Threat of Johannesburg electricity interruptions remains despite Eskom’s 30-day extension

The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) welcomes Eskom’s decision to extend by 30 days the public participation process relating to its proposed reduction, interruption and/or termination of electricity supply to certain City of Johannesburg and City Power bulk supply points.

The consultation process is being conducted in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), which requires public bodies to follow a fair process before making decisions that may materially affect people or businesses. In this case, Eskom is required to consider public representations before deciding whether to proceed with electricity supply interruptions.

The extension follows concerns raised by OUTA and other stakeholders that public statements about an agreement between Eskom and the City of Johannesburg may have given the impression that the threat of electricity interruptions had been lifted.

“Johannesburg residents and businesses have effectively been given a second opportunity to influence a decision that could have significant consequences for the city’s economy, public safety, and daily life,”

“However, nobody should mistake this extension for a resolution of the problem. Eskom has made it clear that the process remains active, the debt remains substantial, and the possibility of electricity interruptions has not been removed.”

According to Eskom, the City of Johannesburg and City Power owed approximately R5.28 billion as of 11 June 2026. While payments totaling approximately R1.2 billion have been made since Eskom issued its notice, Eskom says the current account due on 5 June 2026 was not paid, leaving an overdue balance of approximately R2.7 billion.

For residents and businesses, the message is simple: Johannesburg’s electricity crisis has been delayed, not resolved.

The extension itself confirms that the matter remains unresolved. Had the underlying dispute been settled, there would have been little reason for Eskom to continue with a public participation process to assess the impact of electricity interruptions. Residents and businesses should therefore not assume that the risk has passed.

“Eskom’s announcement confirms exactly why transparency is so important,” says Kleynhans.

“For weeks, residents were left with the impression that an agreement had been reached and that the risk of electricity interruptions had passed. Eskom’s latest statement confirms that this is not the case.”

OUTA maintains that meaningful public participation requires meaningful information.

Residents and businesses are entitled to know: 

• What commitments have been made by Eskom, the City of Johannesburg, and City Power.
• Whether conditions have been attached to Eskom’s decision not to immediately implement electricity interruptions.
• What measures are being introduced to prevent the debt from growing further.
• What consequences will apply should future payment obligations not be met.
• Whether any proposed arrangement could affect future administrations following the upcoming local government elections.
• Whether Eskom is considering any role in revenue collection, operational oversight or management of the electricity network.

“A public participation process cannot be meaningful if the public is asked to comment without access to information that may ultimately influence Eskom’s decision,” says Kleynhans.

Johannesburg residents are already paying some of the highest municipal tariffs in the country. They should not be exposed to the risk of electricity interruptions because of governance failures, financial mismanagement, electricity losses, poor revenue management, and inadequate oversight.

At the same time, OUTA recognises that Eskom cannot be expected to continue supplying electricity indefinitely without payment.

A central question remains unanswered: how did debt of this magnitude accumulate while City Power continued collecting electricity revenue from residents and businesses?

“The evidence increasingly points to a failure of revenue management rather than a failure of revenue collection,” says Kleynhans. “Consumers have been paying. The real question is what happened to the money.”

OUTA believes this distinction is critical because it reinforces why the consequences of the failure should be directed at those responsible for managing the revenue stream, rather than the consumers who funded it in good faith.

Questions must also be asked about why regulatory and oversight mechanisms failed to intervene long before the debt reached crisis levels. The National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA), municipal leadership, City Power management, and the City of Johannesburg all carry responsibility for ensuring the sustainability of electricity distribution and payment systems.

OUTA maintains that any long-term solution must prioritise: 

• Protection of paying consumers and businesses
• Transparency and public accountability
• Financial discipline and sustainable payment arrangements
• Improved revenue collection and reduced electricity losses
• Independent oversight and reporting
• Consequence management for governance failures

The extension of the PAJA process should not be viewed as a solution. It merely provides Johannesburg residents and businesses with additional time to participate in a process that could ultimately affect South Africa’s economic hub.

OUTA will continue engaging with Eskom, government, and affected stakeholders to ensure that residents, businesses, and taxpayers do not become collateral damage in a dispute they did not create.​

Supporting Documents

• A soundclip from Julius Kleynhans, OUTA Executive Manager, is available here in English and here in Afrikaans.