Are Water Restrictions in eThekwini a Constitutional Violation?

The eThekwini Municipality’s decision to impose water restrictions on its residents raises alarming questions about its legality and morality. According to Section 27(1)(b) of South Africa’s Bill of Rights, “everyone has the right to have access to sufficient food and water.” By definition, “sufficient” should at least guarantee an ample supply for everyday needs, which water restrictions may undermine. Yet, eThekwini’s latest move undermines this right by curtailing access under the guise of a “water crisis.” But is there truly a crisis, or are we being fed a carefully crafted narrative by global bodies like the World Economic Forum (WEF)? This so-called crisis echoes the WEF’s “sustainable” goals, which aim to reduce our “water” and “carbon” footprint. But who benefits from these restrictions, and why now, just before the 2030 Agenda deadline?

With infrastructure in dire need of repair, why has the city chosen to install water restrictors instead of addressing the root problem—mismanagement and infrastructure neglect? Plumbers are being hired to fit these restrictors, yet the same manpower could fix leaks, potentially reducing water wastage by at least 20%. Isn’t this contradictory to the urgency they claim to solve? Why are we curbing supply rather than addressing the real issue of leaking systems? South Africans deserve answers—this move goes against their constitutional right to “sufficient” water.

eThekwini residents have been informed of impending water restrictions, set to begin next Thursday. The municipality claims this is necessary because demand far exceeds supply, despite their failure to fix infrastructure that has long been identified as problematic.

During a full council meeting, Ednick Msweli, head of the Water and Sanitation Unit, presented a 12-month water conservation plan. The justification? Rapid urbanisation, ageing infrastructure, and illegal connections. He added that high water consumption rates—268 litres per person per day—warrant these restrictions. But Msweli conveniently ignored that leaks and poor maintenance are largely to blame.

Instead of addressing the root causes, the city has decided to impose restrictions on law-abiding citizens. “We install that in the meter so that we limit the amount of water used,” Msweli explained. These measures will affect everyone, regardless of actual consumption. Yet, they fail to explain how the same city that lacks funds to fix leaks can now afford to install these restrictors.

So, where does this lead? Once the restrictors are in place, will the city remove them once the infrastructure is repaired—if it ever is? Or is this part of a larger, more insidious plan aligned with global organisations like the WEF? Their “sustainable” water management goals conveniently coincide with the municipality’s actions. These global agendas call for reducing water usage, allegedly for the sake of sustainability. But is this really about conservation or control?

This move directly contradicts Section 27 of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees access to sufficient water. The term “sufficient” doesn’t mean minimal, and yet, the city’s plan seems to aim for less than enough. Shouldn’t the focus be on repairing leaks and upgrading the infrastructure rather than limiting residents’ water supply?

World Economic Forum’s “Sustainable” Goals and the Bigger Picture
The WEF’s agenda promotes reducing water and carbon footprints to meet “sustainable” goals. However, critics argue these efforts may be exaggerated or manipulated to control resources. According to the WEF’s take on sustainable water management, the aim is to ensure that future generations have access to clean water. But how much of this agenda serves the people, and how much of it is about shifting control of resources to global elites?

The city’s failure to maintain infrastructure is obvious. What happens after these water restrictors are installed? Will they reverse the decision once the “crisis” is over, or is this a permanent limitation of your rights?

We must critically question this move, especially when it so closely aligns with the WEF’s global sustainability agenda. How does reducing access to water—guaranteed by our constitution—serve the people of eThekwini? Are we to accept restrictions based on a crisis that could be solved by fixing infrastructure? Why now, as the WEF’s 2030 Agenda looms on the horizon? South Africans deserve answers, and more importantly, they deserve their constitutional rights.