Eskom Holdings SOC Limited, South Africa’s state-owned electricity giant, has come under scrutiny for giving mixed signals about its legal challenge to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) over electricity trading licences issued to private companies. For months, the public and policymakers were told that Eskom had paused its case, creating the impression of cooperation and support for electricity market reform. However, court records show a very different reality.
According to a directive from the Gauteng High Court, Eskom confirmed to the court that it is actively continuing with its review application. The records show that Eskom has been responding to court notices, preparing confidentiality agreements, and expecting the production of the Rule 53 record from Nersa. This suggests that, far from pausing its legal challenge, Eskom is pursuing it actively.
The controversy began in 2024 and early last year when Nersa granted electricity trading licences to five private companies: CBI Electric Apollo, Discovery Green, Green Electron Market, GreenCo Power Services, and NOA Group Trading. These licences were part of South Africa’s Electricity Regulation Amendment Act, 2024, aimed at creating a competitive electricity market, reducing Eskom’s monopoly, and enabling wheeling and trading of electricity. Eskom Distribution opposed the licences and launched a high court review application, citing procedural and legal flaws in the licensing process. Observers noted that the case had political undertones, questioning whether Eskom could accept real market competition even in an unbundled environment.
Electricity Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa publicly urged Eskom to withdraw or at least stay its litigation. he said parallel court action could undermine confidence in Nersa’s regulatory process, which was fast-tracking electricity trading rules. Government officials saw the legal challenge as a potential obstacle to policy reform and the development of a competitive electricity market.
Despite the minister’s intervention, Eskom publicly announced a “stay” on its case during its financial results presentation. CEO Dan Marokane told the media that the move was to allow Nersa’s rule-making process to continue and for Eskom to participate constructively. The announcement was widely interpreted as Eskom stepping back from confrontation, giving private traders room to operate, and allowing market reforms to proceed.
But South African law defines a “stay of proceedings” clearly. A genuine stay requires either a court order or an agreement between parties to halt all procedural steps. Deadlines stop, records are not produced, and interlocutory actions are paused. In Eskom’s case, none of these conditions occurred, as confirmed by the Gauteng High Court.
The situation highlights a troubling gap between Eskom’s public statements and its court actions. While the company told the public and government it was pausing the case, it simultaneously told the court it was proceeding. When questioned, Eskom claimed that traders denied a formal stay, forcing the company to continue the review. One trader, however, rejected Eskom’s claim, stating that it was never approached to agree to a stay and that the decision to proceed was entirely Eskom’s. Another trader added that some of Eskom’s public statements were incomplete or inaccurate.
This legal uncertainty has implications for South Africa’s electricity sector. Pending court action threatens to delay the finalisation of electricity trading rules, disrupt investment decisions, and affect project financing and power purchase agreements involving independent power producers (IPPs). Public hearings on the new rules are scheduled for 27 January 2026, but Eskom’s ongoing litigation creates a cloud over the sector.
Experts say the case reflects broader challenges of transparency, governance, and trust in state-owned enterprises. Eskom, a key economic player, is expected to operate in line with national policy and public interest. Speaking with two different voices—one for the media and government, another for the courts—could undermine confidence in both Eskom and South Africa’s electricity reform agenda. Analysts warn that such actions may slow competition, limit private sector participation, and discourage investors at a critical time for the sector.
As South Africa seeks to reform its electricity market, the Eskom case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between legal rights, policy reforms, and public trust. Observers say the need for clarity, accountability, and timely decision-making is urgent if the country hopes to attract investment and ensure a reliable, competitive electricity supply.
