COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO STATE CAPTURE
HELD AT
PARKTOWN, JOHANNESBURG

10

13 NOVEMBER 2018

DAY 22

20

PROCEEDINGS HELD ON 13 NOVEMBER 2018
CHAIRPERSON: Good morning Mr Mokoena, good morning to everybody.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Good morning, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Mokoena are you ready to proceed?
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: I am ready, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Chair, prior to proceeding with the evidence of Ms Hogan,
I deemed it prudent that we should bring some of the events which transpired yesterday
to your attention. We have received two witness statements or statements, let me put it
that way. They are dated 11 November 2018. They are both – they are both unsigned
and they are from – they are in the letterheads of the ANC and with the name of Mr
Gordon Mantashe at the end.
I only scanned through the two statements. They appear to be – the first one
appear to be a response to Ms Hogan's evidence and the other one is a response
pertaining to the testimony which was adduced by the banks in terms of time of reference
1.7.
I have not as yet canvassed that statement with Ms Hogan and furthermore I
have not canvassed both statements with the legal team of the Commission. I thought it
wise to bring those facts to attention, but in due course after we have formulated an
approach to those statements, we will then approach, the Chairperson, with far more
sensible submissions around those statements.
But I thought that I must simply highlight and place those facts on record.
CHAIRPERSON: No, thank you very much. I guess the first step is that they need to be
signed by whoever is making the statements so that they can be taken seriously, because

you would not be able to put to the witness what you might regard as Mr Mantashe's
version when you do not have his signature on the statements.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes, indeed.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: So it may well be therefore that at some stage in the
future if there is an application for leave to cross-examine Ms Hogan, if that is what is –
or may be required it may be that we might ask her at some stage to come back, but it
may well be that there is no – there will be no request for leave to cross-examine her, but
there may be an application or a request that Mr Mantashe's version or the ANC's version
be placed – put to her for her to comment on.
I guess that in due course you will get to know what the position is.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Indeed, Chair. Once we have interrogated all those
issues we will be able to approach the, Chair, with a proper way forward pertaining to
those statements.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, no, thank you.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Okay, yes, Ms Hogan…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I am sorry, Ms Hogan, Mr Mokoena and I were in part talking
about you. So it may be at some stage in the future you may be asked to come back and
I hope you would be able to come back.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Ms Hogan, yesterday we parted ways when we were
dealing with annexure K and that annexure K is to be found on page 360. You had
already testified on annexure K and you were just about to link it with annexure L that is
on page 366. You may continue to testify on the contents of annexure A.

3

You would recall that we adjourned at the point where I said it raised serious
issues of governance and that it raises serious issues that you were conveying to the exPresident and for that purpose and with the indulgence from the, Chair, if you may read
the contents of annexure L into the record and thereafter give us the context?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes. Annexure L is a letter from myself to the President on
page 366 yes. From myself to the President and it is dated 8 September.
CHAIRPERSON: Let me just check again if you are audible throughout. Everybody can
hear the witness? Okay, thank you.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: They can hear you.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Thank you. So it is dated 8 September. Chair, you would recall
that I had said that after Mr Ghama had been suspended the Deputy Minister and myself
together with the department had embarked on a process to selecting candidates for a
new Transnet board, not for a new CEO, but for a new board.
CHAIRPERSON: I am terribly sorry, Ms Hogan, I am going to interrupt you, because of
something that I should have dealt with before you started. Please do not forget where
you were when I interrupted you. I just wish to make the announcement that on Friday I
granted an application that had been brought by Minister Pravin Ghordan for an order
shifting his evidence from 15 November to 19 November.
I realised yesterday from the media that they were still talking on the basis that
he was going to be giving evidence this week. That order was made on Friday, but it is
only being distributed to the media today. It was not distributed and it is just important
that the public knows that there has been a change in regard to the date when
Mr Pravin Ghordan will be giving evidence.

4

The order that I made which was in accordance with the agreement that the
Commission's legal team and Minister Ghordan's lawyers had made included that apart
from giving evidence on the 19 th which is Monday, next week, he will remain available on
Tuesday, the 20 th in case he is still needed and in case I grant any leave to cross-examine
that may be brought.
I just thought I must let the public know about that and I should have made it
before Ms Hogan began her evidence. I apologise to have interrupted you.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mokoena, you may proceed.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Ms Hogan you were at the verge of giving context to
annexure L.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Annexure L on page 366. Yes, you may proceed.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Okay, this was a letter to the President from myself, re Transnet
Chairperson. The Deputy Minister and I were intent on submitting a memorandum – a
cabinet memorandum around – for the appointment of a Transnet board, for some board
members to retire, some to stay on, but new members and that would obviously include
a Chairperson, because it was an Acting Chair.
When that started – when that was submitted through the cabinet secretariat
and whatever the request came that the President wanted to speak to me about it. Finally
we were able to speak telephonically and the President then said that he would want, as
he had said before, several names as candidates for Chairperson and also he wanted
the CV for them, for any candidate and also the CV for – of a Chairperson of another
board that I was taking to cabinet for approval and that was the Board of SAFCOL which
is a forestry company.

5

So those were immediately forwarded onto the President. I think it was exactly
the same day, those CV's and whatever in response to his request. And a reminder from
my department on both – I think it was the 10 th and the 11th to the President requesting
the meeting in this regard.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: So the letter…[intervenes]
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Before you go to the reminders let us deal first with
annexure L and its contents. What did you convey to the President if you may read the
contents of that letter into the record?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Okay. So firstly I reminded the President that Transnet has
been operating with an Acting Chair, and at its AGM on 24 July the terms of the board
members and the Acting Chair had to be extended, until such time that a new board is
appointed.
Now I am sure you will recall that Mr Ghama's disciplinary process really only
ended at the end of June and he was fired, and so to put a board together in three weeks
in time for an AGM in July would have been impossible. You have got to do a proper job.
So once again, and this was the second time, Chair, I had to go to an AGM of
Transnet and say I am not ready yet to appoint a board, or you know, to address
vacancies that were due to occur on the board as well as the Acting Chair and the CEO.
The second issue I raised mentioned that Transnet was about to engage on a
R84-Billion, five year expenditure program. It was a massive investment program.
Governments from a macroeconomic point of view had taken the view and in my view it
was a correct view, that massive investment and infrastructure yields results in that it
promotes the economy and it provides employment and therefore both Transnet and

6

Eskom who were at the point and needed massive investment were going to embark on
those investments.
Now Transnet was particularly well placed to embark on it, because its balance
sheet was looking very good. It was – it at least balanced, but it still needed, you know
the borrowings and whatever for that investment. I then said, you know, we need a strong
board to oversee this massive investment process and that it was, because of the
importance of Transnet to the economy it was absolutely important that the Chair and the
board be appointed.
And that my department had prepared a cabinet memorandum for discussion to
cabinet, but it was not yet submitted. So this is, because we agreed that we would
discuss the matter first so that I can ascertain your final views on the composition of the
board, in particular the Chairperson.
So in that telephonic conversation he had said to wait before submitting,
because he wanted to see the CV's. I mention the name of the two candidates and then
I say:
"I request an appointment at your earliest convenience to
discuss this matter further with the Deputy Minister and myself
in order that we are able to discuss your views on the preferred
candidate and therefore deal with it."
So that was the point.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: And this is against the background of correspondence
that you have dealt with yesterday and the memorandum which you say the President
did not react to?

7

MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, you know we were wanting to put this memorandum
forward. The cabinet secretariat advised us that the President first wanted to discuss
this.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now in relation to annexure L after dispatching it to the
President, did he react to annexure L?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Once again no response. My department, my secretariat sent
a request twice, after this letter, requesting that urgent meeting and there was no
response from the presidency.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now, may I refer you to page 15, paragraph 57 of your
witness statement?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now on page 15 while he was still waiting for those
responses from the President then you recorded the following on paragraph 57:
"Three days later on Sunday, 31 October 2010, the President's
office called me to a meeting with him and in the presence of
Ngwede Mantashe, the Secretary General of the ANC.
President Zuma said that the NEC has decided to redeploys me
as the Ambassador to Finland. I declined the redeployment and
informed them that I would be resigning as a member of
parliament."
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now you were expecting a response from the President
on a number of issues which you raised with him as per the correspondence that we
canvassed yesterday. The response that you received from the President was three days

8

later. I am sure you did not bargain for it that you are going to be now redeployed to
Finland.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Chair, there had been lots of rumours that I was going to be
redeployed, not redeployed, but I was going to be reshuffled. So, but I had no idea that
I was going to be sent as an Ambassador to Finland. I raised with the President the
question that my partner Mr Kathrada who had spent 26 years in jail that I could not see
my way fit to request him to accompany me for a further five years to live in Finland away
from his country, family, friends and everything that meant so much to him.
So I thanked the President and I said, but I am not going to be able to accept
that deployment, because it would not work for me from a personal point of view.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Ja, did the President at any stage indicate to you
whether…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Mokoena I am just reflecting on the fact that you are the one
who read to the witness that very important paragraph.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: I would have liked the witness to tell us about that very important
meeting between herself, the former President and Mr Ngwede Mantashe, herself. I
would like to hear – could you please just tell us about that meeting?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes. I was invited, I received a phone call that Sunday 31
October in the afternoon from the President's office to say that the President urgently
needed to see me at his home. You know, the official residence in Pretoria.
I knew then that I was going to be dismissed.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just repeat that? You knew then that you were to be dismissed?

9

MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, you know, the rumours and everything. The President
never really called me to any urgent meeting, you know, there was – and bear in
mind…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I guess what you are saying is you had a strong suspicion.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: A strong suspicion.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, ja.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Bear in mind that I had attempted to put this Transnet cabinet
memorandum before cabinet. I had requested special permission from the President a
few days before, requesting the permission to jump the subcommittee process and take
it straight and heard nothing and that never appeared on the agenda.
Also on that last cabinet meeting that I attended, what was on the agenda was
the SAFCOL, the recommendations around the board and Chair of SAFCOL, and I
received a letter from the Minister in the presidency, the late Minister Collen Shibane
saying that the President was requesting me to remove that item from the agenda, even
though it was at the cabinet meeting and it had gone through the subcommittee process.
And I declined and I said, you know, this is – we cannot stop processes of
appointment and then I received a letter from and I have copies of that from Mr Shibane's
saying in view of what you have said the President says you should go ahead with this
cabinet memorandum.
So that was discussed and agreed at, at cabinet, but I was surprised that the
President took such a strong interest in SAFCOL. SAFCOL was one of the smallest of
the state owned enterprises. I think it had the lowest revenue base. And so it did confuse
me on why he would want to have his own say on that.
So anyway, so that was a couple of days before and all of that had happened
then and there had been a lot of rumours and the Deputy Minister had come to my office

10

and he said the rumours that he is hearing in the Luthuli house is that I was going to be
dismissed.
And we discussed how I would handle it and he said I should do as dignified an
exit and I said I agree. Okay, so I was summoned to the President, so I had a fair idea
that I was going to be dismissed. Mr Kathrada insisted that he accompany me in the car
and he was not invited into the President's residence and he did not expect to be part of
the meeting, and he was left sitting outside in the car.
I then met with the President and Mr Mantashe and the President said that the
NEC had decided that I ought to be redeployed as the Ambassador to Finland and then
I said, you know, I am sorry I cannot accept that, but I said – I did say at that stage that I
want to thank the President for the privilege of being able to serve my country as a cabinet
Minister, and I mean that.
Any person who can serve your country as high level as that, it is a privilege
and it is an honour to do it. I did not ask the reasons. For me it was perfectly, you know,
the President has the prerogative to dismiss. I also said that I was not going to go back
to parliament. The reason being that when I was made a Minister and Mr Kathrada who
had been staying in Cape Town at that time, moved back to Johannesburg where his
foundation was based, where is comrades, where his friends, family, a lot of people were
based and going back to parliament, you know in the two years that I was a cabinet
Minister Cassie was a lot of the time on his own, because I had to be down in Cape Town,
and I just felt it would be unkind and not fair, because he had been perfectly
accommodating to me when I had to be a Minister. For me now to expect him to now
pack up and move back to Cape Town.
And I have done my stint in parliament. I had been a parliamentarian from 1994
to 2008 and I think there was time for young blood to come in and it was only, you know,

11

I thought there was nothing more I could contribute there. It was not in an act of peak at
all that I said that I did not want to go to parliament.
With that…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, I hear you say up to 2008, I am assuming when you are a
Minister you remained a member of parliament or is that not so?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, as a Minister, yes, so 2010, you are right. I have done
longer service than what I accredit myself with. And then there was silence and I said,
you know, is that all, you know? And they said yes. And so I greeted them and I left.
The President helped me to open the door, because the door was jammed and I left and
I went home with Cathy and we went to my sister who – and her husband who has stood
by me all these years. When I was in prison she was the rock that I leant on and I went
to my…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: So the dismissal was with immediate effect?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: My sister was my…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, the dismissal, was it with immediate effect?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: With immediate effect. Obviously what happens is that you
are dismissed, but it is only when the new Minister is sworn in that in effect there is
transfer. So after explaining this to my sister and watching the television, it was portrayed
that the President – from the presidency it was portrayed that those of us who were being
reshuffled, because I was not the only one were being reshuffled, because we were
incompetent and there was a whole narrative around that.
Any way…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Was that based on any media statement issued by the presidency?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: There was a media statement that was released, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, so it was not that the media was interpreting it in a certain way?

