Local authorities have a legitimate responsibility to recover outstanding revenue and protect their financial sustainability. But when the collection of municipal debt threatens access to essential services, the question is whether councils are striking the right balance between financial discipline and social responsibility.
There is something increasingly troubling about the manner in which some local authorities are approaching the disconnection of water and electricity services.
While municipalities have every right to expect residents and businesses to pay for services consumed, the apparent enthusiasm with which disconnection threats are being issued raises a pertinent question: Are town councils adopting a gung-ho approach to debt collection without adequately considering the social and economic consequences?
Recent developments in Rundu and Windhoek provide an opportunity to examine this question.
The Rundu Town Council has warned residents owing more than N$1 000, and businesses and institutions with outstanding balances exceeding N$4 000, that they face disconnection.
Its proposed payment arrangements require residential customers to pay 30% upfront and settle the balance over six months. Businesses and institutions must pay 50% upfront, with the remainder payable over the same period.
More concerning, however, is the council’s position that no negotiations, exceptions or alternative payment arrangements will be entertained.
In Windhoek, the municipality has embarked on a mass disconnection exercise targeting customers in arrears across all suburbs.
The decision has attracted criticism from human rights lawyer Norman Tjombe, who has questioned the legality and human rights implications of disconnecting water supplies, particularly for vulnerable households.
His argument deserves serious consideration.
Water is not an ordinary municipal commodity. It is fundamental to human dignity, public health and survival.
Namibia’s Water Resources Management Act of 2013 recognises equitable access to safe drinking water as a basic human right.
Denying households access to potable water can have consequences extending well beyond the immediate inconvenience of an unpaid municipal account.
The risks are particularly serious for households with young children, elderly residents, people living with chronic illnesses and families already struggling to meet basic living expenses.
However, it would be equally simplistic to suggest that municipalities should abandon debt collection or indefinitely subsidise residents who consume services without paying.
The City of Windhoek has disclosed that its debtors’ book stands at approximately N$932.7 million. This is an enormous liability for a municipality responsible for maintaining infrastructure, purchasing bulk water and electricity and ensuring continued service delivery.
Municipalities cannot operate sustainably without revenue. When customers fail to pay, the financial burden eventually affects everyone, including those who consistently honour their accounts.
Suppliers must be paid, infrastructure maintained and essential services financed.
The City also says it has made provision for vulnerable residents through a debt relief programme. Of the N$724 million approved for relief and write-offs, approximately N$383.9 million has already been written off, benefiting pensioners, orphan-led households and other qualifying groups.
These are important interventions and demonstrate that municipalities do have mechanisms to accommodate residents who genuinely cannot afford their accumulated debt.
But the question remains whether such interventions are sufficiently accessible, adequately communicated and responsive to the economic circumstances of ordinary households.
The timing of these disconnection exercises also deserves consideration. Namibia is experiencing economic pressures, while the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak has disrupted rural livelihoods and threatened employment in parts of the meat industry.
Urban households dependent on financial support from relatives in farming communities may also feel the consequences.
This is not an argument for excusing non-payment. It is an argument for recognising that municipal debt does not always arise from unwillingness to pay.
In some instances, it reflects unemployment, declining household incomes, economic hardship, disputed bills or accumulated arrears that have become impossible to settle in one payment.
There is also a question of municipal accountability. Residents must pay for services, but municipalities must equally ensure accurate billing, transparent accounts, accessible dispute-resolution mechanisms and efficient service delivery.
The acknowledgement by the City of a recent incident in which some accounts were incorrectly flagged reinforces the importance of getting these systems right before enforcement begins.
A blanket enforcement approach risks treating deliberate non-payment and genuine financial distress as though they are the same problem.
Perhaps municipalities should be asking themselves whether disconnection is always the most effective first response, or whether more structured engagement, realistic repayment arrangements and targeted debt recovery could achieve better results.
Ultimately, local authorities must protect their revenue bases. But they are also public institutions with obligations to the communities they serve.
Financial discipline and compassion are not mutually exclusive. Neither should the recognition of water as a human right become a licence for consumers to disregard their financial responsibilities.
The real test of municipal leadership is not how efficiently councils can disconnect delinquent customers, but how effectively they can recover revenue without compromising human dignity, public health and the social fabric of their communities.
Namibians must pay for the services they consume.
Equally, municipalities must remember that behind every outstanding account is a household, a business or an institution, and sometimes a difficult human circumstance that deserves consideration.
