There is a general understanding that water is not only an essential resource, but one to which access must always be granted without hindrance. And so, it should raise an alarm that others seek to place restrictions on what should otherwise be among the most accessible essential resources on earth. Evidently, there is a diabolical agenda to frustrate the utility of water, and a parallel war on socio-economic rights, which we’ve known for a while now, especially after the President of Loveworld Incorporated exposed that water is among the 7 areas targeted by globalists. Well, this year, AU Summit held under the AU’s thematic focus of the year: being “Assuring Sustainable Water Availability and Safe Sanitation Systems to Achieve the Goals of Agenda 2063.” But, there appears to be conflicting messaging on water between the AU and international organisations funding African nations, where the latter is advocating for the privatisation of water. And so, almost unbelievably, today, we ought to talk about why the privatisation of water is erroneous.

CONFLICTING MESSAGING ON WATER BETWEEN THE AU & ORGANISATIONS FUNDING AFRICAN COUNTRIES

“Why The Privatisation of Water is Erroneous”; and to begin with, we ought to address what appears to be conflicting messaging on water between the AU and international organisations funding African nations, where the latter is advocating for the privatisation of water. In more detail, the African Union (AU) has long positioned water as a fundamental public good and human right, integral to dignity, health, and development. On official platforms, the AU has communicated that it recognizes that water is more than a sectoral thematic; and that it is rather a foundational input into economic development, and life itself, considering that water is central to food security, health, and conflict prevention. As such, the right to water is not only implied in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, it is even explicitly elaborated in the Guidelines on the Right to Water in Africa, adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. These guidelines, launched in recent years, emphasize that states bear ultimate responsibility for realizing this right, ensuring access is affordable, non-discriminatory, and participatory.

Now, for the purpose of our discussion, a key element in the guidelines is the strict limitations on privatization. The African Charter’s guidelines stipulate that delegation of water services to private entities must NOT constitute or contribute to the marketisation or commercialisation of water. Outsourcing is permissible only if it proves the most effective means to realize the right—particularly for equality and non-discrimination—without retrogressive impacts, and with safeguards like public consultation, impact assessments, reversibility, and protections against discrimination. 

Additionally, the guidelines indicate that private involvement must never lead to the commercialization of water itself, thus preserving its status as a non-commodifiable essential resource. All this is crucial because it reflects widespread African civil society concerns on how profit-driven models exacerbate exclusion, raise tariffs, and neglect marginalized communities. And so, for all is questionable broader relevance and institutional integrity, the AU has been remarkably clear on water being a right of all people in Africa, and on the emphatic dangers of its commercialisation or privatisation.

Now, this year, I think the AU somewhat intended to reinforce this commitment by adopting a water-centric thematic focus for the year. But, despite the African Union generally emphasising water as a public good and human right, with 2026 guidelines setting strict limitations on privatisation to prevent the commercialisation of water services, many African nations are under pressure from international financial institutions (primarily the World Bank and IMF) to adopt public-private partnerships due to an annual funding gap of over $30 billion.

These institutions often condition loans, debt relief, or advisory support on reforms promoting private sector participation, full cost recovery, and regulatory frameworks attractive to investors. Historical patterns show structural adjustment programs and poverty reduction credits pushing privatization or PPPs in countries like Tanzania, Benin, Rwanda, and others, framing them as efficiency boosters despite mixed outcomes. But, in reality, the private public partnership model undermines human rights obligations, as PPPs can prioritize profitability over equitable distribution, leading to tariff hikes, service cutoffs for the poor, and reduced public accountability.

And so, the contradiction is ultimately that: while the AU and its human rights mechanisms guard against commercialization, fiscal constraints and external leverage drive individual states toward PPPs. And to further display this contradiction, just kindly listen to the difference in messaging from the WEF’s managing director, Gim Huay Neo versus the AU’s Commissioner on Agriculture and Rural Development, HE Moses Vilakati.

