The Minister for Environmental Affairs has recently declared his intention to amend the List of Waste Management Activities that have or are likely to have a detrimental effect on the environment.

The Minister’s proposed amendments to the Waste Act listed activities represent a material shift in how waste projects will be approved, regulated, and enforced in South Africa. For businesses operating in waste, infrastructure or industrial sectors, this presents both a commercial risk and opportunity.

Subscribe now

FASTER APPROVALS

The new proposed framework simplifies thresholds. For example, recycling as a listed activity is only triggered if the facility recycles in excess of 10 tons per day.

What this means for you:

• Simpler entry into projects

• Faster turnaround times

• But less distinction between small and large operations

NO FULL EIAs FOR WASTE PROJECTS

The current regulations are divided in Category A (Basic Assessment) and Category B (Full Scoping and EIA) activities.

The new proposals have completely removed the requirement for Scoping and EIA.

The only distinction the categories now create is that between General and Hazardous Waste.

What this means for you:

• Shorter approval timelines

• Reduced upfront study costs

But critically:

• Less rigorous environmental assessment

• Greater risk of:

  • Legal challenges

  • Community objections later in the project lifecycle

SHIFT FROM LICENSING TO STANDARDS COMPLIANCE

More activities fall under Category C (norms and standards)

What this means for you:

• No waste licence required in many cases

• Immediate ability to operate once compliant

Hidden implication:

• Compliance risk moves from approval phase to the operational phase

In other words:

You may start faster, but you will be audited and enforced against later.

RISKS TO BUSINESS

• You will require stronger internal compliance systems.

• Reduced EIA requirements could affect financing conditions and increase due diligence costs, since investors and lenders often prefer projects with robust EIAs and clear environmental risk assessments.

• Greater likelihood of public objections, appeals and judicial reviews, due to a less comprehensive environmental assessment.

• The new proposals risk blurring the line between small operators and major industrial facilities.

RISKS TO CIVIL SOCIETY

• There is less scrutiny for high-risk activities with the proposed abolition of Scoping and EIA.

• There is a risk that cumulative and long-term environmental impacts will be ignored.

• Fewer opportunities for affected communities to be heard.

• The move towards standards-based regulation mean that there will be an over-reliance on an already weak enforcement system.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

RISKS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONERS

By reducing the number of activities requiring full Environmental Impact Assessments and shifting others into Basic Assessments or standards-based compliance, the proposals are likely to:

• Reduce demand for large, specialist-driven EIA processes

• Compress timelines for environmental inputs

• Limit the scope of traditional scoping and impact assessment work

In practical terms, this could mean less volume in conventional EIA work, particularly for mid- to large-scale waste projects.

Firms that continue to rely solely on traditional EIA processes may see declining demand.

CONCLUSION

The Minister’s proposed amendments represent an aggressive push toward deregulation and "ease of doing business", but at the same time it aims to:

• reduce conventional EIA work done by Environmental Assessment Practitioners, and

• limit the public's constitutional right to thoroughly contest high-impact waste developments.

Members of the public can submit written representations or objections to the proposed amendments within 60 days of the notice's publication (published on 12 May 2026)

Download the Draft Regulations HERE.

Disclaimer:

The information provided in this post is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Environmental law is highly fact-specific, and the contents of this article should not be relied upon as a substitute for formal legal counsel. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you require specific legal advice regarding an appeal or environmental authorization, please schedule a formal consultation via my website at www.samie.co.za.

When I graduated from university, I didn’t walk straight into a career.

Like many others, I found myself in that uncomfortable in-between space—qualified, hopeful, but unemployed. So I continued working as a casual at a retail store. That helped me fund my studies. It paid the bills. It kept me moving.

At the time, I was living in Newlands West, a quietly vibrant suburb west of Durban. Despite being relatively new, it had a surprisingly well-developed bus system—something I came to depend on.

Subscribe now

One Saturday morning, like many before it, I boarded the bus to town.

I made my way to the back seat. If you’ve ever taken a crowded bus, you’ll understand why. It’s strategic. You know the bus will fill up fast, and the back gives you just enough breathing space before the crowd closes in. It also gives you access to something we rarely think about—the emergency exit window directly behind you.

