The Association of Private Security Owners of South Africa (Tapsosa), which represents over 2,000 black-owned security firms, has accused Eskom of systematically targeting, sidelining, and financially crippling its member companies.
It alleged a coordinated “purge” involving senior Eskom executives, with R1.3 billion in unpaid invoices now at the centre of the standoff.
In a detailed letter sent to Eskom Group CEO Dan Marokane, Tapsosa requested an urgent meeting with him and senior executives to discuss what it calls “a sustained pattern of victimisation and purging” of its members.
The allegations, which include claims of operational sabotage, blacklisting, and procurement manipulation, have drawn renewed scrutiny over the power utility’s handling of service provider relationships and internal governance.
Tapsosa alleges that the country’s power utility is deliberately pushing black-owned security companies out of the supply chain by withholding payments, raising “unfounded” corruption allegations, and unlawfully deactivating vendor numbers. However, Eskom continues to do business with companies that have been previously implicated in corruption.
Dated May 20, 2025 and seen by this publication, the letter cites a longstanding legal dispute involving a member company, and details how black-owned firms are allegedly being targeted through parallel vetting processes that override procurement recommendations in favour of preferred suppliers.
According to Tapsosa, these processes are often driven by entrenched internal networks within Eskom.
Tapsosa spokesperson Sindiswa Changuion said the association’s leadership decided to go public after exhausting internal complaint channels.
“We’ve written letters, requested meetings, and reported concerns about the growing marginalisation of our members. The situation has worsened. Some companies are on the verge of collapse,” said Changuion.
“Our members are owed more than R1.3 billion. This isn’t just a business matter anymore. This is affecting families, jobs, and mental health. People are depressed, and some have even contemplated suicide because of the financial stress.”
According to Changuion, several companies have been blacklisted without a clear disciplinary process or evidence of wrongdoing. Others have reportedly been subjected to repetitive investigations as a way to delay or block payments.
“Eskom has created a culture where certain companies can operate with impunity—even after being implicated in wrongdoing by oversight institutions—while legitimate, black-owned businesses are unfairly penalised,” Changuion added.
Double standards and unanswered questions
Tapsosa also raised concerns about what it called a double standard in Eskom’s treatment of service providers.
The association alleged that Eskom continues to do business with a company that was flagged by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) and discussed in Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA). That company, according to Changuion, has retained its vendor number and recently secured contracts worth over R40 million.
“Although the SIU presented findings to SCOPA confirming wrongdoing by Eskom employees and the implicated company, that entity still does business with Eskom. Their vendor number remains active, and no steps have been taken to blacklist them,” she said.
“Meanwhile, we have members who are removed from the database based on unproven allegations. This inconsistency in how procurement and disciplinary processes are applied raises serious questions.”
Impact on businesses and families
Speaking anonymously to this publication, one security company owner echoed Tapsosa’s claims, describing how the alleged purging has crippled many small firms in the sector.
“When they decide to target you, they block your vendor number. You’re not formally suspended, so you continue working and invoicing, but at the end of the month, there’s no payment,” the businessman explained.
“To stay afloat, we take out loans to pay salaries and operational costs. Eskom never reimburses us for the interest or the financial loss. Eventually, we’re forced to cut salaries or retrench staff.”
He described how the financial instability caused by non-payment reverberates through workers’ households.
“Some employees can’t pay rent or support their children. Others experience deep anxiety and loss of morale. Some marriages fall apart. There’s even talk among my peers of colleagues taking their own lives due to the pressure.”
Legal proceedings and pending response
Tapsosa also cited a legal case currently before the Gauteng High Court involving one of its member companies. The matter reportedly concerns non-payment and the alleged manipulation of forensic investigations.
Eskom spokesperson Daphne Mokwena confirmed that the power utility is aware of both the case and the letter submitted by Tapsosa.
“Eskom is aware of the case pending before the Gauteng High Court, which pertains to alleged non-payment of fees, among other issues. However, the matter is sub judice and we are therefore unable to comment further at this stage,” said Mokwena.
Mokwena also acknowledged that Eskom had received a Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) application from the attorneys of one of the security companies in September 2023, requesting access to a forensic report. She said the request was handled in line with Eskom’s internal PAIA processes.
In response to Tapsosa’s May 20 letter, Marokane said the disciplinary action taken against the security company was based on legitimate concerns, not on unfair treatment or victimisation.
“Eskom is obliged to reconsider the position of a supplier on the Eskom Supplier Database if there is prima facie evidence that the supplier has committed criminal conduct; breached the provisions of Section 217 of the Constitution, the PFMA and its regulations, the P&SCM Procedure and/or Eskom’s Supplier Integrity Pact; compromised the integrity of Eskom’s procurement processes; or caused Eskom loss or damage,” said Marokane.
Call for intervention
Changuion said Tapsosa will continue to seek engagement with Eskom but warned that, if necessary, it will escalate the matter through legal and public channels.
“We are still willing to resolve this internally. But if we do not get a substantive response from Eskom by Friday, we will have no choice but to pursue litigation and raise these concerns with parliamentary structures and regulatory bodies.”
She added that while some of Tapsosa’s members are surviving the current environment, others are “barely holding on.”
“We are not asking for favours. We want fairness and accountability. This is about economic justice and the future of black-owned businesses in South Africa’s security sector.”
