South Africa’s water crisis is not about a lack of resources; it’s about corruption. Photo: Mlungisi Louw/Volksblad/Gallo Images/Getty Images
The Special Investigating Unit (SIU)’s new water sector anti-corruption forum is a critical intervention to confront entrenched corruption across South Africa’s water value chain.
So said Ferrial Adam, the executive director of WaterCAN, a civil society organisation on water rights which has welcomed the establishment of the forum earlier this month.
“But let’s be clear. This forum must deliver,” she said. “South Africa’s water crisis is not about a lack of resources; it’s about corruption. Billions have been looted — R4 billion on the Giyani project alone — and still people in that region have no water. This is a national disgrace.”
Companies like Blackhead Consulting, which is linked to the Rooiwal wastewater disaster and the Hammanskraal cholera outbreak, continue to get state contracts, something Adam said was “criminal”.
For more than a decade, WaterCAN and other water advocacy organisations have called for a body like the forum to be set up.
“Now, it’s here. It must not fail. This forum must have teeth. It must be resourced; it must blacklist corrupt companies, it must enforce procurement rules and it must hold mayors and municipalities accountable. South Africans don’t need more meetings. We need arrests, we need prosecutions, we need convictions. The looting must end now,” Adam said.
Strategic intervention
The forum is a strategic intervention aimed at developing tailored solutions to address corruption risks in the water sector, the SIU said.
“By adopting a risk-based approach, the forum will focus on investigation, prevention and enforcement to safeguard South Africa’s water resources, which are essential for sustainable development.”
The investigating unit noted that the establishment of the water sector anti-corruption forum followed the findings from 14 SIU proclamations related to the department of water and sanitation. “With eight investigations completed and five still active, the need for a coordinated anti-corruption response in water management has never been clearer.”
The forum, it said, brings together a broad coalition of stakeholders, including law-enforcement agencies; chapter 9 institutions; civil society organisations and water activists; private sector representatives and regulators, among others.
“This collaborative model strengthens accountability, closes gaps and implements measurable and actionable prevention plans,” it said. “Importantly, the forum will also hold anti-corruption agencies accountable, ensuring transparency and effectiveness in their operations.”
Among the forum’s key objectives are to support anti-corruption initiatives in the water sector; foster collaboration among stakeholders to combat corruption effectively; coordinate law enforcement efforts to enhance investigative capacity and ensure tangible outcomes, including prosecutions, civil recoveries and administrative actions, according to the SIU.
This builds on the success of other sector-specific forums, including the health sector anti-corruption forum, the infrastructure & built environment anti-corruption forum, local government anti-corruption forum and the border management & immigration anti-corruption forum.
“An independent evaluation of these forums confirmed their effectiveness, noting their role in improving transparency and accountability across institutions, including anti-corruption bodies,” it said.
Recommendations have been made to improve case turnaround times, expand stakeholder participation and enhance prevention initiatives, the SIU said, adding these were key lessons being applied to the water sector anti-corruption forum.
Financial mismanagement
During a briefing to parliament’s portfolio committee on water and sanitation earlier this month, the department gave its presentation on the progress and status of disciplinary hearings and cases related to financial mismanagement, including cases from SIU referrals. The SIU then provided details of its investigations and cases regarding the department.
In proclamation R138 of 2023, one of the SIU’s focus areas is the procurement investigation for the construction of phase one upgrades and the urgent refurbishment at the Rooiwal wastewater treatment works in the City of Tshwane.
The SIU told parliament that the contractor for the first phase failed to perform and eventually abandoned the site, with the municipality terminating the contract in 2022.
The proclamation is limited to only the first contract and, as such, the SIU is not mandated to investigate the procurement of the remaining three contracts at this point.
The unit’s estimated completion date is 31 October and, so far, it has referred four individuals to the National Prosecuting Authority for fraud charges.
In terms of its second focus area on corruption, it has identified 65 roleplayers for “high-level profiling” including officials, private individuals and entities.
So far, nine officials have been red-flagged for further lifestyle analysis due to assets purchased and/or living beyond their means, it said. Twenty-seven were red-flagged for further lifestyle analysis and/or suspicious transactions.
