MALAIKA MAHLATSI | The simplistic water boards debate by SAICE in discussion with John Perlman

On 24 February 2026, John Perlman, host of 702 Drive, held an interesting discussion with Sekadi Phayane-Shakhane, the Chief Executive Officer of the South African Institute of Civil Engineering (SAICE).

The professional association, whose aim is to promote growth, excellence and sustainability in the industry, represents over 16,000 civil engineering professionals in the country.

In the discussion, Phayane-Shakhane makes the argument that one of the key factors behind South Africa’s water security challenges is the composition of water boards.

This argument is raised in an article titled “Technical skills dry up in SA water boards”, which was published by Business Day, and formed the basis for the discussion.

According to the article, engineers and water specialists account for just 21 percent of non-executive directors across the country’s seven water boards.

This translates to 16 out of 78 non-executive directors in total. In the article, Phayane-Shakhane makes the same argument that she did on Perlman’s show that engineering expertise must be prioritised in water boards because oversight of water infrastructure is an engineering responsibility.

On the surface, this argument is reasonable. Subject-matter experts are better placed to understand technical issues at a practical level, and to therefore ask relevant questions that could result in more appropriate responses and actions.

But to suggest that this technical expertise would make water boards more efficient is not only a misdiagnosis of the structural problems at the heart of South Africa’s water security challenges, but a complete misunderstanding of the role of water boards as legislated. Water boards, which are governed by the Water Services Act, are essential state-owned entities.

They are primarily mandated to provide bulk potable water and sanitation services to municipalities, mines, and industries. They manage, treat, and distribute water infrastructure, playing a crucial role in water resource management, technical assistance to municipalities, and regional water supply.

Within a water board is a structure called the Board of Directors. This is the highest governing authority responsible for strategic direction, fiduciary duties, and ensuring compliance with legislative frameworks such as the Public Finance Management Act.

The structure provides oversight on risk management, governance, and the implementation of business strategies to deliver sustainable water services.

The Board of Directors in a water board is not responsible for technical operations, this lies with executive management of the entity.

Thus, greater technical expertise is required at operational level, within the entity itself.

Technical expertise is narrowly focused. A civil engineer is skilled in the task of planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining critical infrastructure.

A water scientist is skilled in analysing aquatic ecosystems, managing water supplies, monitoring water pollution, and developing solutions for sustainable water use.

But none of these experts possess the equally critical skills that ensure the effective operations of a water board, which include but are not limited to fiduciary duties, legislative compliance and broad risk management.

These are not subordinate to technical expertise, they are the foundation that makes technical expertise effective. The Boards of Directors act as the focal point for corporate governance, ensuring that water boards, and boards in general, act as responsible corporate citizens.

In the context of South Africa, with its history of structural inequalities and an ongoing legacy of colonial and apartheid policies of separate development, water boards do not simply ensure water provision, they also prioritise developmental objectives that are fundamentally aimed at redressing historical injustices that shaped the production of physical and non-physical space.

Like Phayane-Shakhane, I have served on boards, including within the private sector. I previously served on the Unilever Hair Advisory Board, which was established by the multinational consumer packaged goods company, among other boards.

The company employs some of the most experienced and exceptional experts at all levels, including those tasked with the production of quality consumer goods.

One of the greatest challenges that the company faced was not in the standard of its products, but in a failure to have an appreciation of the historical context of the politics of hair within the Black community.

This one misstep damaged the company’s reputation and, by extension, its bottom line. The Hair Advisory Board had to be constituted with individuals with a wide range of expertise, including political anthropology. I, being a Geographer, brought expertise related to the understanding of the socio-spatial dialectic that shapes the thinking of South African consumers.

This expertise, among those brought by other individuals, was crucial because if a board is to provide guidance on strategic objectives as well as oversees the management of strategic risks and review the implementation of mitigation strategies by executive management, it has to have the diverse skills required to do so, and those skills are shaped by the universalities and particularities that exist within specific regional and national contexts.

The composition of Boards of Directors of water boards in South Africa is appropriate. The discussion with Perlman and Phayane-Shakhane failed to mention an important fact that ALL water boards have one or more people who possess technical expertise.

All water boards in our country have one or more individuals with qualifications in Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Environmental Sciences (including Environmental Geosciences), and Water Science. There is not a single board that does not have at least one individual with these skills and qualifications.

The argument that a subject-matter expert is best placed to provide technical advice to executive management becomes mute when this fact is taken into account. But as indicated, Boards of Directors have much broader functions, all of which are crucial to entity stability.

They must be conversant in public affairs so that they can bring an understanding of sociological questions Perlman raised, including public health, socio-economic development, and, in the context of provinces such as Gauteng and the Western Cape, urban development.

This is how the Board of Directors of a water board must be constituted - not just with Civil Engineers whose technical expertise is limited.

The primary factor at the heart of the water security challenges facing Gauteng and South Africa broadly has to do with water governance at municipal level.

The financial constraints that water boards are dealing with are primarily the result of non-payment by municipalities, which impacts revenue generation for the boards, thereby affecting budgets for infrastructure maintenance and expansion.

There is no amount of expertise within water boards, at the level of both the Boards of Directors and executive management, that will make them perform exceptionally in the absence of functional municipalities and municipal entities.

The most skilled Civil Engineer in the world would not perform optimally under the conditions that water boards have been placed in by municipalities that owe them billions and are failing to ring-fence funds for water governance and security. Thus, the argument by Phayane-Shakhane, echoed by Perlman, is simplistic.

The danger with the argument is that it misdiagnoses a very serious problem, and in the process, prescribes an erroneous solution that does not demonstrate an appreciation of the complex factors at the heart of water security challenges in South Africa.