Brief Background to the Questions

The documents, Schreiber’s affidavit, Gotz-Dietrich Wolff’s Section 204 Statement, and

the Schedule 1 Statement of Fact in the ADRCA, collectively highlight significant

discrepancies and potential manipulations in the narrative surrounding the Impulse

Scheme, which implicates individuals, particularly Matshela Koko, in corrupt activities

within Eskom and ABB.

The key conclusions or findings are:

1. Discrepancies in Payment Date:

o Schreiber’s affidavit claims the payment to Leago Engineering was made

on May 28, 2015, when it was not due when, in truth, it was made on June

26, 2015, within the 30-day payment terms.

o This discrepancy undermines the narrative that the fallout between

Mokwena and Koko occurred due to the payment in May 2015.

o The Leago payment made on May 28, 2015, was allegedly intended as a

bribe payment for Koko.

2. Mediation Attempt:
o The documents claim Sunil Vip attempted to mediate the conflict between
Mokwena and Koko in or around May 2015 after Mokwena failed to pass
the bribe payment to Koko after the payment on May 28, 2015.

o However, the only recorded meeting between Vip and Koko at the Da Vinci
Hotel occurred in August 2015, and Mokwena was absent, indicating
inaccuracies in the timeline.

3. Initiation of the Impulse Scheme:

o The documents state that the Impulse Scheme was initiated after the
mediation attempt on or around May 2015 failed.

o However, since the payment was made on June 26, 2015, the timeline for
the mediation attempts and the subsequent initiation of the Impulse Scheme
is inaccurate.

4. Contrived Narrative:

o The false payment date of May 28, 2015, and the incorrect timeline for the
mediation attempt and the initiation of the Impulse Scheme suggest that the
narrative may have been manipulated to implicate Koko and others in
corrupt activities.

o This manipulation raises questions about the intent behind the documents

Schreiber’s affidavit, Gotz-Dietrich Wolff’s Section 204 Statement, and the

Schedule 1 Statement of Fact in the ADRCA.

5. Access to Privileged Information:

o ABB had access to privileged Eskom information, including internal budget

details, which gave them an unfair advantage in the tender process.

o However, in the court papers filed in the Johannesburg High Court, Koko

contests the existence of such a document. It weakens the claim that ABB

had access to specific Eskom budget information if the specific document

allegedly shared on April 6, 2015, does not exist.

6. Implications for Legal Proceedings:

o The discrepancies in the narrative weaken the prosecution’s case against

Koko and others, questioning the credibility of key witnesses and the

reliability of the evidence presented.

7. Broader Context of Corruption:

o The involvement of multiple parties, including high-ranking officials and

international companies, and the alleged rogue officials within the

prosecution authority suggests that the corruption was widespread and

systemic. We know that Koko has filed two criminal cases for fraud against

one of the investigating officers and the Senior Forensic Investigator from
SIU.
o The manipulation of narratives and use of privileged information highlights
the need for greater transparency, accountability, and integrity in the
procurement process.

The documents suggest that the Impulse Scheme narrative is likely contrived, with
significant discrepancies raising questions about its accuracy and intent.

The broader context of corruption within Eskom and ABB underscores the need for
comprehensive reforms to address systemic issues and restore trust in the procurement
process.

The Questions

Sure, here is a revised set of questions for Eskom, NPA, and ABB South Africa that focus
on confirming or denying specific points rather than requesting documentation:

1. To Eskom:

o Can you confirm the existence of an internal Eskom document providing for
Eskom’s budget of R2 – 2.25 billion for the Kusile C&I Contract?

2. To NPA:

o Can you confirm whether the payment to Leago was made on June 26,
2015, rather than May 28, 2015? How do you explain the falsehood in
Schreiber’s Affidavit?

o Can you confirm if there was any mediation attempt between Mokwena and
Koko in or around May 2015?

o Can you confirm if the timeline and events described in the documents,
particularly the payment date and the mediation attempt, have been verified
for accuracy?

3. To ABB South Africa:

o Can you confirm or deny the existence of an internal Eskom document
providing for Eskom’s budget of R2 – 2.25 billion for the Kusile C&I Contract,
as shown to Bruegmann by Koko?

o Can you explain why ABB South Africa submitted a tender for approximately
R2.5 billion, which exceeded the budget allegedly presented to Bruegmann
by Koko on April 6, 2014? They reportedly had access to the budget
information and were aware of two other competitors for the job.

o Why did ABB South Africa conceal that the Leago prepayment was made
on June 26, 215, within the 30-day contractual payment terms and not in
May 2015?