The bus rolled on, picking up passengers until it was packed. People stood shoulder-to-shoulder, squeezed in with practiced resignation. The music was deafening. The subwoofers pulsed so hard that you could feel the vibrations in your chest—your internal organs practically keeping rhythm.

And then, in the midst of that organised chaos, something changed.

A faint white smoke—or steam—began creeping from the front of the bus.

No one reacted.

Not at first.

Then suddenly, the music cut out. Silence filled the space—and as if on cue, a woman screamed:

“The bus is on fire!”

That’s when everything changed.

Panic erupted instantly.

Passengers surged toward the front of the bus, desperate to escape through the main door. In their fear, they inadvertently blocked the very exit they were trying to reach.

At the back, we were faced with a rapid internal calculation:

Do you stay calm, assume it’s an overreaction, and wait your turn?
Or do you act now, because this could turn fatal within seconds?

For us, the answer became painfully clear.

We chose action.

We went for the emergency exit window.

We kicked.

Once. Twice. Again.

Nothing.

Five grown adults, kicking with everything we had—yet the window did not budge.

This was supposed to be our escape route.

It failed.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

In that moment, something shifts in your mind. Training, logic, composure—they all collapse under the weight of survival instinct.

My focus turned to the side windows. Narrow. Barely wide enough.

What happened next is a blur.

I don’t remember how I got out.

I only know that seconds later, I was outside—on the ground, breathing, alive.

Others followed.

Some didn’t have it as easy.

That day, two things became undeniable:

• The emergency exit failed when it mattered most

• There was no fire extinguisher on the bus

The Hidden Cost of Non-Compliance

It would be easy to dismiss this as a transport safety issue. But it’s much bigger than that.

This is what happens when compliance becomes optional.

Environmental compliance—and broader safety compliance—is often seen as a bureaucratic burden. A set of boxes to tick. A cost center. A regulatory inconvenience.

But compliance is not paperwork.

It is protection.

The same mindset that allows a bus to operate without a functioning emergency exit or a fire extinguisher is the mindset that:

• Allows hazardous emissions to go unchecked

• Ignores waste handling protocols

• Underestimates environmental risk until it becomes disaster

And the truth is, the consequences are the same.

People get hurt.
Systems fail.
Trust is broken.

Compliance Is Not About Rules—It’s About Responsibility

Environmental compliance exists for a reason.

It is designed to:

• Prevent harm before it happens

• Protect human life and ecosystems

• Ensure accountability in systems we depend on every day

But compliance only works when it is taken seriously—not just documented, but implemented. Not just audited, but lived.

Because in emergencies, you don’t rise to the level of your policies.

You fall to the level of your preparation.

A Personal Reminder

That day on the bus shaped how I think about compliance.

It taught me that risks are real—even when they seem distant or unlikely.
It showed me that systems fail when they are not maintained.
And most importantly, it reminded me that every compliance gap has a human story waiting behind it.

I was lucky.

I got out.

But the experience stays with me—not as trauma, but as clarity.

Share

When something goes wrong

Environmental compliance isn’t just about protecting the environment.

It’s about protecting people.

It’s about ensuring that when something goes wrong—as it inevitably will—we are not relying on luck to survive.

Because sometimes, the difference between life and tragedy is as simple as whether the emergency window opens.

Disclaimer:

The information provided in this post is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Environmental law is highly fact-specific, and the contents of this article should not be relied upon as a substitute for formal legal counsel. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you require specific legal advice regarding an appeal or environmental authorization, please schedule a formal consultation via my website at www.samie.co.za.

You’ve spent three years, millions of Rands, and countless hours in boardroom battles to secure your Environmental Authorisation (EA) or Water Use Licence (WUL). With the permit finally in hand, the real work begins. You assemble a specialized project team, greenlight the detailed engineering designs, and finalize the appointment of a main contractor.

Then, just as the site establishment begins and your excavators are fuelled up, an email hits your inbox. It’s a Notice of Appeal.

In that single moment, the law pulls the handbrake. The project timelines you’ve carefully managed are instantly shattered. If your contractor is already on-site, you are now bleeding “standing time” costs every day the site is quiet.

