Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa recently ruled that country's state-owned power utility eskom Must disclose its contracts with coal and diesel suppliers. This is a major victory for transparency in a sector that has long been marked by secrecy, financial instability and weak public trust.
Eskom generates about 90% The country produces electricity, primarily through the burning of coal, which it purchases from South African coal mines.
Eskom spends R70-billion a year on coal and its transportation alone but until now, its contracts with the mines have been kept hidden.
The case began in 2024, when the High Court of South Africa ordered Eskom To disclose all its coal and diesel contracts. This did not happen because Eskom appealed the decision.
But on March 23, 2026, the Supreme Court of Appeal appeal rejectedStating that vague claims of commercial confidentiality are not enough when the public asks how the power utility spends public money, and that Eskom must make public all active coal and diesel contracts.
This new decision could become one of the most important power transparency decisions in years. Although the case was brought AfriForumA pressure group that works to advance the rights of Africans, the decision is important for society as a whole.
South Africa has access to information Law who empowers people Apply for and obtain state records. Eskom is state-owned. It is noteworthy that in the last 20 years the South African government had given guarantees about R350-billion of Eskom's debt, and ultimately Acquired over R230 billion Utility debt. When billions of public money are spent, it becomes ethically and legally difficult to defend privacy.
I do research on power administration, administrative law, constitutional accountability, etc. right to electricity. There is a power crisis in South Africa due to supply shortages, rising costs, weak public trust and persistent concerns about how decisions are made.
The solution to the power crisis is more important than supply. It is also about transparency, trust and fair decision making. This recent decision strengthens the same idea.
Why did Eskom lose the court case?
The judges noted that the prices of coal and diesel were already widely known. He also stressed that Eskom purchases these fuels through open, competitive tender processes. Once a contract is awarded through an open tender process, it becomes very difficult to tell if the price and terms are still truly secret.
The court also rejected the idea that disclosure would harm Eskom's future bargaining position or make collusion more likely. Eskom's argument was essentially that if suppliers knew what had been agreed in existing contracts, it could influence future negotiations or encourage coordinated conduct in future tenders.
However, Eskom did not demonstrate this with concrete facts. Most of the broad warnings were given.
This was not enough for the court. This part of the judgment matters because it reaffirms the basic principle that when a public body holds information, openness is mandatory by default. Privacy is an exception and must be justified.
Why this decision matters beyond this case
The ruling means it will become more difficult for Eskom – and perhaps other organs of state – to hide important public-interest documents behind vague claims of business loss. This matters in a country where trust in power administration is already low. Eskom has been in a financial crisis for years and is very serious corruption allegations. In this context, public scrutiny is not a luxury. This is part of accountability.
I have written before how, at the end of October 2025, the court Government process used by National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) The decision to increase annual electricity prices was unconstitutional as it hindered public participation and violated the right to fair administrative action.
The problem the court found was that the cost of electricity supply, on which the price increase is based, was hidden from the public. The energy regulator is also expected to calculate price increases in a way that allows public input. Secrecy means that people affected by high electricity prices do not get a chance to express their views.
In the latest case the matter is about fuel contract. Different documents, same principle: When the public can't see the records behind power decisions, it can't properly test whether those decisions are legitimate, fair, or sensible.
The latest decision also speaks to a wider move by South Africans to move off the grid. More homes and businesses are looking at solar and battery options as formal systems unbelievable and expensive.
But going off-grid isn't a solution for everyone. Most South Africans still depend on Eskom and municipalities. Eskom distributes electricity directly to many homes, businesses and other users, while municipalities buy wholesale electricity from Eskom and then resell it in their areas. This makes transparency in the core system even more important.
What changes the decision and what doesn't
The court did not say that every Eskom document must always be released to the public. There will still be cases where confidentiality is appropriate. But he did say that a public body cannot end the conversation just by using the term “commercial sensitivity”. It has to be shown with actual facts why disclosure would cause financial loss to them.
Judges also did not need to rely on the law's public interest safety valve. Simply put, this is a rule that may require records to be disclosed if the public interest in seeing the record is strong enough, even if there are other legal reasons to keep it secret. Eskom had failed at the first stage to show that the contracts were eligible to remain secret. This strengthens the mandate. This means that the court regarded openness as a general rule, not a special grace.
South Africans have constitutional rights For electricity. It is closely linked to dignity, housing, water, health and basic economic life. If it is so important, the public has a strong claim to know how the utility responsible for it spends public money.
For this reason, it is not just a victory in a court case. It is a reminder that in a constitutional democracy, the public should not be asked to pay for a power system it cannot properly scrutinize.
written by felix dubeyLecturer in the Department of Public Law, University of Venda
This article is republished from Conversation Under Creative Commons license. read the original article.