Zimbabwe’s water privatization plan sparks outcry: Activists decry “illegal and Anti-Poor” move
Peter Moyo
Leading Zimbabwean civic organizations have launched a united front against the government’s proposed water privatization, condemning the move as both unlawful and detrimental to the nation’s poor.
The Matabeleland Institute for Human Rights (MIHR), Community Water Alliance, and Harare Residents Trust argue the policy violates existing legislation and threatens to exacerbate the country’s water access crisis.
The controversy intensified during a CITE-hosted X Space discussion on April 9, 2025, featuring prominent activists Khumbulani Maphosa of MIHR, Hardlife Mudzingwa from Community Water Alliance, and Precious Shumba of Harare Residents Trust. Their collective critique centered on legal, economic, and social justice concerns surrounding the privatization plan.
Legal experts point to Zimbabwe’s National Water Policy, which permits water service delegation to private providers only after amendments to the Urban Councils Act – changes that have not been implemented. Hardlife Mudzingwa emphasized this critical oversight, stating the current push for privatization lacks proper legal foundation. “The policy framework is clear – until Parliament amends the Urban Councils Act, municipal councils remain the lawful water service authorities,” Mudzingwa explained. “Proceeding without these amendments constitutes an unlawful overreach.”
Khumbulani Maphosa highlighted concerning international precedents, noting how numerous nations have reversed water privatization after negative outcomes. “The global evidence is overwhelming – from France to Bolivia, privatization consistently leads to price hikes and service deterioration,” Maphosa said. He particularly criticized the government’s opaque approach, questioning why officials are pursuing unsolicited bids rather than transparent public tenders for such a vital public resource.
Economic concerns form another pillar of opposition. Activists warn that privatization would inevitably increase costs for consumers already struggling with Zimbabwe’s economic challenges. Maphosa noted that private operators prioritize profitability, which typically translates to higher tariffs that disproportionately affect low-income households. “Water isn’t a luxury – it’s a fundamental human need,” he stressed. “Making it more expensive during an economic crisis is morally indefensible.”
The coalition proposes alternative solutions, including strengthening municipal water systems through fiscal decentralization and redirecting mineral resource revenues to water infrastructure. They argue these approaches would improve access without transferring control to private entities.
Precious Shumba called for public mobilization against the policy, urging citizens to utilize constitutional channels to resist the changes. “History shows that policies implemented without public consultation often harm ordinary Zimbabweans most,” Shumba said. “This isn’t just about water – it’s about democratic accountability and the right to basic necessities.”
As the debate continues, the government has yet to respond to these specific legal and economic concerns. The growing opposition signals a potential protracted battle over water governance in Zimbabwe, with significant implications for both public service delivery and economic justice.
The controversy raises fundamental questions about resource management in developing economies, particularly how to balance fiscal sustainability with universal access to essential services. With water scarcity already a pressing issue in many Zimbabwean communities, the outcome of this policy debate could have far-reaching consequences for millions of citizens.
