Ramaphosa's energy plan Webinar banner

We'd like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick

More specifically, we'd like those who can afford to pay to start paying. What it comes down to is whether or not you value Daily Maverick. Think of us in terms of your daily cappuccino from your favourite coffee shop. It costs around R35. That’s R1,050 per month on frothy milk. Don’t get us wrong, we’re almost exclusively fuelled by coffee. BUT maybe R200 of that R1,050 could go to the journalism that’s fighting for the country?

We don’t dictate how much we’d like our readers to contribute. After all, how much you value our work is subjective (and frankly, every amount helps). At R200, you get it back in Uber Eats and ride vouchers every month, but that’s just a suggestion. A little less than a week’s worth of cappuccinos.

We can't survive on hope and our own determination. Our country is going to be considerably worse off if we don’t have a strong, sustainable news media. If you’re rejigging your budgets, and it comes to choosing between frothy milk and Daily Maverick, we hope you might reconsider that cappuccino.

We need your help. And we’re not ashamed to ask for it.

Our mission is to Defend Truth. Join Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Op-Ed: McKinsey and Trillian payment six times Public P...

South Africa

South Africa

Op-Ed: McKinsey and Trillian payment six times Public Protector’s annual budget

My team and I recently worked on a project where we were obliged to look into certain aspects of the payments by Eskom to McKinsey and Trillian, to the tune of R1.6-billion. Large portions of the public remain severely disgusted at this ridiculous payment, and even Eskom has concluded that these payments were unlawful. The monumental disgust, in what has been reported on being another Gupta abracadabra, is however not what I found most ironic about this transaction. By IVAN HERSELMAN.

In the same week that we looked at the Eskom payments, I was asked by Phillip De Wet of the Mail & Guardian to answer some questions relating to the remuneration of the Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane. Reading through the 2016/2017 annual report of the office of the Public Protector, it struck me in the opening pages, in the PP’s own words that the budget of the PP is a relatively meagre budget of R274.9-million and a modest staff complement of 395 members, the office finalised 10,787 of the 16,397 cases lodged”.

A day or two later my mind must have weighed the payment of R1.6-billion to McKinsey and Trillian, for a single consulting engagement, with that of the annual budget of the Public Protector of R274.9-million, and it hit me like a bomb that the Chapter 9 institution has a budget of almost six times less than these consultants had for a single engagement. In other words, that money could fund the Public Protector’s office for almost six years (annual escalation not factored in).

I understand there are obviously many variables that determine whether a consulting budget is justified, but my word… six times more than the entire budget of the Public Protector, on whom so many South Africans peg their hopes and dreams of leading the charge in the fight against (in the words of section 5 of the Public Protector Act):

  1. Maladministration in connection with the affairs of any institution in which the State is the majority or controlling shareholder or of any public entity as defined in section 1 of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999;
  2. Abuse or unjustifiable exercise of power or unfair, capricious, discourteous or other improper conduct or undue delay by a person performing a function connected with his or her employment by an institution or entity contemplated in paragraph (a);
  3. Improper or unlawful enrichment or receipt of any improper advantage, or promise of such enrichment or advantage, by a person as a result of an act or omission in connection with the affairs of an institution or entity contemplated in paragraph (a); or
  4. Act or omission by a person in the employ of an institution or entity contemplated in paragraph (a), which results in unlawful or improper prejudice to any other person.

It is difficult to imagine that the office of the Public Protector can ever really successfully lead this charge with such a severely underfunded mandate. The process of investigating, analysing and making findings on the simple and many complex multi-layered voluminous cases involving the wrongdoing of public officials, might require an extra buck or two. A public outcry for some re-prioritisation of the public budget in this regard is long overdue. DM

Ivan Herselman is an admitted advocate and a director of a legal consultancy practice, Argumentum

Photo: Arnot Power Station (Eskom photo)


Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted