Following the 2005 fire in Soweto (South Africa) when prepaid meters shut off the water and two children died, the residents of the Phiri neighborhood challenged the use of prepaid meters in a lawsuit. They claimed the practice violated South Africa’s basic water policy of a constitutionally guaranteed right to water.
The High Court ruled in favor of the residents in April 2008 — a jubilant legal victory. The daily water allotment was increased from 25 to 50 liters per person per day. The forced installation of prepaid meters was declared unlawful and unconstitutional.
The case was appealed, however, to the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Here’s a video from Friction Films that describes the struggle up to this point.
(An extended version of this video is available at Friction Films.)
The reversal
The city of Johannesburg won its appeal to the Constitutional Court in October 2009, overturning the earlier ruling. Here’s an example of the Court’s reasoning (emphasis added):
[T]he judgment dismisses the applicants argument that the automatic cutting off of water after the free basic amount is dispensed from pre-paid water meters, [arguing it] does not constitute “discontinuation” (and thus an illegal/unconstitutional act). It makes this finding using the following reasoning: the ordinary meaning of “discontinuation” is that something is made to cease to exist. The water supply does not cease to exist when a pre-paid meter temporarily stops the supply of water. It is suspended until either the customer purchases further credit or the new month commences with a new monthly basic water supply whereupon the water supply recommences. It is better understood as a temporary suspension in supply, not a discontinuation.
Here then, we have the highest court in the land saying that those poor people with pre-paid water meters must not think that their water supply has discontinued when their taps run dry because the meter has cut the supply … they must imagine that it is “temporarily suspended” until such time as they can find the money to buy more water credit or until the next month arrives. Such “logic” … is … an insult both to the poor and to the constitutional imperatives of justice and equality.
Friction Films
I came across the story of water privatization in South Africa through the website of Friction Films, a non-commercial “creative media and solidarity project inspired by social change and people’s struggles and dreams.”
You can view an excellent series of Friction Films videos here. The series begins with an interview of Jackie Dugard, Executive Director of the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI), a non-profit organization.
In discussing the reaction to the Constitutional Court decision, Dugard observes that the poor in South Africa are familiar with disappointment and refuse to be discouraged. This is evident from the quotations provided at the end of the first film in this series.
Our struggles continue to plant the seeds of an alternative. Seeds that can be found in the organized ability of poor communities to both politically and physically undermine privatized delivery at the point of ”consumption.” Not only is this an act of self-empowerment at the most basic level of reproductive life, but it provides the foundation upon which the majority of South Africans can pursue demands for policy and structural changes in the ownership, management and distribution of water and other basic services essential to life.
Dale T. McKinley, activist, Anti-Privatisation Forum Coalition against Water Privatisation
Whether the corporate can privatize water, they will not stop the poor from drinking.
This world is ruled by economists who take away poor people’s water so that they can make profits.
After all, the struggle continues and still there will be resistance.
Jennifer Makoatsane, Applicant in Mazibuko Case, Phiri Concerned Residents Committee
Related posts:
Water privatization: An investment bonanza
The Cochabamba water wars
Water privatization in South Africa: Prepaid meters
Resources:
Image source: Denver Post
Constitutional Court rules against Phiri, Anti-Privatisation Forum, October 8, 2009
Unconscionable .