12

MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, and it was not a thing, they were incompetent, but the
innuendo was certainly that the President wanted, you know, good professional people,
and whatever. I then spent the whole night clearing my office at home, because you have
to take back documents and I went back to the office in the morning, and organised my
office, handed over all the documents to be filed and requested that my secretary and
whatever organise a handover meeting for me, because it had been announced that
Minister Gigaba was taking over, so that I could handover to him.
I then left. Mr Gigaba had not yet come to the office. I then left and I was told
the next day that Mr Gigaba declined a meeting with me.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Before you go to the next day, have you now completed
the events of 31 October 2010?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, and 1 November.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Oh, yes, that is what the, Chairperson, wanted to hear
from you, from your own mouth as to what transpired on the day.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: May I inquire from you that prior to 31 October 2010 did
the President express or indicate to you in any form that he was not happy with your
performance as the Minister of Public Enterprises?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: No, he did not. The President at a certain stage did assign
certain, very responsibility on me. He made me the Minister to coordinate the drawing
up, the drafting and consolidation of government's energy plan going forward. Now I do
not know, you know, there is a Minister of Energy and I did say at cabinet that I, you
know, I am honoured to be given this job, but there is also a Minister of Energy and
whatever, but I was told very firmly by the President, and we successfully introduced and

13

had passed with a fair amount of approval, because I engaged for civil society and a lot
of players on this plan.
I also signed a performance agreement with the President. I think it was in April
2010. The President's office signed performance agreements with every Minister. And
on that basis the President would be able to evaluate your performance at regular
intervals. I was never evaluated on the basis of my performance in terms of that
agreement.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes, were there any complaints which were made against
you by any of the boards which were falling under your portfolio during that time or even
prior to that?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: No.
CHAIRPERSON: You said that the President never expressed any unhappiness with
your performance, but of course based on the evidence you gave yesterday it was – it
must have been quite clear, it is quite clear that there were very sharp differences of
opinion between yourself and the President in regard to some of the issues in your
portfolio?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, correct. So the – you know, I was aware that we did not,
we often had differences of opinion, but he never called me in and said I want to talk to
you about these matters, I am not happy or the way that you are performing in the
department as a Minister, no. I never got that kind of feedback from him.
CHAIRPERSON: Is there room, you can just answer this question to the best of your
ability. Do you think there may be room for any suggestion that maybe your personality
and his personality, your respective ways of dealing with issues were such that the kinds
of differences that came up, maybe were likely to come up? Or is that something you
have not thought about? I am just thinking…[intervenes]

14

MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja.
CHAIRPERSON: Because the differences of opinion were quite sharp, I think on certain
issues and I think they were expressed forcefully on both sides. You must just tell me if
what I am thinking you do not agree with.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And feel free to say you think differently. I am just exploring.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Thoughts.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: The President is a genial person we know that. I cannot put
aside the fact that probably dealing with women who held views, might have been an
uncomfortable experience for him, but I was careful to be respectful all the way through.
At times we did butt heads and yes, we are two very different kinds of people,
and I think those who have worked with me have found that whilst I am firm on certain
principles I am also very open to discussion and other points of view. And the fact that
the President just was not working from the same values, set of values that I was working
from probably contributed to the breakdown in that relationship.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, no thank you very much.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: You may continue.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Ms Hogan a question may be posed to say that, but you
were not dismissed, you were in fact offered a post in Finland, why would you say that,
you know, that equates to a dismissal?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Well I was dismissed as a cabinet Minister and offered a
redeployment as an Ambassador. So yes, I was dismissed as a cabinet Minister.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now, you said who took over from you? Who took over?

15

MS BARBARA HOGAN: Minister Malusi Gigaba.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Did Minister Gigaba recommend a new board to be
appointed?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Well, Minister Gigaba…[intervenes]
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: After your departure?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, the Transnet cabinet memorandum that I proposed for to
go before cabinet in early November, by which time I had already been dismissed that
was withdrawn from the cabinet process and about, it must have been about two weeks
later at the next cabinet meeting Minister Gigaba put forward proposals for Transnet
board which were approved.
Some of the people who I recommended in my document he had incorporated
into – onto that board, some of them not.
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, Mr Mokoena, I may have missed something. The last
communication that you – I just want to go back to prior to the dismissal before we go to
what happened after your successor took over. I just want to go back to events that may
have preceded your dismissal as cabinet Minister.
Now I think the last letter that – I think it was L.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: L, annexure L, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Was 28 September, is it not – was dated, that you wrote to the
President?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, the 27th. The last letter I sent to the President was actually
27 October.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, let me just get there. Mr Mokoena…[intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I am not sure if it is in this pack.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: It is page 366.

16

CHAIRPERSON: Page 366.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: No, that is the September one. Sorry, I – sorry, I sent a letter
to the President requesting that the Transnet memo be expedited and placed on the
cabinet agenda for 15 September. Sorry, for the November one, sorry, it is complicated.
I sent a letter to the presidency on 27 October requesting his assistance to expedite the
placing of the Transnet cabinet memo onto the cabinet agenda. That was for November.
The cabinet was meeting shortly in November.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: And then four days later he fired me.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I do not have that letter, sorry.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, you might have learned to deal with this differently, but I would
rather let us deal with it now. Events such as the Maroga incident, have you dealt with
them?
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: They are the ones that we are just going to – just about
to canvas with the witness after the Transnet.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, I think they should come before the dismissal, because
they reflect the disagreements between the Minister and the President in relation to
certain people occupying certain positions. I would like to hear those prior to us getting
to what happened after her successor came over, took over.
So I would like to hear about those and I do not know if she had said enough
about SAFCOL and I do not know whether the Mumbai one was adequately dealt with as
well. I would like all of those prior to the dismissal, because I think that is where they fit
in properly.

17

ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC:

Mr Chair, yes, we have structured the evidence

differently, but we appreciate your point.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: What we intended to do was to deal first with all the
relevant issues pertaining to Transnet so that you must be able to equate them with what
now transpires at Eskom and thereafter we deal with SAFCOL and we deal with the
question of Mumbai roads, so that at least the evidence must be led in that structured
manner, for us to be able to follow for her to be able to follow.

But we are

easy…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, ja, ja.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: We will be able to…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I think that if you have regard to the terms of reference that you are
dealing with, dismissals and appoints of members of the executive, the – what our terms
of reference require is what were these dismissals about?
appointments about?

What were these

And in regard to her, her statement reflects certain sharp

differences between herself and the former President in relation to a number of entities,
and not just one.
Therefore, I think it makes sense to canvas all of those differences of opinion
between herself and the former President leading up to the dismissal.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: We appreciate that, Chair, we can do that. Let us now
jump and deal with the Eskom issues to link them with your evidence. You preface those
issues by referring to an Eskom board…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, I am sorry, I just want to complete the picture, just so that you
appreciate where I am coming from, because it may well be that the dismissal, her
dismissal was not just about her differences of opinion with the former President in regard

18

of Transnet. It may be that it was as a result of the many differences of opinion which
arose in regard to the various state owned enterprises. Okay, thank you.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Ms Hogan?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes?
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: You are dealing with the issues of Eskom and you preface
them by referring to a breakaway board session which was held on 28 October 2009, am
I correct? --- Correct.
Can you share with the, Chair, what transpired in that session and what you
were told occurred in relation to Mr Maroga?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Chair, on 28 October the board was having a breakaway
session to discuss the strategy going forward as is normal with boards and bearing in
mind that Eskom was facing huge challenges both from a funding point of view and an
operational point of view. I hesitate to use that word that I used yesterday that blacked
out the lights, but the lights – certainly the operational challenges around providing a
reliable energy was certainly uppermost in all the board's mind.
A very tense discussion ensued, and it was very robust and in that process the
CEO of Eskom, Mr Maroga got up and said that he, you know, if this was the case he
was going to resign, that he was resigning and he left the board and he left the room and
said the board must makes its decisions.
At that point the Chair of the board, Mr Bobby Godsell said well if that is the
case, because there has been conflict between us at this meeting, myself and him, strong
differences of opinion, I too will stand up and leave and then the board must make a
decision.

19

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to confirm that what you are relating in regard to what
happened at that meeting of the board is based on reports that you received. You
yourself were not there, or were you there?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I was not present.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Okay.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: And later court cases and whatever.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Now this is a very difficult situation, you have got a CEO, you
know who is about to resign of the most important state owned enterprise. Anyway the
board then, to move matters on, the board then unanimously agreed that they would
accept Mr Moroga's resignation and there were grounds for that. It was not just what had
happened at that meeting.
And Mr Godsell and of course a delegation from the board was then dispatched
to me, it was Mr Maroga to inform him of the decision and to look at the modalities of his
departure, and he met with them and was informed, and there was an agreement that
they would meet in the morning to discuss the modalities of his departure.
I was informed by Mr Godsell that this has taken place, I was down in Cape
Town, I flew up and I immediately the next day went to the Eskom Head Office and was
being briefed by Mr Godsell, when Mr Maroga walked in with a letter, which he gave to
me and I had given to the Chair, saying that he had in fact not offered to
resign…[intervenes]
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: And that is now the Friday, 29 October 2009?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: When you say that you flew down and went to Eskom's
offices?

20

MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: And that is where you got a detailed briefing of what
transpired?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: And at that moment you say that Mr Maroga then?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: He came into the office and he said that it was not true and it
is the annexure here, yes, that was a letter that I was given that he was not accepting
that he had resigned, he had not resigned.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: May I refer you to page 368. Mr Chair, that is annexure
M, which the witness is referring to. Ms Hogan is that the letter that you say that you
were furnished with by Mr Maroga on 29 October?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Correct.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Then…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: May I just take you a few steps back. From your own personal
knowledge, prior to these events happening at this particular meeting of the board of
Eskom, were you aware whether there were any challenges or strong differences
between the Chairperson of the board, Mr Bobby Godsell and the then Chief Executive
Officer of Eskom Mr Maroga that may have been making it difficult for the two of them to
work together or for the board to work smoothly with the Executive or was this coming to
you as a complete surprise?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I am trying to recollect now…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: But if you cannot remember it is fine.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I was not intimately involved with understanding the tensions,
it has been kept in-house. I do know that when Mr Maroga came into the office and
handed over the letter where Mr Godsell and I was present where they proceeded to

21

have a very, very harsh interaction and it was then that I perceived just how difficult that
relationship was, but one of the things that alerted me, which you know as a Minister you
just put it in the back of your head, was that one of the senior, senior black Managers at
Eskom had been at Eskom and I had just heard that he was resigning and we saw each
other in the lift, or you know, some place, I did not ask to see him or anything. It was just
per chance and I said I am very sorry that you are leaving and he said to me if you do
not sort out the CEO a lot of us, you know, a lot more are going to leave.
And that quite shocked me, but you know all through this period when this
happened I was not quite aware of the intensities of the conflicts and whatever. I t came
to me fairly new. I had only been a Minister for about four/five months when this all blew
up. Ja, so you are correct, in a sense I was not fully appraised.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, alright, you may proceed.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes, now you received the letter annexure M, what did
you do?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: This was…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, do you want her to tell us the main important points made
in the letter?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, the letter was written the next day by Mr Maroga and
basically he was saying this is a matter of national importance. My remarks of frustration
cannot be construed as an offer to resign. The Chairman has expressed similar
frustrations numerous times and is not being treated in this manner.
I was stunned by the response of the board to say they accept my offer and
then he goes on to say what he thought the real issues were.
CHAIRPERSON: Feel free to read the letter if you cannot remember the points. Feel
free to read the letter.