AFRICAN COUNTRIES DO NOT BENEFIT FROM PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Now, here’s what I sincerely believe that the African countries being pressured to pursue the privatisation of water through private-public partnerships ought to take into serious consideration: There is substantial evidence that shows that private public partnerships often prove dangerous for African countries, through the exacerbation of debt burdens, distorting priorities, enabling corruption, and undermining public services.

In more detail, a primary risk of public partnerships (in Africa) is hidden contingent liabilities that balloon into massive public debt. PPP contracts frequently involve government guarantees, minimum revenue commitments, or take-or-pay clauses, shifting demand and political risks back to the state when projects underperform. The notable example illustrating this is perhaps the Lesotho Queen ‘Mamohato Memorial Hospital PPP: this partnership was hailed initially as successful, it consumed over 50% of the national health budget annually which is (around $67 million), which is reported as being roughly three times the cost of the previous public facility, thus threatening fiscal stability in one of Africa’s underdeveloped nations. 

Then, secondly, higher costs compared to traditional public procurement represent another major danger. And here, private financing carries elevated interest rates, profit margins, and risk premiums, making PPPs more expensive in the long-term. In fact, reviews of global and African experiences find PPPs rarely achieve genuine “value for money,” with cost overruns common due to complex contracts and information asymmetries favoring private firms. And in Africa, where institutional capacity for negotiation and oversight has often been weak, governments end up overpaying for infrastructure while diverting scarce resources from priority areas like rural health or education.

Then, as alluded to, corruption and governance vulnerabilities amplify these problems. Opaque bidding, lengthy contracts, and high stakes create opportunities for bribery and capture. Not to mention, in contexts of limited transparency, private firms may even secure favorable terms through undue influence, as seen in various infrastructure deals across the continent. While weak public sector expertise also exacerbates imbalances, leading to contracts that are skewed toward private profits rather than public benefit.

But, seeing as over 400 million people in Africa do not have access to safe water sources, I would argue that it is perhaps most important for African nations to consider that PPPS come with distorted development priorities because these partnerships favour commercially viable, urban-centric projects over essential but unprofitable services like rural water or sanitation. In other words, as far as PPPs are concerned, there is no interest in servicing the indigent well because it is not profitable. And so, even if there is money to be gained through PPPs, those driving these partnerships skews investment away from equitable needs, leaving the poorest under-served. And so, this is why we often emphasise the words of the President of Loveworld Incorporated, in which he long warned that PPS and FDI lead to the disenfranchisement of the people.

THE DIABOLICAL EFFORTS TOWARDS THE PRIVATISATION & COMMERCIALISATION OF WATER

Now, before he was relegated to the dustbins of history, Klaus Schwab had openly bragged about the WEF’s ability to infiltrate governments across the globe. At the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics, he discussed how the WEF’s modus operandi is to penetrate governments by installing its so-called “Young Global Leaders”. In recent years, we have seen this modus operandi play out, as the WEF infiltrated some governments across the world.

Now, in a disturbing development, the globalist so-called elite are claiming that water is not a human right and the world’s water supplies must be privatised and controlled by these so-called elites. The World Economic Forum teamed up with the UN to set its sights on seizing control of the world’s water supplies and holding humanity to ransom. They further ordered world governments to prepare to ration people’s water supply as part of their ‘Great Reset’ agenda. These plans were long promulgated as well; for instance, in 2023, the globalist organizations were hosting a conference on water in New York as part of the UN quest to accomplish its 17 sustainable development goals, which are intended to give the globalists total control over all human activities. And concerning this conference, the WEF even wrote that (quote): “The conference aims to raise awareness of the global water crisis and decide on action to achieve internationally agreed water-related goals.”

ADDRESSING THE RHETORICAL QUESTION: IS WATER A FREE AND BASIC HUMAN RIGHT?

So, is water a free and basic human right, or should all the water on the planet belong to major corporations and be treated as a product? Additionally, should the poor who cannot afford to pay these said corporations suffer from starvation due to their lack of financial wealth? Well, according to the former CEO and now Chairman of the largest food product manufacturer in the world, corporations should own every drop of water on the planet — and you’re not getting any unless you pay up.

