DEVELOPMENT-SOUTH AFRICA: Could Water Meters Be Unconstitutional?

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Steven Lang

JOHANNESBURG, Dec 28 2007 (IPS) - More than 300 residents of Phiri, one of the poorest suburbs in Soweto, demonstrated outside the High Court in Johannesburg earlier this month to show support for a campaign to have pre-paid water meters declared unconstitutional. After a three-day hearing, the judge announced that he would make his findings known early in 2008.

Merely getting to court to have their case heard was already a victory for Lindiwe Mazibuko, Grace Munyai, Jennifer Makoatsane, Sophia Malekutu and Vusimuzi Paki, the five applicants who had been struggling for more than three years to have their day in court.

A David versus Goliath court drama has set the five unemployed applicants in a class action suit against three respondents: the City of Johannesburg, Johannesburg Water – the city’s water utility – and the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry.

Residents of Phiri have demanded that the recently installed pre-paid water meters be replaced with a system similar to that which existed before 2004, when residents paid a monthly flat rate of about ten dollars for all their water requirements.

They have also called for the amount of free water to be doubled from the current level of 25 litres per person per day.

While this case directly concerns only five individuals in Soweto, the most populous black settlement to be established under apartheid, it could have far-reaching consequences for the whole country because it will determine how the constitutional requirement of the right of access to sufficient water should be applied.

In February 2001, then water affairs minister Ronnie Kasrils announced that all households should receive a free basic water supply of six kilolitres per month. This decision was based on section 27 of the Bill of Rights, an integral part of the national constitution, which says that everyone has the right of access to "sufficient water".

Further legislation refined the minister’s announcement to provide for six kilolitres of water per household each month, or 25 litres of potable water per person per day. The legislation did not define what it meant by a "household", nor did it offer any details on how the new requirements were to be applied.

Faced with an enormous amount of bad debt from residents who did not pay their water bills, Johannesburg Water decided to install pre-paid meters so that people would have to pay before receiving any water.

In order to comply with the minister’s announcement, the water meters were set to allow each household to receive six kilolitres of water every month free of charge.

In terms of the local regulations, the new system could only be implemented with the written consent of each homeowner. Johannesburg Water sent officials described as "facilitators" to each house in the area to secure signatures from the heads of individual households.

Some residents claim, however, that the new system was not properly explained to them and that they were deceived into signing the consent forms.

The first applicant in the Phiri case, Lindiwe Mazibuko, said in her affidavit that, "The facilitator told me unequivocally that he would merely replace old and rusty equipment. He did not tell me that the existing flat-rate water system would be affected. He specifically did not mention anything to me about installing a prepayment water meter system."

Wim Trengove, an advocate representing the Phiri residents, said that Johannesburg City had not consulted with his clients about the installation of the pre-paid meters. He accused the city of imposing its decision on the residents and of threatening to cut their water supply if they did not co-operate with it.

Trengove also said that the pre-paid system was applied in a discriminatory manner because it was not imposed in the more affluent suburbs of Johannesburg where residents can consume as much water as they need, and only pay for their consumption after receiving a monthly bill.

One of the difficulties of using pre-paid meters to comply with the statutory free six kilolitres of water per month is that it does not take into account the number of people living in each household. The figure of six kilolitres is based on a calculation of eight people per household using 25 litres per day.

The Coalition Against Water Privatisation, a non-governmental organisation supporting the Phiri residents’ campaign against pre-paid meters, found in research conducted in 2004 that there are 16 people in the average Phiri household.

Twenty people live in the house owned by Mazibuko’s mother. None of them has a job so they all have to survive on her mother’s pension grant of 120 dollars per month.

The Mazibuko household normally uses up its free basic water supply by the middle of the month, and since they cannot afford to purchase tokens for the pre-paid meter, the water supply is automatically disconnected.

In affidavits submitted by the respondents, a number of Phiri residents said they were very pleased with the pre-paid meters.

A councillor for Ward 46 in Soweto, Enoch Vusi Mtshali, stated that pre-paid meters were properly demonstrated to residents in several meetings, and that most people appeared to be very happy with the new system. He said in his submission, "I believe that the prepayment water meters are benefitting the community."

Bruce Lebethe also submitted an affidavit that might have been influenced by the fact that he is a Johannesburg Water employee. There are four people in his household.

"My household uses six to seven thousand litres of water per month. Normally we go and buy extra water for 20 rand (three dollars) each month. This is much cheaper than the amount that we were previously sent statements for by the municipality and now we can also budget for our water costs," he said.

In the court of public opinion, most people appear to be sympathetic to the cause of the Phiri residents, but they also acknowledge that that it might be difficult practically to accede to their demands.