22

MS BARBARA HOGAN: He gave this letter and he had given it, I think to members of
the board as well, I am not sure, because to me and to Mr Godsell, I got the letter in the
office, yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes, the Chair, was saying that you are at liberty to
read…[intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Oh, I must read, Oh, I am sorry.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: The letter so that you can…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Yes…[intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I am sorry, okay.
CHAIRPERSON: The letter reflects at least maybe reflecting at least Mr Maroga's view
of why there were the events that had happened.

So I think it is important to

just…[intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: Read what he says.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: So the letter is addressed to the Eskom board and not to myself
and it says:
"Dear board members. I have reflected on this matter overnight.
I believe this is a matter of national importance. This matter is
about the rail of the SOEs in this phase of a democracy. It is
about the future of this country. It is not about the relationship
between the Chairman and the Chief Executive. My remarks of
frustration in the board meeting can be in no way be construed
to be an offer to resign. The Chairman has expressed similar
frustrations numerous times and has not been treated in this
manner. I was stunned by the response of the board to say they

23

accept my offer and wish to communicate with the following
immediate effect. The real issues are the following: I have put
before the board a very comprehensive strategy document
about the direction I propose Eskom should take. The strategy
articulates very key matters of national importance relating to
our contribution to this developing democracy. I am of the firm
few that the board must engage on the matters articulated in this
strategy document as this is the most important duty of the
board. The real issues between the Chairman and myself are
routed in the differences of the role of Eskom in this phase of our
democracy and the role clarity between the Chairman and the
Chief Executive. I believe as a board we will be facing the
country if we do not show leadership on this matter. Conclusion.
I have not offered to resign and I am not offering to resign. I
believe the role of Eskom is key to the development of our
country during this phase of the democracy. It is the view, I
believe strongly in, and a view that I am willing to fight for, for
whatever the consequences. Yours sincerely Mr Maroga."
And it is CC’d to myself and Minister Depour Peters.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now you received that letter. At that time you are still at
the offices of Eskom. Did you engage the board members to then try to interrogate that
he as Mr Maroga telling me something different from what was conveyed to me?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: The board was still at the – was present at the Eskom offices,
because this was more than a one day board meeting, and I was aware that they were
sitting in the boardroom next door. So when I got this letter and I hear the fierce

24

interchange between the Chair and the CEO I thought I wanted to consult with the board
to get their view.
So I went to the board, I asked Maroga not to be present, because I wanted the
board to be able to express their views as the board itself and I asked, I said at the
preface I said I am going to ask each and every one of the board members to give me
their view on whether – on what happened and whether Mr Maroga had indeed offered
to resign, and whether that offer, the board's view had been communicated to him and
what their view was, had he resigned.
And I did say that if there is any person sitting here who has a different view to
another board member they must express their different view.

There will be no

repercussions for that, but I want an honest account from all those board members.
I went round the board and each board member confirmed that Mr Maroga had
offered to resign. That they have discussed it, that they felt that they will accept that
resignation, and the board – there was a fair amount of anger within in the board itself
and some board members were more frank and said that they felt that he was not
performing to par as CEO.
So I then left the boardroom and I requested – I had also requested that the
head of the legal department in my department come to head office plus my advisor, my
ministerial advisor and I asked them to bring in a senior counsel, because I wanted legal
guidance, because this is a tricky matter, and Michael Katz was called in. I consulted
with him. I consulted with my Deputy Minister and with my legal advisor and my political
advisor.
Both the Deputy Minister and myself were of the view that the relationship
between Mr Maroga and the board had deteriorated very significantly and that this final
denial that he had resigned was actually – was the final nail in the coffin as it were.

25

I did not want to get involved in this matter as a Minister, but I did feel that we
need to get a very quick solution. So then I requested my Deputy Minister who does not
have my executive authority, but my Deputy Minister who is an exceptionally – who is
able to engage very well with people…[intervenes]
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Who was your Deputy, Minister?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Minister Enoch Gordon Ngwana.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I asked him to meet with Mr Maroga and say listen is there not
an elegant way of dealing with this?

It is clear the relationship has broken

down…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Just one second. When you were listening to board members give
you their accounts of what had happened, was your Deputy Minister with you or not
really?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I cannot recall. I think he was. I think – I cannot recall.
CHAIRPERSON: You cannot recall.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, I am sorry.
MS BARBARA HOGAN:

But you know, he and I worked very closely together

and…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: If he was not there I assume you would have briefed him?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: He would have been briefed afterwards.
CHAIRPERSON: Before asking him to speak to Mr Maroga?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Definitely.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

26

MS BARBARA HOGAN: He was part of the discussions with senior counsel. We spent
quite a long time discussing all of the ins and outs of this. And so we – I was just simply
trying to facilitate a process, but not to instruct the board or to take sides in this matter,
but I wanted the Deputy Minister to convey that, you know, there was almost what one
calls an irretrievable breakdown in the relationship between the board and Mr Maroga.
The Deputy Minister then went ahead, I think arranged to meet with him. There
is some confusion how often he met in the court papers there were differences, but in
anyway, Mr Maroga – I was told that Mr Maroga would like to think about that. The Deputy
Minister proposed to him saying let us not make a big public event out of this. Let us find
a dignified way for you to move on, let us talk about the modalities of your exit and let me
say upfront, I have never ever had any reason to believe that Mr Maroga was in anyway
corrupt.
He was a very fine engineer. And it has always been regrettable for me that,
you know, the turn of events that finally took place, did take place, because he was not
one of those people who was just there for himself, he truly wanted to serve the country
in his capacity.
So I wanted a dignified exit for him to consider a dignified exit to both help the
board and to stop this whole thing from blowing out of control. Eskom was in too
vulnerable a position to afford this kind of confrontation.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes. Now did Mr Maroga accept, did he accept that he
must, you know, exit the Eskom as you had proposed or as the Deputy has proposed?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: He said that he had to attend a family funeral in Limpopo and
he would come back after that to meet, and he would like to think it through.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Did he come back?

27

MS BARBARA HOGAN:

The Deputy Minister met with him again, which is my

understanding, and he said that he did not want to talk to the Deputy Minister, he wanted
to speak to the Minister.
CHAIRPERSON: This would have been on what date now?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: On the Monday.
CHAIRPERSON: The meeting of the board was it on the 29 th or did it start on the 28 th?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: It was on the Friday – it was on the Thursday, wait, the meeting
of the board was on the 28 th.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: The 29th…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Maroga's letter…[intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Was when I spoke to the board. The 30 th was the Friday when
Mr Gordon Ngwana spoke to him and then it was the weekend and then Mr Gordon
Ngwana met with him on the Monday and he said that he would like to meet with me, not
with the Deputy Minister.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and Monday would have been what date, that would have been
the 30th?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: That would have been the 2 nd November.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, okay. Based on what? We know in terms of when you were
dismissed, it would have been after you had been dismissed?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: It would have been – well you see what had happened in the

28

interim was, the Board was getting extremely edgy. They were not willing and I perfectly
understood that, to allow this process to go on and on all the time. I think they were
uncertain what position I was going to take and they were wanting to ensure that no
incorrect political interference happened and they correct on that. So I had a few
engagements telephonically with the Chair of the Board who was conveying to me the
sentiment of Board members and I was saying to the Chair, I fully understand that
sentiment, but we do need to try and have as dignified and exit – as unproblematic and
exit, because this can affect the reputation of Eskom.
The Board, as I understood in late testimony into court and whatever, the Board
took legal opinion on this from Senior Counsel, informed them that they have the authority
to dismiss or to accept or whatever. So the Board then sent a letter, which I was not
aware of at the time, saying that they have accepted his resignation and even if that
resignation does not hold as accepted, on the basis and I forget the exact words, but on
the basis of ...[intervenes]
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: You are dealing with that on paragraph 70?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Mm?
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Seven zero, paragraph 70 on page 16.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: So yes and stating that incapacity as a manager constituted
further grounds for terminating the relationship, should the resignation dispute not be
settled. Now I had concerns about that second aspect of the letter, because I had
concerns about due process. If you are going to dismiss someone on the grounds of due
process, then due process must occur. I then instructed Head of my Legal Department
to engage with the Chair of Eskom on this matter, to hear their views and they put forward
opinion from their Senior Counsel that what they had done was in accordance with the
opinion that they had received.

29

So when I met with Mr Maroga, I was still had not sight of that letter. Mr Maroga
actually showed me the letter, or informed me of its contents.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: In terms of your statement, just to assist the Chair with
the chronology, you said that you met with Mr Maroga on the 4th November?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: 2009.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: And that is in terms of your paragraph 71, you can talk
to it.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: So then ...[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry. So is this 2009 or 2010 that you are talking to?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: This is 2009.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja okay alright.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I just put the Gama story down and I had another story.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, then I think I was mistaken and I think you were mistaken too,
because you went along when I said the 2 nd November, I do not what Mr Maroga was
going to have done. I said, you would have been dismissed by then because of what you
have said.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But actually if it was 2009, you were still Minister in November.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes oh sorry, sorry.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes sorry I confused matters.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja okay.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: That is the reason why I am highlighting the statement

30

Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes sure that is important ja, ja.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay we are talking about 2000 ...[intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Too much detail for the ...[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: September/October 2009.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: November 2009 okay.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: 2009 was a hard year. So I then met with Mr Maroga.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: On the 4th November 2009 yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes. I met with him and South African Airways gave us a
facility, I wanted to meet with him offsite, privately and we spent about 4 and a half hours
in a meeting and he was insistent that I as a Minister must exercise my leadership. Now
that was being echoed already outside when the Youth League was shouting that there
should be leadership. The Chair of the Portfolio Committee would later, you know, later
in those days talk about the Minister must exercise her leadership.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that being said at that time in relation to the Eskom issue, or just
in general?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: The Eskom issue, the Eskom issue and Mr Maroga's issue. I
made it clear to him and I was not being harsh, but I said, it is not on my authority to
intervene in this matter. It is a matter for Corporate Governance and that is why I am
trying from behind the scenes to resolve this matter. I said that I was surprised at that
letter and that I would ask my department to look at the second part of that letter from
Transnet around and if the view was that it was incorrect, I had Eskom to rescind that
part of the letter. But he was absolutely, I can say arrogant and saying, Minister you must

31

exercise your authority, your leadership, you must affirm that I am the CEO. I said to
him, look we can set in a process of mediation on this matter. He said, no I am not
interested, you must exercise your leadership. I offered him arbitration, he said no, you
must exercise your leadership. At the end of that ...[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: What was your understanding of what he was meaning by insisting
that you must exercise your leadership?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: That I must exercise my executive authority to confirm that he
had not resigned and to confirm him in the position as CEO of Eskom.
CHAIRPERSON: In other words, to resolve or decide the dispute between himself and
the Board about whether he had offered or not offered to resign?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: He was insistent that he remained the CEO and he wanted me
simply to affirm that that he was the CEO of Eskom. We spent nearly 4 and a half hours
there. My leader advisor was next door and the Deputy Minister, because he only wanted
to speak to me on his own. And you know, finally I had to say to him, you know I have
offered you a dignified exit, I have offered you mediation, I have offered arbitration,
beyond that I cannot go. We then finished the meeting. I contacted the Chair, the Chair
– the Board had been quite anxious about my meeting with Mr Maroga, but I did say I
needed to hear him out. But they had already issued that letter without my knowing at
that point.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: The letter that you are referring to it is where the Board
has confirmed?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: That he resigned.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: That he resigned yes.

32

MS BARBARA HOGAN: But they had accepted his resignation and if that was not held
to be a resignation, it was on the basis of incapacity and whatever.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Of incapacity.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I then contacted the Chairman of the Board and told him what
had taken place that I had not been able to effect – have any effect on the process and
that in my opinion the Board had to do whatever the Board saw fit and how they were
advised to do.
President Zuma was not in the country at that time, he was abroad.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Who was acting?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: The Deputy President Motlanthe. The next morning I went and
I briefed President Motlanthe about everything that had taken place. I also briefed him
about my concern and unease about the particular letter. But I briefed him that the Board
was going to go ahead with whatever processes, because I had withdrawn as trying to
facilitate a resolution on the matter.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: What was the reaction of President Motlanthe?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: President Motlanthe he just said, you know you need to do
what you need to do here. He did not try to intervene. There was – the Board and the
Chairperson had called a meeting of all the senior management at Eskom Head Quarters
the next day.
CHAIRPERSON: Would that have been the 5 th November then? Your meeting with
Mr Maroga was the 4 th?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, yes there is a mistake – there seems to be a mistake here
in my affidavit, that is – it says the 4 th, but I believe it was the 5 th. I would have to double
check that.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Are you referring to paragraph 72?

33

MS BARBARA HOGAN: 72 yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: So that you can check that, but according to you it was
the next day, it must have been the 5 th?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja I think it was that, we must just check that.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now if you go to paragraph 73 you are now talking about
that meeting which was called by the Chairperson?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, yes that is right yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Would that meeting had been on the 5 th or the 6 th?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: That meeting must have been on the 5 th.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Was it after you have briefed President Motlanthe, a day
after you had briefed President Motlanthe or the same day?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: The same day.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: The same day oh yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Alright, tell us about that meeting which was called by
the Chairperson of Eskom?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: It was called and the Chair had announced that Mr Maroga
had resigned. In the media this had become a big issue and it was not good for Es kom,
had Mr Maroga resigned, had he not resigned, what was going on, why is the Minister
not confirming, not confirming. It was becoming a bit of a political football out there. So
the media was invited to a press conference immediately after informing Senior
Management, so they were out in full force to hear what the Chair of Eskom had to say,
to clarify what the status – what the position was.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Ms Hogan before you go into the details of what
transpired in that meeting. Mr Chair I am told by Mr Pretorius who appears to be very

34

thirsty that it is now 11:15.
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, it is 11:15, we will take the short adjournment and resume
at 11:30 thank you.
HEARING ADJOURNS
HEARING RESUMES
(MISSING AUDIO)
MS BARBARA HOGAN: And he said what, you know, what do you think you are doing.
He said it a little bit stronger and I said, what? He said, Maroga, you have got to stop it,
tell them that they have got to stop now.

I said, the President, you know they

...[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, just go back to that sentence, tell who to stop that?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Board that they must now.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh okay.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I tried, you know, to speak, to reason, to find out what it was
all about, he said "I do not have time, I am in transit through the country I am on my way
to Mozambique, you can call me, you know like in a half an hour's time, or whatever and
we can discuss further." I tried to phone him and he just never answered my calls.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: When you say "him" are you referring to the President,
the ex-President?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I informed – that was the ex-President yes.
CHAIRPERSON: This was still on 5 November?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes. This was as the processes were unfolding in Eskom. I
spoke to the Deputy President who was the Acting President at the time and I said, I have

35

been giving an instruction from the President of the country to stop a process and short
of just to find him, I am bound to, you know, it was a very confusing situation. I have
never – I think it is very difficult when a President just issued an instruction and I did not
have any knowledge if the President had any further matters which he could not disclose
with me. You know, I had no insight into why this instruction was being issued. So I
phoned Mr Godsell and I said to him, I have just received this call from the President and
he is saying that this process must be stopped. Mr Godsell said, but we are in the midst
of the process, I have just informed the senior management, you know, we are shortly
going to go before the media, what do I say? I said, I honestly do not understand it and
he said, well if this is the President giving us instruction, you know we cannot ignore. So
he then cancelled the media briefing.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes. Were you able to arrange the meeting with the
President in order to address these issues and surrounding Mr Maroga?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Well you know it was – then everything went absolutely
ballistic, you know from Parliament to every commentator, it became the story of the day,
you know, who is, you know this is Eskom, you know, who is the CEO, who is not the
CEO, why are we called to press briefing, why is the Minister not informing us who is the
CEO, why is the Board quiet. It was a complete and utter nightmare and should never
have taken place. I requested to see the President and finally I was told that I could meet
with him on the morning of Friday the 6 th November at his official residence. He gave me
10 minutes there. He said he has not got time, he is going to a meeting, a MEC meeting
or something and he will meet with me at lunchtime.
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, I am sorry Ms Hogan. Is it correct that at the time that the
former President gave you that instruction, the Deputy President Motlanthe was Acting
President, is that correct?

36

MS BARBARA HOGAN: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: You know that places anyone in a dilemma, because actually
the President of the country is President Motlanthe at that time, as an Acting President.
You know it is through me, it is through the Board, it is through all of us into dilemmas
where you did not want to be disrespectful to a President. But you know the issues were
so profound from a Constitutional point of view that you did not have time to even think
this through.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes you are still relating the 10 minutes that you were
offered by the President in the meeting of the 6 th November. Did you discuss all the
issues that you wanted to discuss with the President?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: The President merely said that, you know that he would meet
with me, for a fuller meeting at lunchtime.
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry. I have just been given a note by my registrar that when we
started, the person who is in charge of the transcript was not in his place and that there
was no recording happening until he walked in. I suspect that that means there is some
evidence that was lost. But I suggest that what we do is, we proceed and then at a certain
stage somebody must listen to the evidence as recorded and see what we may have lost
and then we can cover it later on. Would that be fine Mr Mokoena?
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: That would be fine Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Mr Chair I did indicate to Ms Hogan that she is very
strong, since she has commenced her evidence, either we get the lights out, or the Chair
gets stuck in the lift and now it is the transcription. She must be very powerful.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I am one crisis of energy [laughter].

37

CHAIRPERSON: I do not think that she will take responsibility for all of those things.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: You may proceed.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank you, let us proceed.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes and then did you finally meet with the President?
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry again.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes when I met with the President at breakfast ...[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry again. You talked about the lights going out yesterday. But
I do feel like there is no air-con now, I do not know whether everybody feels it seemed to
be quite warm.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: That is the reason why I am saying that she is very
powerful.
CHAIRPERSON: Those who – the relevant technicians should attend to that, but we do
not want too much – we do not want it to be too cold please. Okay alright thank you let
us proceed.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: So I had a 10 minutes slot with the President at his official
residence. He said he could not meet with me longer and that he would meet with me at
lunchtime, you know during the – in his "C" meeting or whatever it was that was attending
in Kempton Park. I then went to Kempton Park and I got no call to see the President at
all and it really was very bad, because that was the only story that was really out there in
the public domain. The consequences for Eskom, you know, Ratings Agencies, not that
we are governed by them, but you know this is a company that was facing real financial
constraints, it did not need this kind of turmoil.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Did you finally meet the President?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes I was – you know I registered my disapproval with
Jessie Duarte who was in the President's office and various people that I was not getting

38

to see him and it was urgent. So finally on the Sunday I met with him at lunchtime and
he said, this is the deal.
CHAIRPERSON: That would happen what date now Sunday?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: The Sunday the 8th.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: The 8th November 2009?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja 2009. And I met with him and he said, this is the deal. He
said, I will confirm Maroga back as the CEO, he will come back to his office and he will
then write his story and the Board will write their story and then I as a Minister will
determine the merits of each case.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: And how did you react to that?
CHAIRPERSON: So the approach of the former President was, let Mr Maroga write his
version about this issue of him offering to resign allegedly and let the Board write their
version on the issue of Mr Maroga allegedly offering his resignation and then you, as the
Minister in charge of Public Enterprises would look at the two versions and decide, that
is what he was saying to you?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay alright.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I was not happy with that and I explained my concerns about
that that did not really advance us much further and you know, how could I adjudicate
something like that. But I said, if that was the President's view, I was not going to convey
that as my view to the Board, or to Mr Maroga. If the President wanted that kind of
instruction, he himself should take ownership of that instruction. Bear in mind I was
mindful of, you know, of just the executive authority of a Minister, of a President and I felt
under these circumstances, I could not assume responsibility for an act which I felt, fell
out of the purview of my executive authority. So the President agreed. So we agreed

39

that I would speak to the Board who was sitting waiting to meet with me at a hotel in
Johannesburg and I would convey to the President's decision, not my decision and he
would meet with Mr Maroga.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So when you said to him that you would want him to take ownership
of the proposal that he was making, what you meant was that you did not want to go to
Mr Maroga and the Board and put this as your proposal.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: You wanted to be able to tell Mr Maroga and the Board that this is the
proposal from the President or instruction whatever it was.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes because you know I would be implicating myself in terms
of that instruction, because I felt that instruction was invalid in terms of my powers and
authority. I could not just issue a thing saying, Mr Maroga comes back this gets – what
done whatever. It would really be inferring with the Board process and the process of a
CEO.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes. Flowing from that answer, on paragraph 77 line
number 2 you say that:
"He really, meaning that President, he really did not want to
discuss anything, he just informed me that he had decided that
Mr Maroga will return to Eskom over a period of time."
Then you proceed with the lines in which you have now discussed with the
Chair. But what I want to know is that, at the time when the President told you that, was
he aware that the Board had already decided and accepted Mr Maroga's resignation?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Oh yes, oh yes he was completely aware of that.
CHAIRPERSON: Let us go back just a step to what Mr Mokoena just read from your

40

statement to you. Can I hear coming from you, can you just speak naturally that
exchange?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes. I met with the President at the venue at which the
meeting was taking place, and he just sat down and he said, "this is the deal". You know
I was wanting to discuss the merits you know, I wanted to understand why he had issued
an instruction that the process must be halted. He was just wanting to discu ss the deal.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now, part of the reason why I said I wanted to hear that coming
from you is that, from what Mr Mokoena read, it appears that you say in the statement
that he said "I have decided".
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So you had not put it that way.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja.
CHAIRPERSON: So I want to know if that is what he said "I have decided this is the
deal."
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja he just informed me, "this is the deal".
CHAIRPERSON: Okay alright continue.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: What the Chairperson is trying to get out of your mouth
is not that "this is the deal" what exactly did the President say to you? Did he say to you
that, "I have decided Mr Maroga will come back" or did he simply say that "this is the
deal"?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Well he informed me that this is the deal, that is what I
understand you know, this is his decision.
CHAIRPERSON: You see some of things you might have a different appreciation of
them and we as lawyers and judges might have different you know understandings of
them.

41

MS BARBARA HOGAN: Oh okay.
CHAIRPERSON: And sometimes you might not understand why we particularly want to
hear certain aspects. But one of the issues that arise is whether, what he put to you was
put to you as subject to Mr Maroga and the Board accepting the proposal, or it was put
to you as that is it, they must take it or leave it. I want to understand whether this was –
this was a proposal, or this was, take it or leave it, or there might not been enough time
to understand those nuances?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I was not sure, but the fact that we had agreed that I would
inform the Board and he would inform Mr Maroga, probably leads me to believe that this
had not been discussed beforehand and this was – he was first informing me that this
was what he wanted done.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: And you told the President that he must take ownership
of that proposal and what then happened?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: He was happy to do that and we agreed that I would inform the
Board, but inform them that it was his instructions and that he would call Mr Maroga and
inform Mr Maroga.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Did you meet with the Board?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes I met with the Board later that afternoon.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: What was the Board's reaction to that?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: The Board was ...[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, maybe before you tell us about the Board. You said that
you had difficulties with playing the role that the President was proposing you should play
in the resolution of the dispute and you said that was because of your awareness of your
executive authority and so on. Can you please elaborate more on that, before we get to
hear what the Board said?

42

MS BARBARA HOGAN: In terms of Corporate Governance in a company, the
relationship between the CEO and the Board is one of accountability and as a Minister,
as a shareholder it is, you know the corporate governance framework does not allow the
shareholder now to intervene in that relationship and you can try and mediate and sort
out things, but you cannot make a decision about what must now take place.
And I felt that the President was trying to put me in a position where I would now
give an instruction, which I knew the board absolutely did not agree with and that I was
forcing the board to take on a decision which they had made very clear to me that they
were not happy with.
So I said, you know, I conveyed this to the President. You cannot interrupt, you
know, a process and I said if that be the case then this must be seen to be a presidential
instruction, not my instruction and he agreed.
CHAIRPERSON: I would imagine and you must just tell me what you think. I would
imagine that how strongly the board felt about the correctness of their view and ho w
strongly Mr Maroga may have felt about the correctness of his view should not have been
a factor on whether or not you should play that role. I am mentioning that, and you must
just give me your comment, I am mentioning that, because is the position not that when
you are in a leadership position you have to take sometimes decisions that people will
be unhappy with? Assuming that you had – it is a role that in law you could play?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Assuming that it was a role that I could play, I did play that. I
met with Mr Maroga. I asked my Deputy Minister to meet with him. I spent hours and
hours with him. I offered him mediation. I offered him arbitration. He was insisting that
I affirm that he is a CEO and that I could not do, because the board had informed him,
informed me each individual board members had informed me that that was not the case.

43

And it would be very indelicate of me to have then intervened in the process of
saying no, Mr Maroga is still the CEO, despite what you told me he is still the CEO.
CHAIRPERSON: If legally you had the authority to play that role, are you saying that
you would still not want to play that role, just because the board felt strongly and you
might have to find – make a finding that they would be unhappy about?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: It is a hypothetical situation that you are posing to me. You
know from a corporate governance point of view when a relationship between a board
and a CEO has broken down irretrievably as I was a witness to the shareholder, I think
would seldom want to intervene and tell the board this must happen, even though you
are not happy with it.
It would not lead – it would not have a good outcome for the company from a
fiduciary point of view to impose someone that the board felt that they did no longer have
the confidence in. So hypothetically I was never presented with that situation, but
hypothetically after having consulted each individual board members and ascertained
their views I would have been reluctant to have moved in there and said this is how it
goes, because what I could see down the line is that Eskom in trying to resolve the
immense operational and financial problems that were facing them, that these would
continually be a sight of contestation, given the lack of a harmonious relationship at that
time.
So I did not think that it was solving the problem. The problem had to be
resolved satisfactorily, not in a way of just insisting this and nothing else.
CHAIRPERSON: Your preference – was your preference that, that dispute be resolved
by an outsider? A mediator, an arbitrator?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Well my preference was that the matter should have been
resolved satisfactorily when it arose between the board and the CEO. When a CEO

44

contested that I then had suggested various deadlock breaking mechanisms that are
available in terms of the Labour Relations Act and whatever, mediation all sorts of things
to try and sort that out, but Mr Maroga simply would not go along with that.
And so my preference then was for the board, given that I as a Minister had
gone to the – as far as I could in those circumstances as I saw in terms of my discretion
as far as I could, I then said to the board they must now handle this process going
forward. My attempts at mediating this conflict is certainly not working.
CHAIRPERSON: So in other words your position at the time that the President – the
then President made his proposal or decision your position was that the resolution of this
matter should be left to the board?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: And in later, you know, during the two judgments Mr Maroga
went to court on these issues and on appeal. And both courts held that the CEO position,
although the Minister has authority to appoint at an AGM the CEO at Transnet, in effect
the employment contract is with the board and therefore it is not with the Minister and
therefore the Minister does not have the powers to intervene in that employment contract.
And in fact that was the advice that was given me by Michael Katz the senior
counsel when I first met with him when this all blew up. He said there are two aspects
here, one is Mr Maroga's position as a Director and Mr Maroga's position as a CEO. So
the courts confirmed my position on that.
CHAIRPERSON: But your position at the time that the former President spoke to you
and said you must decide which version is correct in effect. Your attitude was let us leave
this matter to the board to do what it believes it should do?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

45

MS BARBARA HOGAN: But I undertook to convey and to try and pursued the board to
go along with the President's decision on this matter. I was not trying to stop him, but I
wanted it to be conveyed that this was a presidential decision and not my decision.
CHAIRPERSON: Does that suggest that if the board and Mr Maroga had accepted this
proposal, if it was a proposal, does that suggest that you would have been prepared for
purposes of having finality on this matter to play the role that had been suggested by the
former President?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, because the board had consented to that process then.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Can we now move to what was the reaction of the board?
Remember that you have now had…[intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: The meeting with the President. He has conveyed what
he has conveyed to you. Then you met with the board, what was the board's reaction?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: So I met with the board. Of course it was Sunday, they were
trying – they were anticipating that on Monday they would have to, you know, speak to
South Africa and explain who was the CEO and what was going on and whatever and I
conveyed the President's view of how this must be resolved.
They were dismayed and I had to do a lot of persuasion and talking through and
whatever, and Bobby Godsell then said look in the view of the fact that the President is
trying to resolve this matter, we will take it in good faith that he is, but on one condition
that we meet with the President ourselves and put forward our point of view on this matter.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Did the board meet with the President?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: They did, they went ahead and I arranged for them to meet
with the President later that afternoon. They met with the President and the President

46

had met, well I was uncertain, because I was told that the President had previously met
with Maroga, but I know that the President at a certain stage met with Mr Maroga.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now what I want to know is that if the board, you know,
before I go there, what was the outcome of that meeting? What was the agreement
between the board if any, with the President?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, the board said that they would go along with that process
on condition that if when Mr Maroga is reaffirmed as a CEO that he immediately takes
leave, because it was creating problems in the organisation, you know, in the office, no
one understanding from the staff, who is now running the organisation and whatever.
And so the President agreed to that.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes, and if…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry Mr Mokoena, just for the sake of completeness, were you
present at that board meeting, the meeting of the board with the President or not really?
MS BARBARA HOGAN:

No, I felt that the President needed to meet with the

board…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Without my intervention.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: But were you informed as to what transpired at that
meeting?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Well, yes. The board then came back later that evening and
we met, because we then had to discuss the modalities of how this is conveyed to the
public, how it is conveyed to the senior management, you know, how we take this process
forward to defuse a really confusing situation.

47

ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Now before you finalise I think my – the question that I asked caused
some problem between you and Mr Mokoena. You, I think he was still wanting to
establish from you in terms of what was reported to you by the board.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Okay.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: The full extent of what was agreed between the board and the
President.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja.
CHAIRPERSON: You have said that one aspect was that Mr Maroga would take –
Maroga would take special leave or something, but I think you had not said as to what
would then happen in his absence, or until when…[intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: He would take special leave…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: That special leave would be.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Sorry, I interrupted you.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, until when, how long that special leave would be and what would
happen in the meantime.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: He would take special leave in order to prepare his statement
to me and the board equally would produce a statement, but the board wanted him not
to be in office until the issues of whether he stays on as CEO was properly resolved.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: What I fail to understand and what brings confusion on
this aspect of the evidence is that, if the board believed that their decision was correct
and that they were acting in the best interest of Eskom at the time, and they have made
a decision, why did they agree with the approach which was proposed by the President?

48

MS BARBARA HOGAN: I cannot speak for the board, so I cannot exactly say what was
their motivation. I know that I had to engage very robustly…[intervenes]
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: With the board, because the board was not happy with this
decision, but finally as Mr Godsell said, you know the President is trying to resolve this
matter, it would be disrespectful of us not to take the President's views into consideration
and therefore, you know, we are all trying to resolve this very difficult matter, and so
therefore we would take the advice of the President and this is what we will do.
CHAIRPERSON: So it was – it seems to have been a way of reaching some compromise
by effectively making a suggestion of something as that should be incorporated into the
President's proposal? The President's proposal did not originally include that Mr Maroga
should take special leave?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But they made that suggestion to the President that if you include this
as part of the proposal we would accept.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: I understand the issues of respect and you know how the
board wanted this issue to be resolved. I am asking this question simply having in mind
the duties and obligations of the board members, with reference obviously to the
company law and the PFMA that they have taken a decision…[intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Sorry, could you just speak a bit in the mike, it is going, the
sound is going, sorry.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes. I am saying that I was asking this question, you
know having in mind the duties of the board members in terms of the PFMA, the

49

obligations in terms of the company's Act, they have taken a decision where they have
actually accepted a resignation. I take it that it was in terms of a resolution of the boar d.
Now how does one deal with the proposal post facto of the President whereby Mr Maroga
has to come back? That was what I was trying to interrogate with you.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes. You know they accepted it, there was a lot of reservation.
They accepted it in good faith, but they were not happy, but, you know, the one condition
was that he does not come back to office, because it was too confusing.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: And then do you know as to why did Mr Bobby Godsell
resign?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Well, as the board had come back and reported to me about
their discussions with the President and as we were having discussions on the way
forward about how this process would now evolve I got a telephone call from the
President to say that Mr Maroga, you know, this deal is off, because Mr Maroga does not
accept it. That he…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Did not accept the proposal?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, the proposal that he be placed on leave.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, he still wanted simply to be affirmed…[intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja.
CHAIRPERSON: As the CEO and did not want to take special leave?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: And at that point, I remember one board member just, you
know, the board was furious, and this board member said, you know, who is he to think
that he has got these powers to do this to us? You know, Mr Maroga, who does he think
he is? And then the board was really angry, because they themselves against their better
judgment had gone along with this process in order to try and resolve a situation that was
not good for the country or for Eskom.

50

At that point Mr Godsell said I am now resigning. I can take no further
responsibility for this. The other board members were wavering whether they should
resign or not, and my understanding was that they felt they would go on and we would
have to try and resolve the situation.
It was enormously embarrassing for me as a Minister…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry before you proceed, when the President called you while
you were getting the report from the board and said Mr Maroga was not accepting the
proposal did he put forward what should then happen in the light of that?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja, he just said the deal was off.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Mr Maroga does not accept it.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: In the context of that answer you also say in paragraph 80
that you had a heated argument with the President on this matter. Are you able to share
with us the details of that debate?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Paragraph?
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Paragraph 80, 8-0.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Well that is the following day.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: The following day I was going to Eskom. I was en-route to
Eskom…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, I am sorry, before the following day, for the rest of that day is
there anything of importance that happened?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Well this was already past midnight. Remember I had spoken
to the President at lunch time. There had been meetings with the President in Pretoria,

51

discussions going forward, so the board – you know, we had all stayed awake right until
very late at night.
CHAIRPERSON: Had Mr Godsell withdrawn after saying he was resigning or did he still
say on and not implemented his…[intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: No, he said he was resigning. Mr Godsell had earlier in that
confrontation with Mr Maroga before me said that the stress of the situation of being Chair
at Eskom has caused him to have shingles, it affected him physically not only just
mentally and I could see that he just saw no way forward on this matter. So…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, so he withdrew from the meeting after saying he was resigning,
or not? So did you go on without him with the board?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I cannot remember.
CHAIRPERSON: You cannot remember, okay.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: But he did not – I cannot remember him trying to influence, but
in any way, we then decided that we would meet the next morning to discuss, you know,
what was going to be conveyed, how we were going to manage this, you know, we were
left once again without a decision.
So on route there the President phoned me.
CHAIRPERSON: That is now the following day?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: The following day.
CHAIRPERSON: The 9th?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: On the following day I was on route to the Eskom headquarters
when I received a phone call from the President to say that he had given Mr Maroga

52

permission to return as the CEO of Eskom. Of course we had a heated discussion on
that.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Well tell us about the heated discussion.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Well I said, you know, Mr President, that is not going to solve
anything and you now using your authority above the board to resolve this matter and
this is not going to solve any problem. Nevertheless he said I have given him the
permission to go back as CEO over the board.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now when the ex-President said that he had given
Mr Maroga permission to return to Eskom, do you know whether he had engaged with
the cabinet before he had actually given that instruction?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: No, this was the weekend.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: And do you know whether did he at least engaged with
the board prior to him giving Mr Maroga that decision to return back?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: No, he had spoken to me. This was the first the board had
heard of it.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now may I also refer you to – and on the same paragraph
you are talking about – you are saying that on the same day, if you look on paragraph
80, I think it is the fourth line, you say that on the same day 9 September, you meant – it
should be amended to say November, am I right?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, it is 9 September on the same day, 9 September.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC:

No, no, if you look at the top the first line it

says…[intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: It says 9 November 2009.