And so, fitting right into the Schwab era of the WEF, Nestle’s former CEO and now the Interim chairman of the World Economic Forum, following Kluas Schwab’ removal, this being Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, he states that companies should own every single bit of water on the planet, His position, shared by many others in his ranks, is one of profits over people and corporate rights over human rights. They advocate a sort of survival-of-the-ones willing to use money to power grab mentality, where only those in their cabal-linked organisations and associations should have access to what they appear to conceptualise as “privileges” like water.

But, in more detail, Brabeck-Letmathe suggests that while 1.5% of the world’s water is for human usage, the other 98.5% “is not a human right”. He states that it’s this majority of water that should be “valued” through privatization. In other words, because the water is being treated as a human right (when in his mind it isn’t), it is being taken for granted. In order to ensure it’s used in an efficient manner, he suggests private corporations have access to owning it.

And as if this is not vile and concerning enough, Brabeck-Letmathe equates his position to that of Monsanto (another vile corporation who puts profits above people), to rationalise the fact that this mentality is not a novel idea; and (unfortunately), he is right: Nestle’s position on owning water is not at all new. A few years ago they began buying up property and water rights in Colorado to turn the world’s greatest natural resource into a bottled commodity. The Arkansas River Basin in Chaffee County, Colorado was ground zero for millions in land acquisitions. Private landowners sold their plots for as much as $1.1 million for 1.4 acres.

Nestle also paid Frank McMurry $860,000 for 111 acres in Big Horn Springs. Though Nestle didn’t end up using the property, this was only a fraction of their purchases. They bought 1.4 acres from Steve Hanswn for over $1 million in order to build a loading station for its trucks to load up with bottled water. Now, you would think local towns that depend on these resources would stand up to the corporate giant. Well, some of them do. However, unfortunately, most of them have a price. But, here is the referenced point where Brabeck-Letmathe claimed that water is not a human right.

As just alluded to, there are communities standing up to Nestle’s diabolical practices. Nestlé is blamed for exploiting groundwater in areas where the public needs it the most — and selling it for profit. Pakistan, which was recently reclassified from water “stressed” to water “scarce,” has seen water sources in areas where Nestlé began sourcing its Pure Life water sink hundreds of feet since production began. Furthermore, the remaining water in these areas is often toxic. 

Now, audits discovered that the company was exploiting natural water sources without paying for them. What’s worse, it wastes the pilfered water; 43 percent of the total 4.4 billion liters taken in 2018 was completely wasted — that’s 1.9 billion liters — despite their management’s claims that only 15 percent was wasted.

In addition, despite the crippling droughts and wildfires that annually ravage California, Nestlé’s CEO proudly continues to exploit the state’s water sources. The exact amount Nestlé pumps from the San Bernardino National Forest is unclear — but estimates put the figure at around a billion gallons annually — since 1988. Nestlé has, for some inexplicable reason, been bottling water for its Arrowhead water brand from this public and vital water source since 1984. Nestlé being Nestlé, this has put them back a measly $524 a year, despite its permit running out in 1988. Petitions have come and gone to get the company to pay for the water it takes or, at the very least, to renew its license.

In all of this, there are thankfully increased measures at holding Nestle accountable, because the majority of the world does not appear to agree with their philosophy on water not being a basic human right. For instance, Nestlé remains under investigation in France over alleged illegal filtration of its mineral water products. It was revealed Nestlé‘s Paris offices had been searched by French Authorities, as part of an ongoing investigation into Nestlé Waters. The investigation followed allegations by non-profit organisation, Foodwatch, that Nestlé Waters’ used illegal filtration systems for its water, to mask contamination by bacteria and pesticides.

In the unfolding of the case, French authorities were deciding whether Nestlé Waters’ world-famous brands, including Perrier, can continue calling themselves “natural mineral water”. And this is because Unlike tap water, which is filtered and treated, European regulations stipulate that mineral water cannot be altered. To be labelled “natural mineral water,” it is prohibited from being treated in any way that changes its characteristics.

