did not have access to the specific budget information, this higher tender amount could be explained by their lack of knowledge of the precise budget constraints.
Suppose the internal Eskom document does not exist. In that case, the narrative that ABB had access to privileged information and used it to gain an unfair advantage in the tender process is significantly weakened.
This would imply that ABB may have been operating without the precise budget constraints in mind, which could explain the discrepancy in the tender amount.
If it is proven that ABB did not have access to the internal budget information, the tender process’s fairness and transparency should not be questioned.
The higher tender amount submitted by ABB could result from their independent assessment and not due to any privileged information.
Conclusion
The Impulse Scheme appears to be a contrived narrative based on the significant discrepancies in the timeline and events described in the documents.
The false payment date, the incorrect timeline for the mediation attempt, and the initiation of the Impulse Scheme suggest that the narrative was manipulated to implicate Koko and others in corrupt activities.
This manipulation raises questions about the intent behind the documents and the broader context of corruption within Eskom, ABB and the law enforcement agencies.
The involvement of multiple parties, including high-ranking officials, international companies, and NPA rogue officials, suggests that corruption is widespread and deeply entrenched.
The discrepancies in the narrative and the use of privileged information underscore the need for greater transparency, accountability, and integrity in the procurement process.
In summary, the Impulse Scheme narrative is likely contrived, and the discrepancies in the documents raise significant questions about its accuracy and intent.
Editor’s Note: The NPA, Eskom and ABB South Africa were contacted for their comments on the issues raised in this investigation.
NPA’s Spokesperson of the Investigative Directorate Against Corruption, Henry Mamothame had this to say, “The NPA will not comment on these questions as the contents thereof form part of court processes”.
However , Eskom and ABB South Africa did not respond. The questions sent to them are attached on the link below:
0 Comments