Qubani
Moyo's enraged
response to my article which was published in the Standard entitled You
will Never Miss the Water until the Well Runs Dry lacks class and belies
his 'supposedly' champion’s league status as an agenda setter in Zimbabwe. In
fact, his rant was more of a pie in the sky, just an expenditure of words
beyond the income of reason. His unfounded allegation of abuse of funds in
civil society smacks of infantile radicalism, and is a tacit reminder of how he
personally decimated Bulawayo Dialogues’ Finances in his short and disastrous
spell at the organisation, plundering resources that were meant for promoting
citizens voices in the community. Well, with his well documented history of
pilfering resources, he is the least qualified to speak of transparency and
accountability let alone water meters. Qhubani pretends to be dreaming of
himself belonging to a “Champions league of agenda setters in Zimbabwe”, which
he himself knows from his heart of hearts that he was long relegated even
before the people of Insiza North rejected him in broad day light like a snake
that had entered one’s house. I personally do not intend to zero in on the
person of Qhubani as an individual who is trying his luck in another rightwing-political
sphere, but I am against his recently begotten mindset that has totally
corroded the last drops of reason in his person. Like I said before, to
advocate for pre-paid water meters is not only mischievous but fighting a lost
battle with the people. I am not a Doctor and neither am I a professor, I do
not intend to jump into the champion’s league of agenda setters, but for all
intense and purpose I am only after my daily share of a glass of water.
Zimbabweans
needs to understand the argument at hand, particularly Qhubani Moyo, who is
using the wrong tactic to lick his way up the rank and file of the
revolutionary party. If we are going to use a very basic approach, that of the
AAAQ (triple A Q), it is crystal clear that the notion of prepaid water meters
is not only inappropriate but responds to the wrong ailment. The AAAQ approach refers, to “Access, Acceptability, Affordability and
Quality” of water reticulation systems hence any normal person in any of the
major local authorities in Zimbabwe can undertake a layman’s evaluation of
their water delivery system using this approach and would still come to my
conclusions. Harare needs 1 400 mega-litres of water a day, but currently it
is getting between 450-500 mega-litres of water. Of this meagre distribution,
one would realise that close to 50% of this is being lost through leakages
hence we have been receiving less water than the daily production capacity.
Now, think of this point under Access, whereby we are saying installing prepaid
water meters fails the solution test because the founding challenge here is
that of hardware [infrastructure] not software for prepayment. Secondly water
access in a prepayment system will be dependent on availability of electricity.
The country as we speak is grappling with limited electricity supply and this
will adversely impact upon water supply. That is why I posit that installing
prepaid water meters will be an insult to humanity.
In
terms of acceptability, the baseless argument being driven home by Qhubani does
not quench my expectations as a rate payer. He falsely argues that improving “cash-flows
in local authorities will directly translate into improved water supplies” and
other municipal services. My understanding of cash flow is merely the movement
of money into and out of a project or business entity. It is my submission that
money has indeed been flowing into local authorities. In my last article, I
spoke of the sources of income for local authorities like Harare and Bulawayo
but I left out an important point of accountability and transparency. Best
practice in accounting systems and procedures states that organisations need to
work on control systems and mechanisms before capital injection. In simple
terms, you cannot fill water in a porous bucket because you will lose it all.
Our local authorities, Harare in particular, do not have proper systems and
mechanisms of accounting to residents and neither are they transparent in their
operations. I do not remember ever reading or studying an audit report from the
Harare City Council. All I remember is that top managers were being paid an
average USD$30 000 a month. For all I know Harare City Council is running the
richest football club in the country with top flight premier league players
currently engaged in a gold rush to play for Harare City yet service delivery
is on its knees. Last week the Mayor of Harare confirmed that he doesn’t have
access to financial data of the club and yet someone speaks of improving cash
flows. Water is currently the highest revenue income generator but nothing has
been done to inject the same revenue back to the water account. So how do I
accept a predatory prepayment system when funds have not been accounted for?