Suddenly, you aren’t just a developer anymore, you’re a respondent in a legal battle where every day of delay has a direct, compounding impact on your bottom line.

As an Advocate, I see this “stop-work” crisis play out far too often.

The “suspensive effect” of an administrative appeal is a project-killer if you don’t know how to handle it. Here is the strategy you need to protect your investment.

The Immediate Crisis: The Suspensive Effect

In South African environmental law, an appeal isn’t just a complaint. Under both NEMA and the Water Act, the moment an appeal is lodged against your Environmental Authorisation (EA) or your Water Use Licence (WUL), your decision is automatically suspended.

• The Trap: I’ve met developers who think, “We’ll just clear a little bit of bush while we wait—it’s minor work.” Don’t do it. Continuing activity while a permit is suspended is a criminal offence. It can lead to heavy fines, jail time, and the permanent revocation of your permit, licence or authorisation.

• The Lifeline: If a shutdown means financial ruin or irreparable harm, such as the massive wasted costs of a standing contractor, you don’t just sit and wait. You immediately apply for an order to lift the suspension on the licence or authorisation. If you can show Good Cause, the Minister or MEC can lift that suspension, allowing you to start work while the legal argument continues in the background.

The Responding Statement: Your Shot at Defense

For appeals under NEMA, you are given exactly 20 days to file a response to the appeal, by submitting a Responding Statement.

For appeals to the Water Tribunal, there are no specific regulated timeframes to file a response. However, the Tribunal may issue a directive indicating when you (as well as the other parties) may file their respective documents.

This is your “answering affidavit.” If you miss this window, you’re effectively fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

When I review an appeal, I look for a number of strategic leverage points such as :

• Procedural compliance: Did the appellant miss their 20-day filing window by even 24 hours? If so, the appeal is potentially dead on arrival.

• The Specialist Rebuttal: Most appeals attack the “science”—the wetland study, the heritage impact, or the noise assessment. You need to get your specialists in a room immediately to draft a point-by-point rebuttal. We don’t just say the appellant is wrong; we prove it with data.

Drafting the Responding Statement

The drafting of the Responding Statement may be structured by covering the following areas:

• Points in limine (such as an allegation that the Appellant lacks locus standi to bring the appeal) .

• Procedural irregularities in the manner the appeal was launched: for example that the appeal was lodged out of time and was not accompanied by a condonation application. (this could be raised as a point in limine)

• Substantive response to the grounds of appeal (for example showing that the water quality risks to the nearby river were indeed assessed by inclusion of the water quality assessment and ecological report).

• Ad seriatim response: in some cases you may want to provide a point-by-point response to the Appellant’s allegations.

• Relief Sought: usually asking for the appeal to be dismissed and the authorisation or licence confirmed.

Subscribe now

Final Thoughts

Appeals involving Environmental Authorisations are typical administrative appeals. Which means there are no in-person hearings and no oral arguments. Everything is conducted in writing. You may or may not require the services of a legal representative. However, due to the complex nature of environmental appeals, it is suggested you engage the services of an environmental lawyer.

Appeals to the Water Tribunal are a bit more complex and involve in-person hearings, oral arguments, and testimony by expert witnesses. As the Tribunal hearing is a “trial“ which involves pre-trial hearings, factual and expert testimony and cross examination, including legal argument, it is strongly advised that you engage the services of a legal practitioner to represent you.

Environmental appeals can be complex, time-sensitive, and often misunderstood.

Having the right legal guidance can provide clarity, reduce risk, and ensure your rights are properly protected.

If you need support in navigating an environmental appeal — whether as an applicant, developer, or stakeholder — I would be happy to assist.

For over a century, Clairwood has been more than just a suburb in South Durban; it has been a sanctuary of heritage, a hub of multi-generational families, and a site of sacred history. But a new “Masterplan” from the eThekwini Municipality threatens to turn this living community into a high-speed logistics machine.

The South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) has officially drawn a line in the sand. Here is what you need to know about the fight to save Clairwood.