Meanwhile, another blow against those waging a war on water was when President Trump signed an Executive Order to end the Obama-Biden war on water pressure and ‘Make America’s Showers Great Again’ in April 2025. The Order directed the Secretary of Energy to immediately rescind the overly complicated federal rule that redefined “showerhead” under Obama and Biden, because twice in the last 12 plus years, those administrations put out massive regulations defining the word “showerhead.” In fact, the Biden definition was a staggering 13,000 words.  

In any case, President Trump restored sanity to that part of the federal regulations, returning to the straightforward meaning of “showerhead” from the 1992 energy law, which sets a simple 2.5-gallons-per-minute standard for showers. The Order frees Americans from excessive regulations that turned a basic household item into a bureaucratic nightmare. 

THE DANGERS OF WATER COMMODIFICATION: THE COCA-COLA & MEXICO CASE STUDY

But, now, Corporate interests undermining access to water are not exclusive to Nestle. The Coca-Cola water crisis in Mexico, particularly in San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, centers on the company’s significant water extraction in a region facing severe water scarcity. The Femsa-operated bottling plant, which produces Coca-Cola products, has permits to extract over 1.14 million liters of water daily from the Huitepec volcano basin. Meanwhile, many local residents, especially in rural and low-income areas, face chronic water shortages, with some neighborhoods receiving running water only a few hours every few days or not at all for weeks. This has forced residents to travel long distances for water or buy bottled water, often Coca-Cola products, due to contaminated tap water unfit for drinking.

Chiapas, despite having Mexico’s highest per capita water resources, sees over one-third of its rural population without access to running water. And this has caused health issues like salmonella and gastrointestinal diseases, and even high soda consumption—as Chiapas residents drink around 683.8 liters of Coca-Cola per person annually, because ironically Coca-cola beverages are more easily accessible than water. All of this is happening in part because Coca-Cola’s permits are facilitated by lax regulation and political ties (for example, looking at former Mexican president Vicente Fox’s history with Coca-Cola Femsa). As a result, the Mexican government has also prioritised corporate interests over local needs. In fact, Femsa pays roughly $155 per permit, a fraction of its profits, which activists call “ridiculous.” Coca-Cola claims to invest in sustainability, like reforestation and water replenishment, but locals report little impact.

GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES: THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN THE WAR ON WATER & AGRICULTURE

Let’s also talk about the intersection between the war on water and the war on agriculture, looking at the US as a case study.  In 2024, at least half a million acres of farmland in eastern and southern Idaho were under a new curtailment order that restricts farmers in these areas from using groundwater to irrigate their crops. Thousands of farmers across the Snake River Plain then had to abandon their fields or else face steep fines, this after Idaho Department of Water Resources (ot the IDWR) director Matthew Weaver issued a curtailment order for six groundwater districts on May 31.” Meanwhile, the 500,000 acres subject to curtailment represent about half of all the groundwater acres in the eastern Snake River Plain, which is a really big deal not only for Idaho but also the entire country as those acres grow food for the nation.

But, now, it is unclear what “emergency” prompted the curtailment order, seeing as how Idaho’s reservoir system was completely filled. More than 200 billion gallons of water were released to prevent flooding, and the state’s rivers have swollen beyond their banks, which means there is lots of water to be had. Even so, the IDWR is insistent that there is a water shortfall of 74,100 acre-feet at one canal in the Magic Valley, which the IDWR director deemed as enough of a threat to shut off about one million acre-feet of irrigation – this despite the fact that the canal in question loses 660,000 acre-feet per year to inefficiencies, according to department calculations.

In addition, there were additional efforts made by farmers and other groundwater users to modernise, for instance, the Twin Falls Canal, only to have their offer rejected. And so… It is almost as if the certain insects in the state government of Idaho want to starve the state’s farmers of water in order to create a food crisis.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso