While the national state of disaster is over, the energy crisis isn’t Photo SANSA
South Africa – The government’s national state of disaster, announced in February, to deal with the energy crisis has been ended. Not even two months later Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Thembi Nkadimeng, confirmed its termination.
The energy crisis continues.
Since the state of disaster was announced, not much has changed. Apart from having lower levels of loadshedding during the EFF’s national shutdown, the energy crisis prevails with south Africans coping with stage 4 loadshedding.
In a media briefing on Wednesday afternoon, Nkadimeng explained the government is satisfied with the measures introduced under the state of disaster. They are sufficient enough to equip the government with the tools it needs to address the crisis. However, many South Africans would be puzzled with this statement as the measures are not known.
Measures? What measures?
All that occurred under the state of disaster was the tours of the various power station the Minister of Electricity, Kgosientsho Ramokgopa, undertook . Ramokgopa made matters even more confusing when he stated the Energy Action Plan (EAP) and appointing a new minister of electricity was one of the measures implemented under the state of disaster. The EAP was presented in 2022 and reiterated as a plan in January while the minister of electricity was a position announced during the cabinet reshuffle. Both events are not tied to the state of disaster.
Another big measure that was implemented, according to Ramokgopa, was Eskom being granted an exemption to speed up the Kusile Power Station’s return to service. However, this was done outside of the Disaster Management Act. Once again raising the question as to why the state of disaster was actually needed.
Parks Tau, deputy Cogta minister, defended the state of disaster by saying it came at a time when loadshedding was at its worst. Although it was terminated, he stressed the state of disaster was under constant review and could be implemented again. Litigation was also a factor to end the state of disaster with OUTA and others ready to take the matter to court.
When all is said and done, it seems like critics were right. Government had the resources capable to handle loadshedding. Implementing a state of disaster brought no new measures to the table. With or without it, we are in the very same position – the dark.