The South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA), formally instituted a judicial review application in the Durban High Court to set aside the eThekwini Municipal Council’s decision to approve the Clairwood Master Plan. This was not a decision taken lightly, but one necessitated by a systemic failure of administrative justice.

The Clairwood Master Plan represents a watershed moment for urban planning in Durban, signalling a shift where heavy industrial logistics are prioritized over historic residential fabric.

What is the Clairwood Master Plan?

Adopted by the eThekwini Municipal Council on 3 September 2025, the plan introduces a new land-use category known as Special Zone 40. This zone is designed to facilitate a massive “Logistics Park,” turning a 140-year-old residential suburb into a high-intensity industrial conduit for the Port of Durban.

Why This is the “First of its Kind” in the Democratic Era

This is arguably the first time a major South African metro has attempted a wholesale conversion of a historic, inhabited residential suburb into an industrial zone

If this plan is allowed to stand, it creates a "legal template" for the City to industrialize any suburb that sits in the way of a "catalytic project," regardless of the health of the people or the history of the land.

Share

Why is it so Controversial?

The controversy surrounding the eThekwini Council’s decision stems from a fundamental clash between “Macro-Economic Progress” and “Community Survival.” While the City views Clairwood as a strategic link to the Port of Durban, residents and environmental groups like the SDCEA see it as a death warrant for a century-old neighbourhood.

• The “Human Sacrifice” for Logistics

The Council’s decision effectively prioritizes the movement of shipping containers over the lives of people. By approving a plan that introduces 5,000 heavy-duty trucks daily into a residential area, the City is accused of creating a “sacrifice zone.” Residents argue that the noise, vibration, and safety risks make human habitation impossible.

• Environmental Racism and the Right to Health

Clairwood is located in the South Durban Basin, an area already burdened by refineries and heavy industry.

The SDCEA’s objection highlights world-record rates of asthma and cancer in the area.

Critics argue the Council ignored its duty under Section 24 of the Constitution, which guarantees an environment not harmful to health. Approving a massive diesel-emissions hub in a respiratory “red zone” is seen by many as a form of environmental racism.

Subscribe now

• Desecration of Heritage and Culture

Clairwood is home to 100-year-old temples, mosques, and cemeteries that are central to the identity of the South African Indian community.

The Council claims these sites are “protected” because they aren’t being demolished.

Residents point out that a temple surrounded by a wall of trucks, noise, and “sinkholes” in the road is effectively destroyed. The decision is seen as a failure to protect the intangible heritage and religious rights of a historically marginalized community.

Why Durban Communities Should Be Concerned

The core of the controversy is the idea that a community can be designated as a “sacrifice zone” for the sake of national or provincial economic goals.

If the City can successfully argue that “progress for the country” justifies the destruction of Clairwood’s residential fabric, then no neighbourhood bordering the Port, the industrial basins, or the North-South corridors is safe.

It creates a hierarchy of citizens where those living near strategic infrastructure have fewer rights to a quiet, healthy environment than those in the outer suburbs.

If the City is allowed to ignore the combined effect of refineries, ports, and trucking, the environmental protections in the Bill of Rights become meaningless. Any community near an industrial zone could face “death by a thousand cuts” as small projects are approved one by one until the air is unbreathable.

The decision claims to protect temples and cemeteries simply by not demolishing the buildings. However, as the objections point out, surrounding a sacred site with “vibrations, dust, and walls of trucks” destroys its soul.

If “preservation” only means the walls stay standing while the community is driven out, then Durban’s rich cultural history is at risk of becoming a series of empty monuments in an industrial wasteland.

This sets a low bar for heritage protection that favours the “physical” over the “living” culture of the city.

Why This Matters to You

This is the first time in our democratic era that a wholesale turning of a residential area into an industrial zone has been attempted through this type of planning framework. If this is allowed to stand in Clairwood, no historic suburb in Durban is safe.

The Bottom Line

The fight for Clairwood is a fight for the Rule of Law in municipal planning. If community objections are merely bypassed, then the public participation process in Durban has become a mere box-ticking exercise.

This case will determine whether the “Human Factor” still has a place in the future of Durban’s development.

