The actions threatened by the national power utility, Eskom, to “interrupt” the power supply to municipalities whose accounts are in arrears have certainly put the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons.
I, for one, am somewhat amused by the term “interruptions” in the power supply as opposed to “electricity cuts”. Are we, the consumers, supposed to feel better because “interruptions” may fall easier on the ear than “power cuts”?
Although it is understood that the interruptions will only be in effect for certain “short” periods during the mornings and evenings, this has not done anything to pacify the general public.
Looking at the time-table of the proposed interruptions, it is clear that the timing of the blackouts during peak periods in the mornings and evenings is aimed at causing the most inconvenience to households and businesses.
The question on everyone’s lips, however, is why the general public should be inconvenienced when the municipalities have not fulfilled their obligations and paid Eskom for services rendered?
The argument put forward by the municipalities is that outstanding consumer accounts, illegal electrical connections and escalating repair costs to the “old” infrastructure have caused a financial shortfall and therefore obligations to Eskom could not be met.
This may be a contributing factor, but the astronomical outstanding debt at Eskom did not arise only yesterday. It is a problem that, for some years now, has been caused by extreme leniency toward defaulting consumers, astronomical salaries and benefits paid to certain officials as well as general bad financial management.
Surely action should have been taken long ago?
Another question that arises is what about those consumers who are up to date with their municipal accounts?
We ask not “Pay back the money” but rather “Where has the money gone?”
