In a major victory for environmental accountability and community rights, the Western Cape High Court has overturned the South African government’s decision to grant environmental authorisation for offshore oil and gas exploration in Block 5/6/7, an ecologically sensitive stretch along the country’s south-west coast. The ruling, delivered by Judge Nobahle Mangcu-Lockwood on 13 August 2025, follows a robust judicial review initiated by civil society organisations The Green Connection and Natural Justice. The decision represents a critical moment in the ongoing intersection between administrative law, environmental regulation, and climate justice in South Africa. 

At the heart of the court’s findings lies a clear repudiation of the final Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared by Total Energies EP South Africa, which sought to authorise exploration activities in the region with the intention of later transferring the authorisation to Shell. The court held that the environmental authorisation, as granted by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, failed to comply with the standards set out in the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA). The judgment underscores the judiciary’s growing readiness to hold both government authorities and multinational corporations to account when environmental rights and procedural fairness are at stake. 

A Deficient EIA and the Failure of Participatory Justice 

Judge Mangcu-Lockwood’s judgment methodically identified numerous deficiencies in the EIA process. Among the most significant were the failure to adequately assess the socio-economic impacts of a potential oil spill or blowout on small-scale fishing communities, the omission of climate change impacts, and a glaring lack of attention to transboundary harm, particularly to neighbouring Namibia. 

Crucially, the court found that Total Energies had withheld its oil spill and blowout contingency plans from the public until after the authorisation had been granted. This procedural failure effectively denied affected communities the opportunity to comment meaningfully on the emergency preparedness of the project, an omission the court deemed incompatible with both domestic environmental legislation and the principles of procedural fairness. By disregarding the public’s right to informed participation, the process violated foundational environmental governance norms embedded in NEMA, which enshrine inclusivity, transparency, and precaution as guiding principles in all decision-making. 

Climate Considerations Are Not Optional 

A notable aspect of the court's analysis concerned the role of climate change in environmental decision-making. The respondents had sought to draw a distinction between exploration and production phases, suggesting that emissions and climate impacts could be deferred for consideration at a later stage. The court rejected this argument, finding that the two phases are inextricably linked, both in logic and in law. There would be little purpose in conducting exploratory activities without an intent to move forward with production, and accordingly, decision-makers must consider the full life-cycle climate consequences of any such project, even at the exploratory stage. 

The court's approach reflects an emerging judicial recognition of South Africa’s constitutional and international obligations to mitigate climate change. It affirms that climate impacts are not peripheral considerations but lie at the core of responsible environmental governance. 

Transboundary Obligations and the Reach of South African Law 

The ruling also breaks important ground in confirming the need to assess cross-border environmental harm. Scientific modelling had shown that in the event of a blowout, oil could potentially reach Namibian waters and shores. The court held that the failure to assess these transboundary risks violated both customary international law and South Africa’s own statutory framework, which obliges authorities to consider the wider ecological footprint of domestic decisions. 

This finding positions the judgment within a growing global consensus on transnational environmental responsibility. It also offers a compelling precedent for integrating international environmental law into domestic administrative processes, particularly in the context of shared marine ecosystems. 

A Victory for Rights-Based Environmentalism 

The broader significance of this case lies in its reaffirmation of environmental rights as actionable and enforceable. It reinforces the jurisprudential trajectory set by earlier cases, most notably, the litigation that halted Shell’s seismic surveys along the Wild Coast. Collectively, these cases mark a doctrinal shift away from a resource-extraction-first paradigm, toward a model of environmental governance that centers the rights of communities, the voice of civil society, and the enduring value of ecological integrity. 

Legal representatives for the applicants, including the team from Cullinan & Associates, characterised the judgment as a judicial endorsement of the long-term collective interests of people and the natural environment. It signals to both government departments and corporate actors that South Africa’s environmental laws cannot be circumvented through incomplete studies, procedural shortcuts, or the withholding of critical information. 

The Road Ahead: What the Judgment Means in Practice 

The immediate practical consequence of the ruling is that Total Energies and Shell will now need to undertake further studies and submit new or amended assessments. These must include a full analysis of potential socio-economic and climate impacts, a comprehensive evaluation under the ICMA, spill modelling, transboundary risk assessments, and publicly available emergency response plans. Moreover, all of this information must be subject to meaningful public participation before any reconsideration of environmental authorisation can take place. 

In legal terms, this judgment reasserts the standards of administrative rationality, environmental precaution, and procedural justice. It provides a strong template for future judicial oversight of environmental authorisations and stands as a reminder that the courts remain an important venue for holding powerful entities accountable where regulatory frameworks falter. 

Conclusion: A Landmark for South African Environmental Law 

This case represents far more than the setting aside of a single permit. It is a landmark affirmation of South Africa’s constitutional environmental rights framework and a clear signal that future offshore oil and gas projects will be subject to strict scrutiny. The decision ensures that precaution, public participation, and intergenerational equity are not treated as formalities but as substantive legal requirements. For environmental lawyers, energy law specialists, and public interest practitioners alike, the case serves as a pivotal reference point in the evolving landscape of South African environmental jurisprudence. 

It also delivers a powerful message to affected communities: the law does not exist solely to facilitate development, but also to safeguard the oceans, livelihoods, and rights of those whose futures depend on their protection. 

Written by Kerri Stewart, Attorney, SchoemanLaw Inc