My client (a developer) receives a notice: a registered stakeholder is appealing their newly minted Water Use License (WUL). The client shrugs. “The Department issued it,” they say. “Let the Department defend it. It’s their decision being challenged, not mine.”

This… is a dangerous misconception, and a shortcut to a revoked WUL or Environmental Authorisation (EA).

The Legal Reality: You Are Not a Spectator

Under Section 148 of the National Water Act (NWA), the Water Tribunal provides a platform for dispute resolution (in this case - an Appeal). While the Department is the respondent in an appeal, the licensee (you) is the primary beneficiary of the decision. In administrative law, any party whose rights may be adversely affected by a decision must be joined.

If the developer remains silent, the Water Tribunal will hear only two voices: the person trying to stop the project and the Department trying to defend its administrative process. In some cases the Department may remain silent or choose to abide by the Tribunal’s decision, which poses a problem for the developer.

The Department may defend its decision on procedural grounds, but they do not always possess the technical, site-specific, or commercial evidence that only the developer can provide to justify why the license was correctly granted.

The developer is thus an active participant and an affected party, in appeal proceedings such as the Water Tribunal.

The Pitfalls of Passivity: Why Silence is Not Golden during Appeal Proceedings

An appeal immediately suspends a WUL or an EA. This halts your ability to exercise the rights of the license. If you break ground while an appeal is pending, the commencement of work on site is prima facie unlawful and you risk a “stop-work” order, a directive, or a court interdict, as well as massive rehabilitation costs if the appeal succeeds.

The Department’s legal team will argue during the appeal hearing that they followed the law. They might not argue that your project is the most sustainable use of that specific catchment area. That is your job.

Remember: an appeal before a tribunal isn’t a meeting; it’s a hearing. You need to cross-examine the appellant’s experts and present your own. If you don’t show up, the appellant’s version of the “environmental facts” stands uncontested.

Share

What to do when an Appeal is Lodged against your License?

You must ensure that you have received the Notice of Appeal and all supporting affidavits/grounds from the appellant. Under the Water Tribunal rules, the “licensee” must be formally notified.

You (the developer) should file a Responding Statement (or an Answering Affidavit). This is your opportunity to:

• Refute the factual inaccuracies in the appellant’s objection.

• Provide expert evidence (e.g., from hydrologists or environmental consultants) that supports the original WULA.

• Highlight the socio-economic benefits of the project which the Department likely considered.

The Department is required to provide the record of decision (the “Record”). Your legal team should review this record to ensure that the Department actually considered all relevant factors. If the Department’s record is weak, the developer’s input becomes the “safety net” for the license.

Appeals concerning WULs are heard by the Water Tribunal. It is a formal, court-like environment. The developer should be represented by counsel to cross-examine the appellant’s experts and argue the legal merits of the license.

Subscribe now

Your License is under Fire: Don’t Sit on the Sidelines

In environmental law, a license is a shield, but an appeal is a direct strike at that shield. You cannot expect the person who made the shield (the Department) to be the only one holding it when the appellant strikes.

By not participating in the appeal proceedings, you lose leverage and the ability to defend the license, introduce new evidence, push for an expedited hearing or even push for a settlement.

Disclaimer:

The information provided in this post is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Environmental law is highly fact-specific, and the contents of this article should not be relied upon as a substitute for formal legal counsel. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you require specific legal advice regarding an appeal or environmental authorization, please schedule a formal consultation via my website at www.samie.co.za.

The landscape of air quality management in South Africa has just undergone a significant shift. On 31 March 2026, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment officially repealed the 2013 National Dust Control Regulations, replacing them with a modernized framework: the National Dust Control Regulations, 2026.

As an advocate specializing in environmental law, I’ve broken down the critical updates you need to know about this new legislative regime.

Broader Scope: Who is Covered?

The 2013 regulations were somewhat reactive, often triggered only when an Air Quality Officer (AQO) “reasonably suspected” a contravention. The 2026 Regulations are far more proactive and specific about who must comply.

The 2026 Regulations apply to:

• Mining & Prospecting: Any holder of a right or permit under the MPRDA.

• Reclamation: Anyone extracting value from historical mine dumps.

