Water Bill sparks debate over municipal managers’ legal costs

A contentious debate has emerged from public hearings on the Water Services Amendment Bill, questioning whether taxpayers should fund the legal defense of municipal managers accused of failing to provide adequate water and sanitation services. While communities in Mpumalanga, North West, and Limpopo have demanded stronger accountability for service delivery failures, Portfolio Committee on Water and Sanitation chairperson Leon Basson clarified that the hearings report does not determine that municipal managers facing enforcement action would necessarily have to pay their own legal costs.

Basson emphasized that the final stance on legal fees would depend on the legislation's wording and the applicable legal framework. The hearings, held from August 14 to 30, came amid widespread complaints about unreliable water supplies, aging infrastructure, poor water quality, sanitation issues, corruption, weak oversight, and poor contract management.

Basson stressed that communities expect stronger accountability, enforceable consequences, and effective action against persistent non-performance, including additional boreholes, reservoirs, pipeline extensions, treatment facilities, and household connections. MK Party member Visvin Reddy argued that officials facing personal accountability should not rely on municipal funds to finance their defense, suggesting they should pay their own legal costs and seek reimbursement if acquitted.

However, Reddy cautioned against using municipal officials as scapegoats for failures that are actually political in nature. Labour lawyer and DA MP Michael Bagraim noted that court cases have already placed significant responsibility for water delivery failures on management, suggesting that accountability measures have begun to make a difference.