In Proclamation 164 of 2024, the SIU is probing serious maladministration concerning the around the “Drop the Block” project and the contract entered into between the department and Sedibeng Water in April 2016, the “Almost Empty Outdoor” campaign and the appointment of Sedibeng Water as the implementing agent in an allegedly irregular manner for the provision of generic services in 2016.
It is also looking into the “War on Leaks” programme and the alleged irregular appointments of and payments to Rand Water and the Energy and Water Sector Education and Training Authority (EWSETA) between 2015 and 2019.
Investigations are ongoing into the R500 million Drop the Block project. On the R10 million Almost Empty Outdoor campaign, the SIU team found that Sedibeng Water was appointed as an implementing agent contrary to legislation and the department’s policy prescriptions. It said Sedibeng Water had appointed a service provider using a deviation from procurement processes by going through an emergency procurement, which was irregular, among others and the investigation is continuing.
In the War on Leaks programme, where 15 000 young people were meant to be trained as water agents, plumbers and artisans, the SIU said indications were that the appointment of the EWSETA was not in terms of any legislative prescripts or the water department policy framework.
The SIU team is focusing on the authorisation and appointment of the service providers appointed by Rand Water and EWSETA. The approved budget amount was R2.2 billion “but the team has identified that R4.7 billion was paid out thus far, this number is still growing with the SIU’s forensic accounts quantification process”.
A total of R1.7 billion was paid to Rand Water, including R40 million in “unexplained and unsubstantiated contingency fees”. The SIU team identified 29 individuals for high-level profiling in its corruption focus area for the War on Leaks, as well as suspicious transaction reports, in its ongoing investigation.
‘No stone unturned’
Water and Sanitation Minister Pemmy Majodina told parliament that her department would do a thorough investigation.
“We are working with the SIU and we are going to ensure that we don’t leave any stone unturned on issues and matters that have been referred to the department … We have met several times with the SIU and we did not question their findings but we said whatever was referred to us, we are going to investigate and have a conclusion on the matters. We are not going to leave any matter unattended,” she said.
The department’s deputy director-general for corporate services, Nthabiseng Fundakubi, told parliament’s portfolio committee on water that there had been no unauthorised expenditure by the department since the 2018-19 financial year.
The department is implementing a financial recovery plan addressing, among others, performance and discipline/consequence management systems; institutional stabilisation and compliance and financial management.
“These efforts have resulted in an improved internal control environment leading to unqualified audit opinions in both accounts,” Fundakubi said.
There had been no unauthorised expenditure since the 2018-19 financial year, while there had been a reduction in incidents of irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure.
Fundakubi said internal forensic audits since 2019-20 had led to 446 allegations of financial misconduct being investigated, with 326 of them found to be valid. “Most of the disciplinary processes have been completed and the remainder are still in progress.”
A further 73 cases were under investigation and seven cases that had been received recently were still to be investigated.
The resulting disciplinary processes had led to various sanctions including dismissal, demotion, suspension without pay and written warnings.
“These cases resulted in an amount of R1 307 861.87 being recovered through [the] civil recovery processes and a judgment of R27 610 067.17 in favour of the department,” she said.
Sean Phillips, the director general of the department, told the portfolio committee that it had received R459 million as a result of the SIU investigations and the unit pursuing companies for irregular contracts with the department, in particular software firm SAP and technology company EOH.
“Another R77 million still needs to be paid to the department, so the SIU has helped us to recoup more than R500 million, most of which has already been repaid to the department,” he said.
SIU head Andy Mothibi told the committee briefing: “We are really pleased to see that there is action taken against the officials. We will continue to engage the department, particularly around the rate of representations that are made to the department and decisions are made not to take action, we are really interested to hear the kind of representation that has been made.”
On the issue of departmental officials resigning before disciplinary action is taken, he said: “We just want to assure the honourable committee that when employees resign, they may have terminated the employee-employer relationship … but we will still pursue them for criminal action where evidence points to them and also civil litigation where they have contributed to the damages suffered by the department.”