• Listed Activities: Those required to have an atmospheric emission license (AEL).

• Controlled Emitters: Any activity with the potential to generate dust.

• Nuisance Creators: Anyone an AQO suspects is causing a “nuisance” by dust.

Shift in Standards: ASTM vs. SANS

A technical but vital change involves the “Standard Test Method” for measuring dustfall.

• Old Standard (2013): Relied on ASTM D1739:1970.

• New Standard (2026): Mandates the use of SANS 1137 (the South African National Standard).

• Transitional Period: Entities with existing plans have a six-month window to transition their monitoring methods from the old ASTM standard to the new SANS 1137.

The “Nuisance” Factor

The 2026 Regulations introduce a clear focus on nuisance: defined as unreasonable interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of their property or environment. While the 2013 version focused heavily on “dustfall standards,” the new law explicitly states its purpose is to prevent nuisance and requires Dust Management Plans to include specific measures to manage it.

Dust Management Plans (DMP): Mandatory vs. Requested

In 2013, you generally only developed a DMP after exceeding the dustfall standard. Now, it is a pre-emptive requirement.

• Mandatory Filing: Mines, reclamation sites, and listed activities must develop and submit a DMP within 60 days of the regulations commencing (or before they start new activities).

• Approval Timeline: Authorities now have a 60-day window to approve or refer a plan back for amendment.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

Stricter Reporting & Accreditation

The reporting requirements have become more rigorous to ensure data integrity:

• Frequency: Implementation reports must now be submitted at monthly intervals (unless otherwise specified), whereas 2013 was often annual.

• Accreditation: Laboratory analysis must now provide proof of SANAS accreditation for both the gravimetric analysis and the use of the SANS 1137 method.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

The teeth of the law remain sharp. Failure to comply with the 2026 Regulations (such as failing to submit a DMP or progress report) carries heavy penalties:

• First Conviction: Fine up to R5 million and/or 5 years in prison.

• Subsequent Convictions: Fine up to R10 million and/or 10 years in prison.

How do you think these changes will affect your local community? Let me know in the comments.

If you are an Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), you likely measure your success by the thickness of your final report. We’ve all been there: juggling ten different specialist studies, thousands of pages of raw data, and enough annexures to fill a boardroom.

But here is a reality check from a legal perspective: Volume is not the same as validity.

In fact, a bloated report is a dangerous report. Why? Because the person making the decision on your project, the case officer at the Environmental Department, is often overworked and under-resourced. If they cannot find the “essence” of the impact within the first 20 pages, your project faces delays, requests for “further information,” or a high risk of appeal.

The Executive Summary of your EIA report, is more important than you think.

The 3 Biggest Mistakes EAPs Make (and why they are “Appeal Magnets”)

Most practitioners treat the Executive Summary as a last-minute chore. In my experience, this leads to three common “Fatal Flaws” that I detail in Chapter 1 (The Hall of Shame):

• The Collator Trap: This is where you copy-paste the “Introduction” from every specialist report into one chapter. It results in a disjointed, contradictory mess that lacks a central narrative.

• The Technical Fog: Using jargon so dense that a layperson cannot understand the actual risk. As I discuss further in my book, if the regulator can’t understand it, they can’t authorize it.

• The “Should” Syndrome: Using weak, aspirational language. If your summary says a developer “should consider” mitigation, you are inviting a Section 43 appeal.

Subscribe now

How to Find “The Essence”

To fix your reporting today, you must stop thinking like a file clerk and start thinking like a Synthesis Expert. Here is a practical 3-step audit you can run on your current draft:

1. The “So What?” Test

Read a paragraph. If you cannot immediately explain how that specific information affects the final decision, it doesn’t belong in the summary. In my book, I provide a framework for stripping away the “technical noise” while keeping the “legal signal.”

2. The 10-Minute Rule

Give your summary to someone who isn’t a scientist. If they cannot identify the top three risks and the top three benefits of the project in 10 minutes, your summary is too complex. I show you how to translate specialist data into plain, defensible English.

