Non-profit organisation Natural Justice expressed optimism that the courts will see the flaws in government’s decision-making process on exploration rights for oil and gas and rule in favour of environmental justice.

The Green Connection and Natural Justice have filed a supplementary founding affidavit, reinforcing their legal challenge against TotalEnergies EP South Africa (TEEPSA) and the government’s approval of exploratory oil and gas drilling in Block 5/6/7.

The review application, launched in March, seeks to halt “reckless disregard” for South Africa’s climate commitments and the wellbeing of its coastal communities.

The application followed after the eco-justice organisations reviewed the record of the decision in August and September, from the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and the director-general of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE).

The groups are of the view that the rate at which government issued exploration rights for oil and gas undermined its commitment to a just energy transition and did not reflect economic development that protects the environment, as laid out in the Constitution.

Green Connection strategic lead Liz McDaid highlighted significant gaps in government’s decision-making process, citing inadequate consideration of long-term environmental risks tied to the project.

“There is evidence of procedural missteps, which raises a fundamental question: does oil and gas exploration off South Africa’s coast align with the country’s climate goals and the wellbeing of coastal communities? At a time when COP29 discussions are focusing on the urgent need for sustainable energy transitions, it is clear to us that this project lacks a thorough assessment of its environmental and social risks,” McDaid said.

She pointed to a concerning issue, which she said arose from the fact that the appeal response reports, required under the National Environmental Management Act, were prepared by the Petroleum Agency of South Africa (Pasa), arguing that this was inappropriate because Pasa’s mandate was to promote oil and gas exploration, while also being the regulator.

McDaid further emphasised that by relying on Pasa’s responses, the DMRE failed to provide independent reasoning in its decision-making.

The Green Connection and Natural Justice pointed to major shortcomings in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) conducted for the project, highlighting that the scope of the EIA was limited to the immediate impact of the five exploration wells, without a comprehensive evaluation of the long-term consequences of potential oil or gas extraction.

In support of their case, the organisations submitted an expert affidavit from Professor Mark New, who highlighted the risks posed by further fossil fuel extraction, particularly in the context of South Africa’s commitments to the Paris Agreement.

The Green Connection asserted that government’s decision failed to account for South Africa’s obligations to reduce emissions in line with the goal of limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 °C.

The Green Connection and Natural Justice highlighted the glaring deficiencies in TEEPSA’s oil spill contingency plan.

“We are alarmed that the Minister allowed this project to proceed without a clear and detailed oil spill contingency plan. The assumptions used are outdated and speculative at best. Given the potential devastation an oil spill could cause to marine life and coastal communities, this lack of detail is simply unacceptable,” explained McDaid.

The groups argued that the oil spill contingency plan and the blowout contingency plan are crucial components that should have been fully developed and vetted before any authorisation was granted.

The groups also raised concerns about the financial viability of fossil fuel projects in the long term.