Eskom profits rise again but tariff hikes remain the real story:
While experts concede that national power utility Eskom has made a turnaround in terms of efficiency and management, with its third quarter financial update pointing to a second-consecutive year of profits despite selling less electricity, tariff increases remain central to the story.
Eskom’s year-to-date revenue from March to December 2025 reached R273.7 billion, up 3.4% year-on-year. Its full-year forecast projects revenue of R355bn, a 4.1% improvement on 2025.
EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation) is expected to hit R95bn, while profit before tax is anticipated to come in slightly higher than in 2025, at R26bn. Profit after tax is expected to be R2bn higher than the R16bn recorded in 2025.
But while political economists Dr Dale McKinley and Dr Sam Koma told the Mail & Guardian that several factors lay behind Eskom’s improved performance, both warned that expensive electricity and continued state bailouts risked entrenching an unsustainable model.
McKinley said tariff increases were the primary driver of Eskom’s profits, noting that South Africa’s electricity prices had risen by more than 150% over the past two decades.
“We’ve gone from some of the cheapest electricity in the world to some of the most expensive. This has predominantly been due to mismanagement and corruption — largely contributing to a heavy price we have been paying.
“It is not simply Eskom which has made things very difficult for most residents and other customers hit by increases, including those relying on prepaid electricity. Local municipalities should also take full responsibility,” McKinley said.
He said that if the National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Eskom had been properly managed and efficiently run over the past 20 years, “we would have had much fewer increases”.
“Had we also diversified our energy mix over a long period and had planning, we could have brought prices down.
“Among the vast majority of the reasons we are in this situation is because of corruption, mismanagement and wasteful expenditure,” McKinley said.
“We essentially saw the gutting of the management capacity, skills levels, inefficiency of running plants, lack of technical expertise, tenderisation — all the things that have led to the problems.”
The impact of the hollowing out Eskom during state capture was, he said, “tantamount to the running down of the public utility”.
“If your energy utility is being run into the ground, it’s not going to compare well with other countries,” McKinley said.
“There is still too much reliance on tariff increases and public bailouts, with adverse consequences for the taxpayer, who is constantly providing more money.
“Eskom became far too comfortable, relying particularly on coal, state contracts and being bailed out constantly.
“There has been no consequence management being implemented, saying a great deal about Eskom, our political leadership, management and governance of our state-owned enterprises.”
On the implementation of Eskom’s turnaround strategy, which has led to improved profitability, Koma said the plan had focused on improving electricity generation to curtail excessive load-shedding over the past three years.
He also cited the appointment of senior executives with the right experience and capabilities “to turn around the utility, plus a stable board, among others”.
Concurring with McKinley, Koma said Eskom’s improved revenue was largely due to tariff increases. “Admittedly, Eskom has had a weak balance sheet for over 10 years, recording massive financial losses.
“It was not able to break even and make profit. Due to systemic governance lapses, unsustainable debt and political pressure not to implement the Nersa-approved tariff increase in 2022, electricity costs imposed by Eskom have become unbearable and expensive,” Koma said.
He said that “has contributed to many private companies shutting down operations and citing huge energy costs as contributing to their business operations”.
Koma said the steep price of electricity appeared to be “a global phenomenon prevalent across many countries”.
“Comparatively speaking, electricity tariffs imposed by Eskom fare much better than those in middle-income countries similar to South Africa, such as Kenya, which has higher electricity tariffs.
“In fact, Eskom intends to contain tariff increases by ensuring a long-term tariff path, as opposed to operating under short-term tariff increases that burden many households, consumers and industries relying on the utility’s distribution of electricity.”
While Africa watches war, the real divide is digital:
“While Africa watches war, the real disruption is unfolding in supply chains, finance, labour and education — dividing the digitally prepared from the rest of the world”.
Global attention remains fixed on oil prices, missile strikes and geopolitical tension. But a quieter, more consequential shift is under way. Beneath the surface of conflict, the systems that underpin the global economy — supply chains, finance, labour and education — are being rapidly restructured. This is dividing those prepared for a digital future from those at risk of being left behind.
For Africa, this moment is particularly significant. The continent is not removed from these shifts — it is deeply affected by them. As economies elsewhere adapt at speed, Africa faces a dual task: navigating existing structural constraints while keeping pace with accelerating digital transformation.
Global instability does not only destroy; it restructures systems, redirects capital flows and redefines economic power.
Nowhere is this clearer than in global supply chains. Trade routes are being recalibrated, shipping costs fluctuate unpredictably and countries are rethinking long-standing dependencies. What took decades to build is being rerouted in months. The result is not only disruption but a lasting shift in how goods, services and capital move across borders.