3. The Pivot Point

Every project has a “trade-off.” Do not hide the negative impacts. Instead, clearly state the cost (e.g., loss of 4ha of vegetation) versus the gain (e.g., 200 local jobs).

Share

Why This Matters for Your Career

I wrote “THE SUMMARY: The Essence of EIA Reporting” to be the guide I wish I had 20 years ago. It’s a practical field guide, not a dry textbook, filled with:

• The Significance Dashboard: A visual way to present impacts.

• The Appeal Test: A self-audit tool to see if your report can survive a legal challenge.

• Command Language Templates: How to write conditions that actually stick.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

Take Control of Your Narrative

Your hard work deserves to be read, understood, and authorized. Don’t let the “Essence” of your professional opinion get buried in a 2,000-page report.

“THE SUMMARY” is available for download on my website right now.

In the idyllic coastal town of Wilderness, South Africa, a luxury 5-star guest lodge perches precariously atop a shifting dune. For years, the owners of this property have looked at the eroding sands with justifiable anxiety, a fear shared by thousands of coastal homeowners worldwide as sea levels rise and storm surges intensify.

However, a recent Western Cape High Court ruling (HFB Junior Beleggings v Minister of the Western Cape) has exposed the line where legitimate concern ends and legal opportunism begins.

The case centers on a high-stakes question:

Can a property owner skip the rigorous, environmental approval process by declaring a sudden “emergency” when their house is threatened by the sea?

The court’s answer was a resounding “no,” serving as a stern warning that the coastline is a shared heritage, not a private playground where environmental laws can be bypassed through “shortcuts.”

History and Context

The applicant, HFB Junior Beleggings (Pty) Ltd, owned two properties situated above a coastal dune in Wilderness, Western Cape. The properties fell within the Coastal Protection Zone (CPZ) and the littoral active zone.

In September 2023, severe weather caused the initial dune erosion. Then in February 2024, the Applicant signalled its intention to seek a Section 30A exemption rather than a standard Environmental Authorisation (EA).

In August 2024, the Applicant formally submitted a Section 30A application, whereafter the Department refused the directive. An internal appeal against the refusal was subsequently dismissed.

The Applicant thereafter launched review proceedings in the Western Cape High Court.

Share

When Is an "Emergency" Not an Emergency?

Under Section 30A of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), authorities can issue a directive to perform protective work without prior authorization, but only to “prevent or contain an emergency.” The applicant in this case sought such a directive to build a massive concrete retaining wall.

To qualify as an emergency, a situation must be “sudden.” The court identified a glaring “Time Gap” that decimated the applicant’s credibility:

The Storm: September 2023.

The Application: August 2024.

Waiting nearly a year to declare an “imminent” collapse is a legal contradiction. Erosion that happens over months or years is a “progressive” issue, not a “sudden” one. The court noted that Section 30A is not a tool for long-term planning, but a “break glass in case of fire” provision.

Imminent Danger vs. Vacancy Rates

One of the most damning aspects of the case, what the court termed a lack of good faith, was the “Guest House Paradox.” The applicant filed urgent legal papers claiming that the property was in such “imminent danger of collapse” that it threatened the foundation of the adjacent property.

Yet, while claiming the buildings were structural death traps, the applicant continued to host paying guests in the 5-star lodge on the property. The court was unimpressed by this gamble with human life.

Furthermore, a report compiled by the Department’s coastal ecologist, suggested the dune’s instability was largely a self-inflicted wound caused by unauthorized “improvements.”

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

The “Unclean Hands” Doctrine and Punitive Costs

The court viewed the Section 30A application not as a genuine cry for help, but as an attempt to bypass public participation and scientific scrutiny. This behaviour reached a tipping point when the applicant refused to grant site access to the Department’s coastal ecologist, Dr. Avis, for an inspection.

This “Access Denied” tactic backfired spectacularly. The court invoked the “Unclean Hands” principle, which prevents a party from obtaining relief when their claim arises from their own improper conduct.

Subscribe now

The Section 30A Shortcut

The court scrutinized the applicant’s preference for a Section 30A directive over a Section 24 Environmental Authorisation.

Section 30A allows the competent authority to bypass the standard Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) only to “prevent or contain an emergency.”

