Voices | The Competition Commission should not ignore the dominance of SOEs

play article
Subscribers can listen to this article
As the conversation about the electricity crisis in South Africa continues, the authorities responsible for the competitiveness of our economy must enter the fray. Photo: @CompComSA/Twitter
As the conversation about the electricity crisis in South Africa continues, the authorities responsible for the competitiveness of our economy must enter the fray. Photo: @CompComSA/Twitter


There were over 700 state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in South Africa, according to the 2012 report of the presidential review committee on SOEs. The Competition Act of 1998 is the legislation responsible for restraining trade practices that undermine a competitive economy. With so many SOEs with a dominant position in their respective markets, the attention afforded them by the Competition Commission has been limited at best.

That ought to change.

There is a need for a neutral competitive framework in South Africa to create a more competitive economic environment. This would necessitate the institutions created by the Competition Act treating all enterprises, irrespective of ownership, in the same manner. In other jurisdictions, such as the EU and the US, this is already the case. In the EU, Article 106 of the EU Treaty expressly outlines the paradigm of neutrality to be respected by regulators.

READ: Mondli Makhanya | Common sense failure

Practically, this means that, as much as private businesses in South Africa – most recently like the laboratories responsible for Covid-19 tests – are subject to the provisions of the Competition Act, so too should SOEs such as Eskom be subject to such provisions.

The Competition Commission has investigated and ruled against SOEs in the past. Even judicial precedent from the Competition Tribunal and Competition Appeal Court involves rulings against SOEs, including Telkom and SAA. The commission is already empowered by sections 3 and 81 of the Competition Act to investigate and make recommendations that bind the state.

READ: Analysis | How Zondo connected the Gupta dots

Section 3 states that the act is applicable to all economic activity happening within the republic, which will necessarily include the economic activity of the state. Section 81 states expressly that the act is binding on the state. These two provisions could be thought of as an equivalent of similar provisions in different jurisdictions, such as Article 106 of the EU Treaty.

The fact that the state’s monopolised electricity market has not been the subject of a market inquiry by the commission is an indictment on the institution.

Through the dominance of Eskom, an SOE, South African consumers have been subjected to much abuse, from blackouts to unending price increases. South Africans have no choice: they either use Eskom or go fully off the grid. Why? Because the market is wholly dominated and monopolised by Eskom through state legislation, regulations and a persistent refusal to license private players in the coal and nuclear spaces.

READ: Eskom: Government must alleviate pain of rising electricity costs

Recently there have been talks to end this monopoly by the executive, through measures such as independent power producers selling energy to Eskom or through the exemption of energy producers of 100 megawatts or less from certain regulatory burdens. There is an environment wherein the entry of new players is necessitated and facilitated by the executive due to the conditions Eskom finds itself in. Yet, the competitiveness of the electricity market in South Africa ought to be the purview of the competition authorities.

A competitive neutrality framework ought to be consciously adopted. Rather than seeing their duty as one of punitively going after private enterprises, the competition authorities ought to consider theirs a broad mandate concerned with the overall health of the South African economy, and a sound understanding of concepts such as “competition” and “contestability”. More often than not, said health is clearly compromised by an SOE, as is the case currently with Eskom.

READ: The Competition Commission gets ‘excessive pricing’ totally wrong

The abuse of dominance or, rather, anti-competitive behaviour, of SOEs is much more dangerous than that of private enterprises. The dominance of private businesses is always threatened by new entrants into the market when those businesses do not enjoy state regulatory or legislative protection. For SOEs, their dominance is not one achieved through market service, but rather compelled by the force of legislation. This means that, even when the dominant company is clearly no longer preferred by customers – think of Eskom or the Post Office that today seeks an enforced monopoly on light packages – there is no possibility of an alternative unless the state again acts to grant some concession here and there.

READ: Competition Commission gets private healthcare reform ball rolling

A competitive neutral framework would see equality before the law between all economic participants in South Africa, private or state. The necessity of a competitive economy in different fields, from electricity to mining, broadcasting, transport, etcetera, is exemplified by the Competition Act. There is a concession, manifested through such legislation, of the necessity for a competitive market.

As the conversation about the electricity crisis in South Africa continues, the authorities responsible for the competitiveness of our economy must enter the fray. A clear policy of competitive neutrality, beyond the outlined legislative provisions, is necessary.

Mthembu is a legal researcher at the Free Market Foundation. The views expressed in the article are the author’s alone.


Delivering the 

news you need

+27 11 713 9001
69 Kingsway Rd, Auckland Park
We live in a world where facts and fiction get blurred
In times of uncertainty you need journalism you can trust. For 14 free days, you can have access to a world of in-depth analyses, investigative journalism, top opinions and a range of features. Journalism strengthens democracy. Invest in the future today. Thereafter you will be billed R75 per month. You can cancel anytime and if you cancel within 14 days you won't be billed. 
Subscribe to News24
Show Comments ()
Latest issue
Latest issue
All the news from City Press in PDF form.
Read now
Voting Booth
Consumers will have to dig deeper into their pockets as the Reserve Bank has increased the repo rate to 7.25%. How will you try to stretch your rands further?
Please select an option Oops! Something went wrong, please try again later.
Rely on discounts
14% - 2 votes
Downgrade lifestyle
79% - 11 votes
Do side hustles
7% - 1 votes