The Special Investigating Unit has frozen assets worth R76.5 million linked to businessman Siyabonga Moses Goodwill Nkosi and his network of trusts in a widening Eskom procurement probe. The preservation order was granted by the Special Tribunal and covers 17 immovable properties and seven luxury vehicles. The move means the assets cannot be sold, transferred or hidden while investigators continue their work.

The legal step marks a fresh attempt to recover money allegedly lost through procurement abuse at one of South Africa’s most troubled state-owned entities. For a country still living with the fallout of corruption and power failures, the case cuts to the heart of public trust and accountability.

Probe centres on Kusile and Matla power stations

According to EWN, the SIU’s investigation uncovered procurement irregularities at Eskom’s Kusile and Matla power stations between 2021 and 2023. Those findings have raised fresh questions about oversight, internal controls and how contracts were approved at two critical energy sites.

SIU spokesperson Selby Makgotho said officials allegedly approved inflated purchase orders for equipment needed at the power stations. He said the alleged pricing was wildly out of line with market value. In one example cited by the SIU, relays were allegedly bought for R50,000 each, even though the market price was said to range between R180 and R450.

How millions were allegedly lost

Makgotho said the pricing manipulation caused a direct financial loss of R73.6 million to Eskom. That money, according to the SIU, should have supported the utility’s operations and power generation stability instead of being drained through inflated contracts.

The SIU alleges that Nkosi’s companies profited from those inflated deals while Eskom officials signed off on them. While the investigation is ongoing, the preservation order is designed to stop the suspected proceeds from being moved beyond the reach of authorities.

The SIU says it is committed to pursuing both civil and criminal litigation against those responsible for the depletion of Eskom’s resources. That means the freezing of assets is not the end of the matter, but an early legal step in what could become a much broader accountability process.

For Eskom, the case is another reminder of how procurement failures can hit the public twice: first through financial losses, and then through weaker service delivery. The tribunal’s order now puts a sizeable slice of the alleged gains on ice while the state tries to claw back what was lost.