This shift carries a hidden cost. Insurance markets — often overlooked — are rapidly repricing risk. Regions linked to instability become more expensive, or even impossible, to insure. Investment slows. Capital withdraws. Entire economies risk exclusion, not through policy but through pricing.
Money, meanwhile, is no longer waiting for stability. It is moving ahead of it.
Financial systems are adapting to constant uncertainty. Foreign exchange markets react in seconds, capital increasingly bypasses traditional channels and digital financial ecosystems are gaining ground. Money is becoming more fluid, less predictable and less tied to geography than before.
At the same time, the battlefield has expanded into digital infrastructure. Cyber threats, data control and technological dominance are now central to economic resilience. Trust — in systems, information and institutions — is harder to build and easier to erode.
The most immediate effects, however, are felt in the labour market.
The first casualties of this shift are not soldiers but workers. As uncertainty rises, businesses accelerate automation, adopt artificial intelligence and restructure workforces to remain competitive. Entry-level roles — once a gateway into the economy — are increasingly replaced by systems that operate faster, cheaper and at scale.
This is colliding with an education system struggling to keep pace.
Across Africa and beyond, institutions continue to prepare students for a model of stability that no longer exists. Degrees remain structured around traditional career paths, while demand for digital and technical skills accelerates. Increasingly, people turn to self-directed learning, online platforms and AI tools to acquire skills that formal systems have yet to prioritise.
The gap between what is taught and what is required is widening. Within it, a new divide is emerging — separating those who are future-ready from those entering an economy that has already moved on.
This is no longer simply a divide between developed and developing economies, or capital and labour. It is between those who can adapt to a rapidly changing digital system — and those who cannot.
While global tensions play out in real time, their lasting effect will not be measured only in territory or political outcomes. It will be measured in how economies are reshaped, how systems evolve and how people are positioned within this reality.
The greatest risk is not only that conflict destroys economies. It is that it quietly rebuilds them in ways that deepen inequality, accelerate exclusion and leave entire regions and workforces struggling to catch up.
In this emerging reality, the true cost of global instability will not be measured only in war but in who is equipped to participate in the future — and who is not.
Glodine Makapela is a media relations specialist at OnpointPR and a content contributor focusing on artificial intelligence, digital influence and media credibility. Her work has appeared in TechFinancials (South Africa), Techeconomy (Nigeria) and Smart Security Solutions.
Do not narrate Sobukwe out of history:
South Africa’s 2026 Human Rights Day marked both a symbolic and substantive milestone: 30 years since the adoption of one of the world’s most progressive constitutions. In Kimberley, President Cyril Ramaphosa delivered a keynote address that followed a familiar pattern — celebratory in tone, yet tempered by recognition of enduring socioeconomic problems. Framed under the theme “A Legacy of Courage: Protecting Rights, Preserving Humanity”, the speech emphasised unity, constitutionalism and the need to translate formal rights into lived realities. Yet, as with many national commemorations, what was omitted proved as significant as what was included.
At one level, the president’s address aligned with broader post-apartheid political discourse. It reaffirmed the Constitution as South Africa’s “moral compass”, rooted in the liberation struggle and guiding the democratic project. It also acknowledged persistent inequality, unemployment and poverty, noting that rights guaranteed on paper are not yet fully realised in everyday life. This dual emphasis on progress and unfinished transformation reflects a widely shared understanding: although South Africa has made significant gains since 1994, deep structural inequalities continue to shape people’s lived experiences.
Expanded access to social grants, education and basic services has improved millions of lives. However, these advances coexist with entrenched disparities. Some analyses suggest South Africa’s human rights framework is “normatively robust but substantively fragile”, marked by a growing gap between constitutional ideals and social realities. This tension formed the backbone of the president’s speech and remains central to any meaningful reflection on Human Rights Day.
Beyond this familiar terrain lies a more contested issue: the politics of memory. Human Rights Day is not merely a celebration of democracy; it is rooted in the Sharpeville massacre of 21 March 1960, when police killed peaceful protesters opposing apartheid pass laws. This event, led by Robert Sobukwe and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), forms the historical foundation of the commemoration.
Critics argue this history is increasingly generalised in official narratives. In this year’s address, the president paid tribute to those who died in Sharpeville but focused on collective sacrifice and constitutional progress rather than on specific figures such as Sobukwe. Although the victims were honoured, the political leadership and ideological diversity that shaped the protest received limited attention. For some observers, this reflects not an oversight but a broader pattern in how South Africa narrates its past.