53

MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, it is 9 November, yes it is 9 November.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now when you say the same day it should be 9 November
not September?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Correct.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Am I right?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Correct.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: If you may…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: What paragraph is that?
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: It is paragraph 80, page 19.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: It is 9 November, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: We will correct that. Thank you.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC:

It should read, Mr Chair, on the same day,

9 November 2009.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC:

Mr Maroga arrived at Eskom accompanied by

Jimmy Manyi and a few others and went upstairs to his office. Now…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Let her tell us about that.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Let us hear from her.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I was not there at the time, because after I had received that
information I returned to my office and I…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, you were on route to Eskom headquarters?

54

MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, but once the President had indicated that Mr Maroga was
to return I returned to my office…[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now…[intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I needed to consult with my staff, but there were some of my
staff members already there at the offices, because they were awaiting, you know to give
me advice and whatever on the process going forward. So I was informed that a small
posse of people kind of brought – accompanied Mr Maroga through the building, into the
lifts and up to his office and that Mr Manyi was part of that.
That I understand is incorrect, so I withdraw that. Mr Manyi had a lot to say
about this via the black management forum and you know, the persecution. Once again
I was being accused of persecuting a black Executive, but I am quite happy to withdraw
that Mr Manyi was part of that posse.
I checked with Eskom itself, the Chair of the board, who was later the Chair of
the board and he says it was Anumsa collective that escorted Mr Maroga back to his
offices.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: That was the reason why I was reading that part of the
statement in order to refer you to the second file of EXHIBIT L, if you may turn to
page 634?
CHAIRPERSON: So in effect you are saying to the extent that your statement in
paragraph 80 includes that Mr Manyi was there when Mr Maroga returned to Eskom that
is not correct, Mr Manyi was not there?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.

55

ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: So as it relates to the sworn affidavit of Mr Manyi which
was submitted to the Commission, you will see on page 634 he in fact dispute your
paragraph 80 and that is as per paragraph 3 of that affidavit?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Correct.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: So that is exactly what you are saying you were mistaken
about?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Let us go back to the telephone call from the President when you were
on route to Eskom. Did what the President tell you then, what was your understanding
of what the way forward was then?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I had no understanding. It was part of the reason why I wanted
to go back to my office to discuss this matter through with my Deputy Minister and others,
because this was now a very serious crisis.
CHAIRPERSON: But on the face of it, it seems to me, and you are free to comment, it
seems to me that unless you tell us something else that happened that might have a
bearing on this, it seems to me that what you were told on the phone by the former
President amounted to saying Mr Maroga was going to continue as CEO of Eskom and
there was nothing really to be done about – as far as the President was concerned, about
the board's view that he had offered to resign and they had accepted that. But having
said that I think I must say that should not necessarily mean that he did not have in mind
that the board could do whatever it considered it had a right to do. In other words if it
decided that it would dismiss him it may well be that he was not excluding that, but the –
what he said to you just seem to say look, Mr Maroga will continue as CEO and then the
board must decide whether they accept that or they decide to do whatever they de cide.

56

MS BARBARA HOGAN: That is one possibility, certainly. Another possibility is that the
board would resign and I had seen the exasperation of the board members and that
would have been an even further disaster.
CHAIRPERSON: Of course you must be right that there would be a risk that if the board
was not prepared to accept that Mr Maroga was to continue as CEO and that they would
therefore see this as the President taking the side of Mr Maroga, that they could then
resign. That must have been a logical possibility.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: It would have been perceived that the President had taken
the side of Mr Maroga.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Ms Hogan may I refer you to Annexure N, you will find
it on page 370. You will see that it is a letter dated the 9 th of November addressed to
you and signed by Mr Maroga. Are you there?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Do you want me to speak to this letter?
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Please, maybe in all fairness to Mr Maroga, read the
contents of the letter and you can comment about what is written there.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, on the same day that Mr Maroga returned to his office,
he issued a letter addressed to me and the Eskom Board, and CC ’d, obviously to the
Board, the executive committee of Eskom, all managing directors of Eskom, the
Minister in the Department of Energy, the Portfolio Committee in Parliament, of Public
Enterprises and the Portfolio Committee of Energy in Parliament but it was addressed
to me. It said:
"Dear Minister, I wish to affirm the following with regard to my
status as chief executive and director of Eskom.
1. I remain the chief executive and the director of Eskom.
2. The shareholder at the highest level have confirmed that any

57

action regarding my status as chief executive and director of
Eskom, must be requested formally and granted by the
shareholder. I have affirmed that no request has been formally
lodged and none has been granted.
3. I have been told that all unauthorised actions taken by the
Board of Directors since the 28 th of October 2009 are not
rescinded.
4. I am at work in my office in Megawatt Park.
5.

Everyone should cease and desist from any action or

communication that undermines the confidence in Eskom and
demoralises the employees during this critical time; and
6. As a director I will fully participate in all Board activities."
And then it ends off:
"In the interest of Eskom and the country, I am continuing the
leadership process that is transparent and collaborative, as well
as moving forward with the vision I have outlined, and the
changes I intend to make to build the Eskom required for this
critical economic developmental stage of our democracy.
Your sincerely PJ Maroga, the chief executive of Eskom."
m

And this letter was written by Mr Maroga after the ex-President having said

that he has decided that he must return to Eskom?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Well my understanding of the shareholder at the highest
level, he was referring to the President yes, and the President confirmed with me that
he had given him the permission to return.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes, do you wish to comment any further on this letter

58

MS BARBARA HOGAN: Well you know this letter was almost a declaration of
independence of the Board and of the Minister, and saying from henceforth I will only,
any action taken against me will have to – or taken in relationship to me will have to
be taken with the ascent and consent of the President.
It was a complete flouting of everything relating to corporate governance in
Eskom and in any company, and a completely arrogant, a complete arrogance about
his position, the Board, what he was saying, and you know it is in this last paragraph,
that plan that he had for taking Eskom forward, which constituted the heart of the
criticisms of what the Board had, that he will now implement that plan.
It was in effect a CEO who had gone rogue completely, on the understanding
that the President would back him. When I received this letter, the Deputy Minister
and I were completely angered ... [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, before you proceed, I do not want to disturb your train of
thought, is it your understanding that whatever Mr Maroga says in his letter he had
been told, which it stipulates here, is it your understanding that he seems to say he
was told by the shareholder at the highest level or could he – is your understanding
that it might mean he has been told by other sources?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Well my understanding is that the President confirmed
certain aspects of this letter. Firstly the President had con firmed that Maroga remains
the chief executive officer. Now the second part where he says the shareholder at the
highest level, in other words the President, has confirmed that any action regarding
my status as the chief executive and the director of Eskom must be requested formally
and granted by the shareholder.
Now which shareholder is he referring to? Is he referring to the President or
to me? But he ... [intervenes]

59

CHAIRPERSON: [Indistinct] did you get an impression that there might have been
private meetings between the President and Mr Maroga?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, and that impression, it is in paragraph, I forget which
paragraph here but when I was making arrangements through my office for the
President to meet with Mr Maroga, you know after that Sunday meeting.

The

housekeepers, because you went through the housekeeper, then the housekeeper
said but Mr Maroga has already been here.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: I think it is paragraph 77 on page 18.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja paragraph 77, he said but Mr Maroga has already met
with the President, you know, is he coming again? And I sent an SMS to Mr Maroga
and it said it appears that this meeting with the President is no longer necessary, and
I really did it in good faith. And in his court application Mr Maroga then said that I had
lied to him, that he need not go and see the President.
So this is all very confusing to me but it does seem to appear that at some
stage the President did meet with Mr Maroga, and when the President spoke to me,
he confirmed that he had given Mr Maroga the permission to return to Eskom.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now you have received Annexure N, what happens?
How do you react to the contents of Annexure N?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: N yes. As I was saying the deputy Minister and I were just
completely devastated by this you know.

It was clear that the President had

encouraged a CEO to believe that he was above company law, above corporate
governance, and only saw himself as personally accountable to the President.
CHAIRPERSON: And did this letter, as you understand it, mean that according to
Mr Maroga any disciplinary action, for example against him, would have to be
sanctioned by the President?

60

MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: So that you know it was out of the hands of the Board, it was
now – and then the defiance, I will continue with my strategic plan even though the
Board is unhappy with it, I will continue regardless of the Board.
Now Chair, I had already gone through the previous mon ths, June, July,
August, September with matters relating to Mr Gama in that same year, and I had
previously experienced how the President saw his role.
We then come to an issue with the CEO of Eskom, and the President goes
further than he did with Mr Gama, and he actually just installs someone in the position
as CEO, does not even consult with me. And my view at that point was that my
executive authority had been completely taken away by the President. I did not see
my way clear of that, you know, or you know what was to happen in the future, and I
was of the view that because I no longer enjoyed the confidence of the President or
could exercise my responsibilities as a Minister, that I should resign.
I thought that I should address Parliament, because as a Cabinet Minister I
am accountable to Parliament and ... [intervenes].
CHAIRPERSON: Now just before you proceed, just in terms of timelines, just help us
there. Are you now talking as around the time of the Eskom issue or are you talking
in terms of an earlier time?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I am talking ... [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: About thinking of addressing Parliament.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I am talking about the cumulative effects of the President's
behaviour throughout that whole year, and you know there are other things which I did
not bring to the Commission because I can talk a lot about all sorts of other things.

61

But the Eskom thing, situation, finally crystallised to me, the extent to which the
President himself would just assume authority on which he did not have the authority,
but would just act outside of his broad mandate.
And I decided that I would resign. I made arrangements to go to Parliament.
I requested of the speaker ... [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry I know you would like to tell us at this stage yes, but I am
trying to make sure that my interruption does not put Mr Mokoena into a problem in
terms of what he wants.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Not at all Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: I asked you a question at a time when he had asked you a qu estion
about what happened after this letter, and you had begun to tell us that you had a
discussion with your deputy. Then I asked you a question.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: After you had answered my question then you began to tell us about
... [intervenes]
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: How you were feeling. So maybe you should first finish.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Oh well that is what I am doing.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, that is what you are doing.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I am responding to Adv Mokoena's leading.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Okay, no, that is fine. That is fine.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Oh here. Oh what did I do afterwards?
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: So I then decided to resign. I requested formally of the
speaker for a slot in Parliament. The reason why I did that is that firstly a Minister is

62

accountable to Parliament, but secondly my experience of what was happening, filled
me with a foreboding of what would come, and I felt that it was necessary that in my
going I at least give an alert of how the President was exercising his authority to the
country at large.
And this is not an easy thing to do but you try, as a Cabinet Minister, and I
saw many Cabinet Ministers, you will protect a President, you will defend a Pres ident
because a President is often under attack for all sorts of reasons. You do not act
without integrity on that. But it was my view at that stage that the President was
showing very unfortunate signs of imposing his authority without due consideration of
his office and of the constitutional framework in which we operated, and I felt it was
necessary to do that.
Anyway what in effect happened, do you want me to go on?
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: The deputy Minister was also enraged and he then went to
Luthuli House.
CHAIRPERSON: This is now after ... [intervenes].
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I did not go down to Cape Town yes.
CHAIRPERSON: After you had discussed with your deputy the letter Annexure N.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: That came from Mr Maroga.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: And he was enraged, and he went, he knew that there was
a meeting taking place, of the senior office bearers, and he went and he requested
permission to address, as I understand it, and he presented them with this letter from

