An overwhelming majority of people who responded to JoburgCAN’s public submission campaign believe Eskom’s proposed electricity reductions would unfairly punish paying residents and businesses for failures within the City of Johannesburg and City Power.
JoburgCAN encouraged residents, businesses and other affected stakeholders to comment on Eskom’s notice of intention to reduce, interrupt or terminate electricity supply to certain bulk supply points linked to the City and City Power’s unpaid electricity debt.
Eskom invited public submissions through a formal consultation process under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). The process gave residents, businesses and other affected parties an opportunity to explain how the proposed electricity reductions would affect them before Eskom takes a final decision.
Eskom initially set a deadline of 17 June 2026 for objections before extending the public participation period to 17 July following considerable public pressure, including from JoburgCAN.
Eskom plans to reduce, interrupt or terminate electricity supply at certain bulk supply points serving Johannesburg as a credit-control measure to recover unpaid debt from the City and City Power. A decision is expected by 28 July.
JoburgCAN’s analysis of 293 responses submitted through its public participation form found that 262 respondents, or 89.4%, agreed that electricity interruptions would unfairly punish paying residents and businesses.
More than three-quarters of respondents also warned that the proposed action could threaten public safety, disrupt essential services and cause significant harm to Johannesburg’s economy.
JoburgCAN executive director Julia Fish said the responses showed that residents understood the seriousness of the City’s debt to Eskom, but rejected electricity interruptions as a debt-recovery mechanism.
“Residents are not saying that the City’s debt should be ignored. They are saying that Eskom must pursue the City, City Power and those responsible for the financial failures instead of using paying customers as leverage,” Fish said.
“Many of these residents have paid their municipal accounts every month. Prepaid customers have already paid for every unit of electricity they use. Punishing them because the City has failed to transfer revenue to Eskom would be both unfair and counterproductive.”
Of the 293 respondents, 234 provided personal written comments. More than half of those comments explicitly stated that the respondent was a paying or compliant customer.
The written submissions reflected deep frustration over corruption, poor billing, weak revenue collection, financial mismanagement and a lack of accountability within the City and City Power.
Respondents also warned that electricity reductions could force businesses to close, destroy jobs, interrupt water and sanitation infrastructure, disable traffic lights and security systems, and place hospitals, schools and vulnerable residents at risk.
Several respondents described households that depend on electricity for oxygen machines, nebulisers, refrigerated medication and other medical equipment.
“The consequences would extend far beyond lights going off in people’s homes. Johannesburg’s infrastructure, healthcare facilities, communications networks and local economy all depend on a stable electricity supply,” Fish said.
“Damaging the businesses and households that currently pay their accounts would weaken the City’s revenue base even further. That makes the proposed approach self-defeating.”
Only 67 respondents indicated support for Eskom taking credit-control action. However, the written comments showed that some of these respondents supported Eskom recovering the debt without necessarily supporting widespread electricity reductions.
Respondents proposed several alternatives, including ring-fencing electricity revenue, allowing customers to pay Eskom directly, implementing protected or split-payment systems, taking legal action against responsible officials and introducing external oversight of the City’s financial management.
JoburgCAN said the proposals demonstrated that the public was not asking Eskom to abandon debt recovery, but to use measures that target the institutions and officials responsible.
“There must be consequences for the failure to pay Eskom, but those consequences must fall on the responsible decision-makers and institutions,” Fish said.
“Johannesburg residents cannot continue paying twice: first through their municipal accounts and again through failing services, damaged businesses and the threat of electricity interruptions.”
JoburgCAN will use the submissions to continue pressing for transparency over the City’s debt, a credible repayment plan, the protection of electricity revenue and clear accountability for how money collected from customers has been managed.