Since 1994, the dominant liberation narrative has largely centred on the African National Congress (ANC). Although this reflects the ANC’s historical importance, it has also contributed to the marginalisation of other movements and leaders. Sobukwe occupies a complex place in national memory. As a key architect of the anti-pass campaign and central figure in the events that gave rise to Human Rights Day, his relative absence from official commemorations raises important questions. Is this rhetorical economy, or does it reveal deeper political dynamics about whose histories are foregrounded?
The choice of Kimberley as the host city adds weight to this issue. The region is closely associated with Sobukwe’s life, including his years of banishment, and lies near his burial site. In this context, the lack of explicit recognition is difficult to dismiss as incidental. Memory is not neutral; the way a nation narrates its past shapes both its present identity and its future trajectory. When certain figures or traditions are absorbed into broader, less specific narratives, it can create a sense of exclusion, particularly among those who feel their contributions are underrepresented.
This critique does not invalidate the president’s emphasis on constitutionalism. The Constitution remains one of South Africa’s most significant achievements, with its commitments to dignity, equality and socioeconomic rights providing a framework for addressing contemporary problems. The president underscored this, highlighting the participatory process through which the Constitution was created and describing it as a “people’s constitution”. He also emphasised the need for a capable, developmental state to translate rights into tangible outcomes, acknowledging governance weaknesses that have hindered progress.
These themes align with broader research on South Africa’s human rights landscape. Structural inequality remains the defining problem, with disparities in education, healthcare and economic opportunity still reflecting apartheid-era patterns. Corruption exacerbates these inequalities by diverting resources and undermining state capacity and public trust. At the same time, high levels of crime, gender-based violence and vigilantism point to what some describe as a declining respect for human life, raising concerns about the social foundations of the human rights project.
In this context, the president’s call for collective responsibility across government, business and civil society is necessary and appropriate. His focus on combating corruption, addressing gender-based violence and promoting inclusive growth acknowledges the complexity of South Africa’s challenges. Yet, even as the speech addressed these issues, the question of historical inclusivity remained unresolved.
The tension between unity and specificity is not unique to South Africa. All nations must grapple with how to construct shared narratives from complex and contested pasts. There is a natural impulse to emphasise common ground — to highlight collective sacrifice rather than ideological division. However, this carries risks. When historical narratives become overly generalised, they can obscure the diversity of experiences and contributions that shaped the struggle. This, in turn, can limit the extent to which different groups see themselves reflected in the national story.
In South Africa’s case, this is particularly significant. The transition to democracy was not the product of a single movement but of a broad coalition with diverse philosophies and strategies. Recognising this plurality is not merely about historical accuracy; it is essential for building an inclusive national identity. Human Rights Day therefore presents an opportunity not only to celebrate constitutional achievements but also to engage critically with how history is remembered.
Such engagement does not require diminishing the role of any particular movement. Rather, it calls for a more expansive narrative — one that acknowledges the full spectrum of contributions to the liberation struggle. By doing so, it can strengthen the unity that official narratives seek to promote, rather than undermining it through omission.
At the same time, perspective matters. The absence of explicit references to certain figures does not negate the broader message of the day. The president’s speech articulated a clear vision of a society grounded in dignity, equality and shared responsibility. It also confronted the reality that many South Africans have yet to experience these ideals in their daily lives.
As South Africa enters its fourth decade of democracy, the legitimacy of its constitutional order will increasingly depend on its ability to deliver tangible improvements. Rights must move beyond legal guarantees and become lived realities, reflected in access to employment, education, safety and basic services. In this regard, the president’s emphasis on implementation and accountability is well placed.
Achieving these goals will require more than policy commitments. It will demand a renewed social contract — one that combines effective governance with active citizenship and strong civil society. It will also require confronting the structural conditions that perpetuate inequality and violence.
Ultimately, the significance of Human Rights Day lies in its dual function: remembrance and renewal. It is a moment to honour those who sacrificed for freedom but also to assess progress and confront ongoing challenges. This year’s commemoration reaffirmed constitutional values, acknowledged persistent inequalities and called for collective action. Yet it also highlighted the complexities of national memory.
If South Africa is to build a truly inclusive future, it must engage honestly with these complexities. This means not only celebrating shared achievements but also recognising the diverse histories that underpin them. Unity cannot be built on selective remembrance; it must be grounded in a willingness to confront the full richness — and difficulty — of the past. Only then can the promise of protecting rights be fully aligned with the responsibility of preserving history.
Bhekamachunu H Zwelethu Mchunu is an academic, historian and rural development practitioner with more than 20 years’ experience across various sectors.
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