63

Mr Maroga, and said do you see what you have done to the President.
I then received a call from the President. No, Mr Maroga then received a
telephone call from the President to say that he must vacate that office immediately,
and that he would only go back on my authority. Mr Maroga then vacated his office
and I went down to Parliament to make a public statement about the position of the
CEO in – of Eskom.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Before Mr Maroga vacated the office, did Mr Yunus
Shaik play any role in these issues?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, yes. Mr Yunus Shaik had been appointed, he is a
labour lawyer, and has done extensive work with the CCMA as a mediator, and in
Minister Alec Erwin's time he acted as a labour advisor to the ministry and the
department on labour related matters. And when I was there he was dealing with a
grievance from a particular employee arising from a time before me. And when the –
when all of this first started up at the – you know when Mr Maroga first denied that he
had resigned, the director general at the time suggested that we bring in Mr Sheik
because of his labour expertise. And I can confirm, in 2010 Mr Shaik and other people,
via the CCMA, managed to resolve some very serious labour disputes both in Eskom
and in Transnet. So I can confirm that.
So we briefed Mr Shaik, the DG briefed Mr Shaik, and his view was that he
was quite horrified, and his view at that point was that the President had disregar ded
all protocols on corporate governance. And he undertook, because of he knew the
President, to speak to the President and try and persuade the President that you know
this was not acceptable. And he would on occasion phone me and you know, talk
about what he was trying to achieve.
Anyway at that point we had to now discuss Mr Maroga's departure from

64

Eskom. This was not going to be any now that you know Mr Maroga will come back
and disciplinary proceedings, this had been a total flouting of authority. And the
President was aware that this was taking place, and I requested the acting Chair of
Eskom, Mr Mpho Makwana, to meet with Mr Maroga and with Mr Shaik, to negotiate
an exit package.
Mr Makwana later gave evidence in court that he had been informed that
Slakela Kaunda from the President's office would be present, I am not sure, she was
not present but there was a three-way thing; you know Mr Maroga, myself, the
President and of course Mr Shaik and Eskom. And after they had met I received a
report from Mr Makwana, the Chair, to say that they had met for several hours with Mr
Maroga, and Mr Maroga simply refused accept any notion that he should exit, any
discussion an exit package.
I understand that Mr Shaik lost his temper at that point and said who the hell
do you think you are, etcetera, etcetera with apologies for language, and Mr Maroga,
and then the negotiations ceased and it was then – you know I then announced that
Mr Maroga, his resignation had been accepted and he had left Eskom in Parliamen t.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: But he left ultimately?

Mr Maroga left Eskom

ultimately?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes he left. Then phoned me, it was probably in the next
day or two, asked me when I was going to allow him to return, and I said there is not
that possibility, ja.
CHAIRPERSON: And this was around what date now?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: This was around – his letter is 9 November.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, this – I addressed Parliament on the 12 th of November,
so it must have been the 10 th and the 11 th , and it must have been around the 11 th of

65

November. We could get the exact date from the court records.
CHAIRPERSON: Now when you announced that in Parliament, that he had resigned,
was that because you – were you basing that on the alleged resignation offer to resign
that the Board had said it had accepted or was the position that after all the discussions
involving Mr Yunus Shaik, there as a fresh resignation from him?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I simply said he was no longer CEO, as I recall. I have not
got the speech before me, but that he was no longer the CEO. I did not want to go
into details.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh okay. Oh you did not say he had resigned, you said he is no
longer the CEO?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: CEO of Eskom ja.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, alright.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja, and I spoke about the politicisation of boardrooms in my
speech. Incidentally I had requested that the President be present when I gave that
speech, he was down in Cape Town at that point, and he did not make himself
available but the deputy President sat there.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Do you know as to who was appointed after Mr Maroga
has left?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Then later Mr Brian Dames, who was a senior manager at
Eskom, he was also a nuclear engineer but long time in Eskom, was appointed as the
CEO, but in the interim I requested and was allowed to appoint Mr Makwana as both
the Chair and an acting CEO. It is not good ever, to have the conflation of those two
roles, and my view at that time was that Eskom had gone through severe crisis. No
one knew who was a manager, no one knew who could give authority on anything, it
was totally bewildering in the staff and it was all rumours and things flying around, and

66

Mr Makwana is an exceptionally calm man with a huge amount of gravitas and integrity,
and I felt more than ever he needed to hold that organisation together, to see it through
a very rocky time, and that his stint as a director of Eskom for a fair amount of time,
had enabled him to understand what was necessary going forward. And he very, very
graciously accepted to do that, and that is a huge task, to try and bring calm and
stability back to an organisation that had been thrust into crises, and I will always be
grateful to him for the role that he played.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now Ms Hogan you have also testified, I mean you
have now testified about what you referred to as improper and irregular interferences
in relation to the appointments of the Boards and the CEOs of the SOEs, with reference
to Transnet and Eskom. Now how does SAFCOL feature within that?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I am sorry.
CHAIRPERSON: Before you start on that can we go back a little bit. You began to
say that after your deputy had gone to Luthuli House with the letter from Mr Maroga,
you received a call from the President, but if I recall correctly before you could tell us
what that call – what the President said to you, you jumped to talking to saying th e
President called Mr Maroga. You understood that he had called Mr Maroga and said
what he said. But I think if I am not mistaken you did not complete the picture by telling
us what the President said to you?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: My apologies for that. The President did call me afterwards
and said that he had instructed Mr Maroga to vacate the position, and that he had told
Mr Maroga that he would only go back on my authority.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

67

ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes, now before you also go to SAFCOL can we clarify
something on paragraph 85.
CHAIRPERSON: 85?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: 85.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: 85 on page 19.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: 19, on page 85?
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Just to complete the picture about Mr Godsell.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: What then happened about him?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: After the discussions had been final, well had been finished
with Mr Maroga, Mr Shaik also phoned me to give, you know an account. The Chair
at first phoned me, of Eskom, and in that he said he had reported back to the President,
and the President had said to him that I should consider requesting Mr Godsell to come
back into the position as Chair. We all know that Mr Godsell is a longstanding
businessman with a huge amount of executive experience and Board experience and
knowledge.
On those grounds I then contacted Mr Godsell and I said this had been a
request, and he said he would like to think about it. I saw in the media that the
President denied later on, that he had made that request of me.

Mr Mantashe

contacted me and said that Mr Godsell must not be asked that, and he put it as crudely,
if a black guy has got to go then a white guy must also go. And the President then
phoned me and said that Mr Godsell must not come back. I pointed out that Eskom
would now have an acting Chair and once again there was no response to that.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: When you – when Mr Mantashe spoke to you and said if a black

68

guys goes the white guy must also go, this was at a time when you had already
conveyed to Mr Godsell, the President's request that he should come back. Did you
then have to go back to Mr Godsell?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: I had to. It was extremely embarrassing but Mr Godsell
appreciated the fact that if the President did not have confidence in him it would be
futile for him to go back. That is not a way to treat, once again I say that is not a way
you treat members of a Board and the Chair of a Board. COSATU issued a statement
in support of Mr Godsell you know, and said that he had been one – you know and
spoke of him in very praiseworthy terms. So this was not, you know pressure from the
tripartite alliance or whatever, I do not know what did that but I was grateful to Mr
Godsell and said that he had been one, you know, and spoke of him in very
praiseworthy terms. So this was not pressure from the tripartite alliance or whatever.
I do not know what did that but I was grateful to Mr Godsell for his understanding but
extremely embarrassed.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But of course the fact that the President asked you to ask
Mr Godsell to return as Chair cannot be an indication that the President did not have
confidence in Mr Godsell.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: No, what was conveyed to me by Mr Shaik was that the
President had requested it. The President later denied it, as I saw in media, and the
President phoned me and said Mr Godsell must not come back as the Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: He was – he had in effect resigned and he should stay
resigned.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and then you had to speak to Mr Godsell a second time about

69

the latest developments. Okay, alright thank you.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: I take it that by nodding you are saying to the
Chairperson's question?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Oh yes, sorry, thanks.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Now what seemed to confuse me a little Ms Hogan,
about this testimony, is the last sentence on paragraph 85, where you say that Gwede
Mantashe made a similar demand, that we have not clarified. But the second portion
you are saying that although during this entire episode he had made it quite clear to
me that he did not support what the President was doing. Can you please you know,
elaborate on that and just clarify that issue?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, what I mean there, and I agree it is ambiguous, is that
throughout this tussle with Mr Maroga, Mr Mantashe was saying I am not getting
involved with this. I do not agree with what the President is doing and I am n ot getting
involved, and he did stay more or less right out of that. There was not, you know the
series of statements from the ANC or anything like that. It was only when the issue of
Mr Godsell came up that he intervened.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Well you guess it may or may not well be that it was just a
suggestion that in the light of what had happened it might not be good for Eskom if
one of them continued. It might just have been just a suggestion.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: You now it could have been.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: You know.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, ja.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: There might have been real reasons for that.

70

CHAIRPERSON: And, well one might not know what the reasons were for it, for the
suggestion that if the one goes the other must go, but it may well be that it was not a
bad thing in the sense that if Mr Maroga had been – if the final decision had been that
Mr Maroga must continue, the Board would have felt very aggrieved and maybe, well
not maybe, I think from what you have told us, certainly Mr Godsell would have
resigned, maybe more members of the Board would have resigned than just him.
And then maybe if Mr Maroga left and Mr Godsell continued in circumstances
where it appeared that the two of them had very sharp differences and maybe that is
why there was this big problem, it may be that it would be seen as one of them has
won and the other one has lost, whereas maybe if you say look we do not necessarily
say who is right, who is wrong but just to solve the problem going forward it might be
better to do without both of them. Maybe that might be another way of looking at it.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: It is hypothetical certainly. Another way of looking at it too
is that Mr Godsell had resigned.
CHAIRPERSON: No that is true, yes.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: And so then to ask him to come back might have been
problematic.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja. Thank you.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: On page 20 of your witness statement, from paragraph
88 to page 21, paragraph 92, you are dealing with the issues relevant to SAFCOL.
Can you please take us through those issues and explain to us how they are relevant
to the improper interferences that you have testified about thus far?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, SAFCOL is the South African Forestry Company
Limited. During a period of restructuring and whatever, a large amount, a wide area
of forests that belonged to the South African Government were sold off and SAFCOL

71

is a small component of a larger component.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, I just want to make sure that I do not make the mistake that I
made earlier on in regard to the Eskom issue. Can we – can you just confirm in terms
of timelines when is this SAFCOL issue happening?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: This is now happening in 2010.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank you.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Ja, this is closer to the time that I was ... [intervenes].
CHAIRPERSON: September 2010?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: This is when I was trying to get the Transnet Cabinet memorandum
through and a SAFCOL memorandum.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: This was before the offer to Finland?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: It was?
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Before the offer to Finland?
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, yes, before I was going to go off to Finland yes. I
submitted a Cabinet memorandum for – the AGM of SAFCOL was due on the 28 th of
September. So I submitted a Cabinet memorandum in anticipation of that, to be able
to appoint a Board, a Board to SAFCOL at the annual general meeting, and I – you
know I had been informed by the Cabinet secretariat that the President wanted to
discuss certain matters before it goes to the subcommittee, relating to both Transnet
and to SAFCOL. I spoke to the President telephonically and the President wanted a
CV and more understanding of the person I was appointing as the Chair of SAFCOL.
So I sent two letters to the President, confirming our telephonic conversation,
and attaching the CVs of candidates for Chair of Transnet and of SAFCOL.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Would those letters be Annexure O?

72

MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes, that is correct.
ADV PHILLIP MOKOENA SC: Before we go to Annexure O Mr Chair, I am informed
that it is now lunch adjournment.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No thank you very much. We are going to take the lunch
adjournment.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: And we will resume at 14:00. We adjourn.
MS BARBARA HOGAN: Yes thank you.
HEARING ADJOURNS FOR LUNCH
HEARING RESUMES AFTER LUNCH
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Pretorius?
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC:

Chair, may we interpose with an application for

postponement to be brought on behalf of Mr Jonas who is represented by Advocate du
Plessis and Advocate Norman will handle the matter on behalf of the legal team.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr du Plessis.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for allowing us the opportunity to
interrupt the evidence of Ms Hogan to bring the application. Chair, if I might just introduce
the application by saying that Mr Jonas is clearly committed to the work of the
Commission. He previously testified on 24 August and he certainly wishes to complete
his testimony and to face cross-examination but exceptional circumstances have required
him to request this postponement and he does so on account of his on-going work as
you will have known as the special envoy on investment. As the affidavit shows which
has been filed on his behalf there are effectively three points we wish to highlight and we
do so briefly.

