AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY: Matshela Koko challenges R2.5bn

The ongoing legal battle between former Eskom acting CEO Matshela Koko and South Africa's National Prosecuting Authority represents far more than a personal vindication case. It strikes at the heart of prosecutorial governance and institutional credibility—issues that directly impact how European investors assess rule-of-law risk in South Africa's energy and infrastructure sectors.

Koko's challenge centers on an agreement between the NPA and ABB, the Swedish-Swiss multinational technology conglomerate. At stake is R2.5 billion in claims and the legitimacy of how state institutions negotiate settlements in corruption investigations. Koko argues that the NPA's agreement with ABB—which involved allegations connected to his tenure—was struck without proper legal foundation and without affording him due process to challenge the underlying claims. The NPA's counterargument, that Koko seeks to escape accountability entirely, frames this as a jurisdictional dispute rather than a procedural one.

For European investors, this case illuminates a critical governance vulnerability. South Africa's prosecutorial framework lacks transparent mechanisms for public accountability when state institutions enter into major settlements. The ABB agreement, involving a multinational with EU headquarters, demonstrates how African governance decisions can create asymmetrical legal exposure for international players. When a prosecution authority can negotiate away claims without clear procedural oversight, investors face hidden tail risks in their South African operations.

The electricity sector context amplifies these concerns. Eskom's corruption scandals, spanning multiple administrations, have cost South Africa an estimated $30 billion in state capture losses. Yet convictions remain remarkably thin on the ground. Koko's case reflects a pattern where high-profile figures navigate prosecutorial proceedings through legal technicality rather than substantive judicial resolution. This creates perverse incentives: international investors question whether South Africa's institutions can reliably enforce contracts or whether political considerations drive legal outcomes.

The timing is particularly significant. As South Africa attempts to stabilize its power grid and attract renewable energy investment, investor confidence in institutional independence matters enormously. European pension funds and infrastructure investors explicitly screen for governance risk. Cases like Koko's—where prosecutorial agreements lack transparency and due process—signal that South Africa's institutional maturity may lag behind its stated commitment to the rule of law.

The NPA's position is not without merit: institutional survival depends on settling cases efficiently. Yet the lack of public contestation rights for affected parties suggests a system designed for administrative convenience rather than justice. Koko's challenge, regardless of its merits, surfaces a legitimate governance gap that no developing democracy can afford to ignore when competing for investment capital.

What makes this noteworthy for European investors is that ABB's involvement suggests similar exposure faces other multinationals. If Koko successfully invalidates the NPA agreement, it could trigger cascading legal challenges to other settlements. Conversely, if courts uphold the NPA's position, European companies may face unpredictable prosecutorial negotiations lacking clear procedural safeguards.

The case also signals broader institutional stress. When a former state CEO believes his only recourse is expensive litigation against a prosecution authority, it indicates that internal institutional checks have failed. For investors evaluating South Africa's infrastructure and energy sectors, this case serves as a cautionary indicator that governance risks may exceed published risk indices.

---

#