How to address systemic sabotage of essential water infrastructure?

This came as a response to the growing concern about the surge in criminal activities that target water services infrastructure. Complaints submitted to the SAHRC, along with media reports, show that sabotage of water infrastructure in South Africa ranges from damage to property and acts of vandalism to serious threats of violence and even murder. Many of these incidents are linked to, or carried out alongside, organised crime. This underscores how severe and complex the crisis around critical water infrastructure has become. The Policy Brief investigated the criminal law measures available to address these activities. The article provides a summary of the main findings of this research.

Is it time to utilise terrorism legislation?

The policy brief discussed the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist Activities Act 33 of 2004 and its applicability to the deliberate sabotage of water infrastructure. The Policy Brief highlighted that although the deliberate sabotage of water infrastructure in South Africa may meet the definition of “terrorist activity” under the Act, prosecuting such acts as terrorism is not straightforward. South Africa’s history of misuse of terrorism legislation under apartheid, the broad and open-ended legal definition of terrorism, and the complex procedural requirements mean that a terrorism prosecution may be costly, contested, and ultimately ineffective. Although classifying these acts as terrorism could highlight the severe threat to essential services and public safety, the risks of acquittal and unintended diplomatic consequences can outweigh the benefits. Targeted criminal charges under other statutes, with clear evidence and narrower elements, may therefore offer a more practical and effective response to organised sabotage of critical water services.

Water infrastructure as critical infrastructure and national key points

Other statutes which the policy brief considered are the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act 8 of 2019 (CIPA) and the National Key Points Act 102 of 1980. These two statutes aim to safeguard infrastructure vital to South Africa’s economy, public safety, and national security. CIPA is intended to modernise and ultimately replace the older National Key Points Act by setting out clearer rules for declaring, protecting, and prosecuting threats against critical infrastructure. The Brief notes that although CIPA recognises the essential role of water infrastructure and provides for serious penalties of up to 20 years’ imprisonment for damaging or disrupting high-risk sites, many of its key sections have yet to come into force — meaning prosecutions cannot currently rely on it. Only a small number of water sites are currently protected under the outdated National Key Points Act, which carries limited offences and a maximum sentence of just three years’ imprisonment. As a result, neither framework, in its current state, provides an effective legal tool for deterring or prosecuting deliberate sabotage of critical water infrastructure.

Damaging essential infrastructure: A specific crime

The third legislation which the policy brief considered was the Criminal Matters Amendment Act 18 on 2015. This legislation was enacted to strengthen South Africa’s ability to tackle crimes that target essential infrastructure critical to the daily functioning of the public and the economy. It fills gaps left by older legislation by criminalising the tampering with, damaging, or destruction of vital systems that deliver basic services like water, energy, and sanitation. Unlike the incomplete CIPA or the narrow National Key Points Act, this law applies to both individuals and legal entities such as companies and carries serious penalties: up to 30 years’ imprisonment or, for corporations, fines of up to R100 million. Its clear definition of offences and straightforward application avoids the procedural hurdles and interpretive challenges that come with terrorism prosecutions, making it a far more realistic and possibly a more effective option for deterring and prosecuting deliberate sabotage of water services infrastructure.

Time to elevate sabotage of water infrastructure to a national priority crime

The policy brief explored whether the magnitude of the problem of water infrastructure sabotage justifies elevating the status of these activities to the status of a national priority crime. The policy brief concludes that, given the severe impact of attacks on water services infrastructure and the growing violence against local government officials, it is strongly in the public interest to classify these activities as national priority offences. This would enable the Hawks, South Africa’s Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, to lead investigations using their specialised skills and resources. Although the Constitution requires a national policing policy to guide policing priorities, no formal policy has yet been adopted despite a draft produced in 2023. Declaring the sabotage of water infrastructure, a national priority would align with the Hawks’ mandate to tackle organised crime and offences that threaten the national interest or generate significant illicit profit. This classification would ensure that more resources are dedicated to investigating and preventing these attacks, making it possible to disrupt organised networks more effectively and protect essential water services.

Crime prevention

Crime prevention is a cornerstone of an effective criminal justice system and is far more cost-effective and socially beneficial than a reactive approach, once the crime has already been committed. In South Africa, crime prevention is a constitutional and statutory duty shared across all spheres of government and is supported by national strategies that emphasise addressing root causes, securing vulnerable infrastructure, and using intelligence to detect and disrupt organised crime networks before they strike. Properly resourced criminal intelligence is vital to anticipate and prevent sabotage of water services infrastructure, rather than reacting only after communities are left without water. A stronger, proactive approach will help ensure continuity of essential services, protect public health, and avoid the far greater costs—both social and economic—of trying to repair harm after it occurs.

Recommendations

The policy brief puts forward twelve targeted recommendations involving key institutions, including the Cabinet member responsible for policing, the South African Police Service, the Hawks, the National Prosecuting Authority, the Office of the Chief Justice, the Office of the President, Water Services Authorities, and various other government departments. Together, these recommendations aim to protect South Africa’s water services infrastructure more effectively by strengthening law enforcement, prosecution, criminal intelligence, and public awareness. A key recommendation is that the Criminal Matters Amendment Act should be used as the preferred legal instrument to prosecute deliberate sabotage, as it provides clear definitions, strong penalties of up to 30 years’ imprisonment or heavy corporate fines, and avoids the procedural challenges associated with the prosecution of terrorism charges. Another priority is the urgent finalisation and adoption of the National Policing Policy to bring coherence and clear direction to policing priorities, including recognising attacks on water infrastructure as a national priority crime. The policy brief notes that these measures, taken together, may help ensure that deliberate attacks on water services infrastructure are prevented, detected, and prosecuted more effectively, protecting an essential service that communities cannot live without.

By Johandri Wright, Post-doctoral Research Fellow & Peacemore Mhodi, South African Human Rights Commission: Research Advisor for Commissioner (Dr.) Henk Boshoff