73

First of all, Mr Jonas’ difficulty with the potential date of 14 November was raised
immediately by him when he had heard that this was a problem. Secondly, through his
legal team he sought to raise his concerns in meetings and correspondence and he did
so as he thought best with his lawyers attempting to approach him formally with the
Commission’s legal team. And then on 2 November when it became clear that he had to
bring an application for condonation then he immediately did so and that application was
brought on 6 November and on 11 November the final letter confirmed that the hearing
would be today and I am here today briefed on his behalf.
We would submit that those exceptional circumstances assist in understanding
his difficulty. In October Mr Jonas followed up with the evidence leaders and he informed
them that it was likely that he would be asked – he was informed rather that it was likely
that he would be asked to appear on 14 November. The date had not yet been confirmed
then but it was a possibility and already at that time on 17 October Mr Jonas indica ted
that he did not have his diary with him but he mentioned that he had several pre-arranged
overseas commitments during November. This is the point that immediately he realised
there might be a problem he indicated that to the Commission.
The next day he flew to Copenhagen, on 18 October and while he was abroad
his legal team then received the letter which confirmed that he would be requested to
appear on 14 November and a further letter which indicated that there was a summons
for him to appear and immediately after his return from Copenhagen his affidavit shows
that he then instructed his legal team to highlight that he had two particular concerns with
that date. The first concern was that he was scheduled to attend meetings as a special
envoy for investment in Norway during the week of 5 November and his second concern
was that the further meetings which he had anticipated might in fact be scheduled for
Russia. Those dates had been confirmed and it was possible in other words that he

74

would not be able to be in two places at the same time.
His legal team then on 24 October onwards sought to engage with various
members of the Commission and those as I have said were informal approaches and
they were in an attempt to ensure that the scheduling issue such as it now had arisen
could be resolved and a letter was eventually sent by the legal firm Boqwana Burns
requesting a postponement. That was on 30 October. That letter was sent and is at
MHJ1 in the papers and a letter by return from Mr Mabunda was given the next day on
31 October and it said that we are not able to grant the postponement on the basis of the
discussions that we have had to date.
There were then further efforts by Mr Jonas’ legal team leading up until 2
November again to try and see if there was an informal way in which the scheduling issue
could be resolved and when on 2 November it was made clear to that legal team on
behalf of Mr Jonas that no, indeed a formal application would have to be brought it was
then prepared and it was launched on 6 November and as I say I was instructed to appear
here on short notice in order to honour to the indication that on 13 November application
had to be made.
And so in the circumstances we respectfully submit that there are grounds made
out for the exceptional circumstances for Mr Jonas’ absence, his inability to appear here.
He simply cannot be in two places at the same time. His work before the Commission
as a witness he understands is a vitally important role. He wants to fulfil it properly but
at the same time he is unfortunately dedicated to be part of meetings abroad. Those
meetings are important in the interests of the country. Those meetings are similarly
unfortunately with very many other role players and they engage questions at the end o f
the day are in the interests of the Republic more broadly.
And so he asks for a date for him to appear before this Commission shortly

75

after his return. He returns from Europe on 19 November and he asks for a date shortly
thereafter which will allow him sufficient time to obviously settle back in and have the
opportunity to prepare for the hearing. In those circumstances ... [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I will ... [intervenes]
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, sorry, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, Mr Jonas to the best of my knowledge has really been in the
past helpful to the Commission, has been co-operative and I would therefore be inclined
to assist him. I must however refer to the fact that while on the one hand one appreciates
the commitments of witnesses who may be required to appear before the Commission to
give evidence and the fact that those commitments might make it difficult for them to
appear before the Commission at a time when the Commission requires them to do so,
while one appreciates that and the fact that people have got lives to run and some of the
commitments relate to, in regard to some of the witnesses to the country, one must
balance that against the challenge that would arise if the only way the Commission would
run would be on the basis that every witness must appear before the Commission on a
date that suits him or her. So because then we will not finish within the time that we have
in mind.
So one needs to try and strike a balance and when I postponed the hearing of
the evidence of Mr Gordhan, Minister Gordhan last time when he was supposed to – he
was scheduled to appear before we took the break and I had to postpone it because his
statement had not reached the legal team and implicated persons would still need to be
given time to look at it and see what rights they needed to exercise I did raise the issue
that I hoped that in his case he would be able to appear before the Commission this week
because I fixed then the date of 15 November and I did say that I hoped that he would
try to honour that date and only ask for a postponement if really there were very

76

compelling reasons.
Of course he has since asked for a shifting of that date for reasons that I
accepted and I have shifted that – the date for his appearance before the Commission to
Monday 19 November but already you can see that the unavailability of people who – of
witnesses, maybe Ministers might create problems without one making any suggestion
that they are not making the best effort to make themselves available. So I am just going
to reiterate my appeal and I intend it for even those who are not here but who might be
required to appear before the Commission that everyone should try the best they can to
appear during the dates – on the dates that the Commission allocates and only really
when there are really compelling reasons should they try to get other dates but because
otherwise we just will not be able to function and that is why in a court of law once you
have got the subpoena whatever you are doing, it does not matter how important your
engagement is, your obligation is to appear in court or otherwise approach the court to
get another date arranged.
So there are those concerns and… But I am happy that from what you say it
seems that Mr Jonas’ attitude is any date that we can schedule him for after he has
returned giving him enough time to prepare for the hearing should be fine, you know, and
that is helpful. So I will hear what Mr Mokoena, I think I was told he is the one who will
deal with it on the basis – on behalf of the legal Commission or whoever it is. I understand
that they are not opposing but I think it would be good if we could fix that date today.
ADV DU PLESSIS: We agree.
CHAIRPERSON: And to the extent that the issue of the actual date might not have been
discussed between the two legal teams maybe we can just arrange so that later on after
Mr Mokoena has said what he may have to say when we adjourn we could return to the
matter and then the date can be specified if at all possible. So I will be inclined to grant

77

it but I will prefer that when I grant the application for a postponement we fix t he date.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Not sine die, Judge.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, how ... [intervenes]
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Thank you ... [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Norman, I ... [intervenes]
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: I object [indistinct], thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: I attempted to make you Mr Mokoena.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we agree with the sentiments of
the Chairman as expressed. In fact those are very clear in the correspondence that is
attached to the application, that the legal team has no powers whatsoever to change
dates for any witness and that must be done by the Chairperson because the Chairperson
has given directives and he has scheduled those dates so to the extent then that at least
Mr Jonas has realised that he needed to actually bring a formal application then the legal
team is not opposing the application and, Mr Chairman, a date has been fixed being…
We have already plotted it subject to the Chairperson’s directive.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: That he should come back on 26 November.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: And we have established, my learned friend would confirm
that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

78

ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: That they had communicated with him and he has
confirmed that he is indeed available on that day.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: And may then the Chairperson adjourn the matter to the
26th and that then Mr Jonas be directed to appear.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Before the Commission at 10:00 on 26 November.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I did not ask Mr du Plessis but I should have asked him whether
we should not actually – I should not set aside the summons that is calling him to appear
is it tomorrow?
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Today. Tomorrow, tomorrow on the 14 th.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Yes, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: I think it should be set aside too.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: The application does not say anything about it.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So it should have dealt with that.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Because if it is not set aside it ... [intervenes]
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Then it remains, yes. Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, and
[DEAD SPACE]
CHAIRPERSON: Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence earlier on related to Eskom
so it does not look like Eskom has got anything to do with this load shedding. So I think

79

the summons would need to be set aside ... [intervenes]
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: The other ... [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: I beg the Chair’s pardon.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: The other alternative, Mr Chairman is to perhaps change
the date on the summons to reflect the 26 th but then the only difficulty that is the time
period allowed in the summons ... [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but then you have to re-serve the summons ... [intervenes]
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Re-serve the summons ... [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Why do you want to do that ... [intervenes]
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Then it becomes a problem, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Yes, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now you say that the date of 26 th has been agreed between
both sides ... [intervenes]
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And Mr du Plessis nods in agreement.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that on the basis that he would remain until his evidence is finalised
so if it goes into the next day he would remain. Is that the understanding?
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: He is coming back into the country, Mr Chairman, on 19
November and he has requested in his affidavit to be allocated some time to prepare and
maybe if he is jet-lagged then he can recover from that and we have made provision for
that being the 20 th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd and then coming back then if he testifies on the

80

26th I think what we would try and do because the Chairperson had allocated times for
his cross-examination and ... [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I do not remember that I have allocated the time ... [intervenes]
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Well, at least suggestions ... [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I think I had indicated a provisional view and I was waiting for the
lawyers for implicated persons to indicate – to make their submissions whether that
allocation ... [intervenes]
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: On those times ... [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Would be acceptable and I have never received any submissions to
say whether they are happy with those allocations or they are asking for more so I think
I may ... [intervenes]
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: I may – I had indicated a provisional ... [intervenes]
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: A provisional ... [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Allocation but I had specifically said – invited the lawyers of implicated
persons to indicate – to give me their submissions because the Commission’s legal team
had made their submissions.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But I had never received submissions from them. I got an impression
at some stage that they – everybody seemed to accept those but I do not have
confirmation that that is so.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Have confirmation. We will look into that, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC:

What you could do is I think we will be able to

accommodate if Mr Jonas does not complete his cross-examination on the 26 th we will

81

look into making provision for the 27 th, but he is here ... [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr du Plessis has noted that he will be available until he has
finished ... [intervenes]
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Also on the 27 th?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And then that is the normal rule.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: Until he is released.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Okay. All right. Unless there is something else you want to say
about this.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: No.
CHAIRPERSON: And unless Mr du Plessis has anything further to say I am ready to
make the order.
ADV THANDI NORMAN SC: As the Chairperson pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. All right. Mr du Plessis, nothing? Mr Jonas has brought an
application for the postponement of his evidence that was scheduled for tomorrow and
the legal team for the Commission and Mr Jonas’ legal team have reached an agreement
with regard to the date when he must appear. I am satisfied that I should grant the
postponement, however it is also necessary to set aside the summons that had been
issued requiring him to appear before the Commission tomorrow. The order that I make
therefore is the following:
1.

The summons issued against Mr Jonas for him to appear before the
Commission tomorrow is hereby set aside.

82

2.

The hearing of Mr Jonas’ evidence is postponed from tomorrow to 26 November
2018.

3.

Mr Jonas will remain available for the hearing of his evidence beyond 26
November to the extent that it may be necessary.
That is the order. Thank you. Mr Mokoena?

ADV MOKOENA: Thank you, Mr Chair. Ms Hogan, just before the lunch adjournment
we were just about to deal with the issues relating to SAFCON. You were still laying the
basis and you were at the point where you wanted to also refer us to one of the
annexures, if you may capture that. But, Mr Chair, before Ms Hogan does that, during
the lunch adjournment I did the homework which I was required to do.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV MOKOENA: Pertaining to whether we might have missed some of the recordings
as a result of what transpired just shortly after we have resumed. I was informed that we
might have actually lost four seconds of the evidence of Ms Hogan and I had to look also
at the recording, to listen at the recording. It would appear that what was not recorded
was her responses in relation to page 17, paragraph 73 and 74 and you would recall, Mr
Chair, that is those which dealt with the meeting of Eskom where the ex-president was
saying that Mr Kotzen must stop with the announcement. I am not sure how to deal with
it, whether she must read those paragraphs into the record or she must recount her
evidence on that score.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, you could ask her the question or you can ask her to read what
is in her statement as long as you believe that whatever we missed gets covered.
ADV MOKOENA: Yes. Ms Hogan, just for completeness, in relation to paragraph 73
and 74, you were telling the Chair about the meeting which was arranged by the
Chairperson of Eskom and while that meeting was just about to commence you also

83

received a telephone call from the ex-president.
[END OF AUDIO POWER FAILURE]

84