R22 billion pledge in KwaZulu‑Natal shines light on a familiar fault line: money without trust and skills
When Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Water and Sanitation toured KwaZulu‑Natal last week, it did not find the comforting sight of hoses and concrete being laid across parched riverbeds. Instead, it encountered a recurring national headache: bold budget lines and high‑profile projects undermined by doubts about capacity and governance.
- Advertisement -
The committee welcomed uMngeni‑Uthukela Water’s announcement that it plans to invest R22 billion over the next five years. But the applause was cautious. Lawmakers insisted that such an injection of capital will not translate into reliable taps unless the utility can prove it has the technical skills, clean governance and management discipline to deliver.
A cautious endorsement
Acting CEO Thami Mkhwanazi told the committee the utility has the track record to match its ambition, pointing to what he described as an 80% completion rate on recent projects. “We are capable and committed,” he said, according to the committee’s account. Still, MPs pressed him on a litany of governance worries — undeclared interests among board members, what lawmakers characterised as inflated board fees, and costly employee sponsorships — and the minister has ordered a swift probe.
The scene in KwaZulu‑Natal encapsulates a dilemma playing out far beyond one province: how to turn pledges into performance in the face of institutional weakness, rising demand and a changing climate.
Why skills and governance matter — and why they often lag behind the money
Infrastructure spending is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for reliable water services. From the rusty valve in a township to the master plan for a large bulk scheme, success depends on people — engineers who can design resilient systems, managers who can oversee contracts, procurement teams who can buy the right equipment at the right price, and auditors who can sniff out conflicts of interest before funds are wasted.
In South Africa, decades of underinvestment in maintenance and a slow pace of institutional reform have created a “delivery deficit.” Municipalities and regional utilities frequently struggle to recruit and retain qualified staff. Contracts are sometimes awarded without rigorous checks, and the political pressure to show quick results can reward short‑term fixes over sustainable solutions.
That pattern is familiar worldwide. Governments from Nairobi to New Delhi to Brasília have discovered that even large capital inflows — whether from public budgets, multilateral lenders or private investors — can fail to improve services when they meet weak management systems. In many developing countries, a rising tide of infrastructure financing now bumps against the reef of institutional capacity.
Governance red flags are not mere technicalities
The committee’s list of concerns — undeclared interests, high board fees and expensive employee sponsorships — may sound like internal HR issues. They are not. Such red flags erode public trust, distort incentives, and open the door to corrupt practices that quickly eat into project budgets. They also make it harder to attract responsible private partners or secure concessional finance that often requires transparent governance arrangements.
For residents who live with the consequences, the problem is immediate. “It’s unpredictable — sometimes weeks go by with little or no water,” said a woman in a small KwaZulu‑Natal town during earlier community meetings. “When the projects are announced we cheer, but we want the taps to work every day.” That frustration echoes across urban and rural communities where households and businesses pay for a service that arrives inconsistently.
What would make R22 billion more than a headline?
If uMngeni‑Uthukela Water intends to turn its five‑year plan into a durable improvement in service, several practical priorities must be met simultaneously.
- Rigorous skills planning: Staff pipelines and training programs must be funded and linked to measurable outcomes. Successive bouts of hiring and departures create knowledge gaps that cripple complex projects.
- Transparent governance and procurement: Full disclosure of interests, reasonable board remuneration benchmarks, and independent procurement oversight will reduce the risk of funds leaking away from works on the ground.
- Performance‑based contracts: Pay for delivery, not just for projects started. Tying payments to milestones and linking retention to outcomes incentivises long‑term maintenance and system reliability.
- Community engagement and local monitoring: When local users are part of the oversight, small failures are caught early and trust is rebuilt — important in a sector where public confidence is fragile.
- Adaptive investments for a changing climate: Infrastructure must be designed for variability — droughts, floods and shifting demand patterns — rather than old historical norms.
Where the state and partners must step up
National oversight matters. The minister’s decision to fast‑track an investigation into governance concerns is the right move, but it must be paired with constructive support: technical secondments from national agencies, vetted advisory partnerships with universities and engineering firms, and clear timelines for corrective action. Donors and private financiers who fund parts of the R22 billion plan should make transparency and third‑party audits conditions of disbursement.
Questions for a thirsty nation
South Africa is not short of plans, but plans alone will not stop taps from running dry. The real test for uMngeni‑Uthukela Water and for the minister’s probe will be whether they can convert a large investment pledge into sustained, equitable service delivery. Will the utility be able to fix governance problems before they sap the value of the capital? Can it build a stable cadre of skilled technicians and managers capable of running the systems it seeks to build?
The committee’s visit was a reminder that infrastructure is only as sound as the institutions that deliver it. If the R22 billion is to become more than a headline — if it is to provide daily, reliable water to homes and businesses — it must be guarded by stronger oversight, clearer rules and an honest assessment of capability. The stakes are human: clean water is not a luxury in a modern state, it is the basic measure of whether government can meet its compact with citizens.
By News-room
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