What are the systems and mechanisms that will give me confidence as a rate
payer that prepaying for water means that revenue pilfering will end?
Qhubani
seemingly tries to convince us that he is the standard unit of measure when it
comes to proffering sound alternative policies and in the process lying about
free distributions and figures. Cry my beloved country, such blatant lies and
misrepresentation of facts is demeaning if not embarrassing. He speaks as if he
is a municipal plumber, who knows the amount of water a household needs and
along the way goes on to lie about the average bill a household will get. His pontification
around the free distribution of water to the tune of 5000 litres per household
is neither here nor there. In one of his shallow responses, Q argues that, I
quote “those poor vulnerable people…have 5000 litres which is enough for the
whole month”. I do not want to probe his statements which clearly denigrate the
person of low income but would like to critique his submission that 5000 litres
will be for free and adequate. Firstly it would suffice for me to say that
whilst I might disagree with other proponents of the 5000 litre free allocation
I am justified to say that council can not demonstrate that a prepayment system
will give me five thousand litres for free. Secondly, the argument that 5000
litres could be enough for the whole month is a mere joke because that statement
simply comes from a person who is writing either from the bar counter or another
planet. These scientific arguments require one to have an appreciation of
population stats per household before flushing out raw baseless facts like
these. In addition, it should be noted that due to economic hardships,
residents have subsidized their income by growing vegetables etcetera. So the
viability of the “5000 litre” argument merely goes down the drain as irrelevant
and inconclusive to say the least.
The
argument around improving water delivery requires a multi-stakeholder approach
and a drastic change in organisational culture for local authorities and policy
reform. I concur with Qhubani when he says that free service delivery is not
sustainable but my argument here is not based on free services, but is a humble
dictum for local authorities to do the right thing. I recommend the following
as panacea to our service delivery challenges particularly water;
ü Funds
that have been generated from water delivery should be injected back into the
water account instead of channeling them towards salaries and admin. This can
be done through the creation and ring fencing of a separate water account.
ü Improving
internal control systems and mechanisms will go a long way in resolving the
service delivery challenges we face. Local Authorities need to adhere to the
principles of good governance and improve in transparency and accountability.
This should be augmented by complying with the cabinet directive of ensuring
that 70% of revenue collected goes towards service delivery whilst 30% goes
towards salaries and admin.
ü Government
through the Public Sector Investment Program (PSIP) should prioritize municipal
water infrastructure rehabilitation and maintenance. The incessant borrowing
currently being practiced by local authorities will not resolve the issues of
affordability considering the framework in which funds are being borrowed for
example the Build Operate and Transfer model (BOT). This will still translate
to privatization of water during the fund recovery era because there has to be
an element of profit in order for the debt to be paid off.
ü Local
authorities must engage in a meaningful consultation processes with residents,
ascertain citizens priorities and stop
splashing money in projects that do not improve service delivery or speak to
their mandate for instance running expensive soccer empires.
In
conclusion, I maintain that the issue of prepaid water meters is not in any way
a panacea to the water challenges. Our priority should be on ensuring that
water is available in sustainable quantities for starters and engage in sober
processes of consultation with residents and stakeholders. I believe in the
principles of humanity and every person retains their inalienable right to water
whether rich or poor. Councils need to take into consideration the facts being
brought forward by civil society and the citizens at large pertaining to the
rights of the poor and the marginalized particularly women and children which
is the same reason why I disagree with shameless individuals like Qhubani who
say that they have enough money to buy their suppers for the rest of their
lives. This only leaves me to advise such uncouth people to go on their knees
and simply say “forgive me father, for I have sinned”. Before l pen off, let me
pose this question to Q, “Why is it that not so long ago, residents would
religiously pay up their water bills consistently?”
Tendai
Muchada writes in his personal capacity. He can be reached on carterchra@gmail.com