The court concluded that the applicant sought to “circumvent the Environmental Authorisation (EA) process... including the Basic Assessment process, which involves public participation.”

Even the applicant’s own consultants (Anchor Environmental) had recommended a Basic Assessment Process due to the sensitivity of the dune, warning that hard structures (like the proposed retaining wall) could damage adjacent dunes through wave energy refraction.

Ultimately, the court ruled the Department’s decisions were lawful and rational, ordering the applicant to pay punitive costs for abusing the legal process and acting in bad faith.

The Future of Living on the Edge

As climate change accelerates, the HFB Junior Beleggings case serves as a vital blueprint for the future of coastal living. We must acknowledge the genuine fear that homeowners feel as they watch the ocean encroaching on their doorsteps. However, that fear does not grant a license to ignore the law.

The “duty of care” toward our environment is a legal mandate. In an era of rising seas, the rights of a private owner to “save” their house through destructive engineering cannot override the state’s duty to protect the “common heritage” of our coastline.

My Substack went silent at the end of February. Not because there was nothing to write about, but because I was suddenly pulled into a case that demanded every spare hour I had.

It began with reports of dumping at Sydenham Quarry. At first, it sounded like a local dispute. But the deeper I looked, the more it became clear that this was not just a neighbourhood concern about nuisance. It was the beginning of a legal battle over environmental protection, community rights, the limits of the law, and critically for me… the future of my legal practice.

The first photographs of the dumping at Sydenham Quarry arrived on my phone late one evening. What I saw did not look like routine land use. It looked like the beginning of an environmental disaster.

The Quarry as an Emerging Ecosystem

Sydenham Quarry lies in a narrow corridor of land between the suburb of Clare Estate and the roaring traffic of the N2 Highway in Durban. To most commuters passing by, it appears to be nothing more than a forgotten excavation site — an industrial relic carved into the hillside decades ago.

But landscapes have a remarkable capacity to heal themselves.

Over time, rainwater and groundwater seepage collected in the basin of the quarry, forming a substantial waterbody. Vegetation slowly began reclaiming the steep rock faces and surrounding slopes. What had once been an industrial scar started evolving into something far more interesting from an ecological perspective: an emerging natural habitat.

An ecological assessment later confirmed what many residents had already begun to suspect.

National biodiversity screening tools classified the quarry area as having very high terrestrial biodiversity sensitivity, as well as high to very high sensitivity for animal species. The broader landscape around the site also reflected meaningful plant biodiversity sensitivity.

This was not an environmentally insignificant piece of land.

It was part of a landscape that national environmental authorities already recognised as biologically sensitive.

Share

The waterbody inside the quarry had begun functioning as a small urban wetland of sorts. Water attracts life, and the relatively inaccessible nature of the quarry meant that it offered refuge to birds and small terrestrial fauna that might otherwise struggle to survive in a densely built urban environment.

Birdlife in particular appeared to be flourishing. Regional biodiversity data suggested the presence of numerous avian species in the surrounding area, including bee-eaters, barbets, bushshrikes, cisticolas and raptors, species that rely on habitat pockets like this to survive in rapidly urbanising landscapes.

Vegetation along the quarry slopes included indigenous and naturalised species such as Euphorbia ingens and Ficus natalensis, plants adapted to rocky cliff environments. These types of vegetative communities can support specialised ecological niches and, over time, often attract additional species that depend on such habitats.

In ecological terms, the quarry had become something rare in a city environment: a recovering ecosystem.

And that is precisely what made the situation unfolding there so concerning.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

Why the Situation Was So Alarming

South Africa’s environmental regulatory system is designed to protect sensitive environments before they are altered or destroyed.

Under Section 24 of the Constitution of South Africa, everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being and that is protected for the benefit of present and future generations. That constitutional principle is implemented through environmental legislation that requires proper assessment before activities capable of damaging ecosystems are allowed to proceed.

Yet what appeared to be happening at the quarry was the opposite of that process.

Instead of environmental assessments, truckloads of material were being dumped into the waterbody forming inside the quarry.

Even more troubling was the fact that environmental authorities had already intervened. One of the landowners responsible for the dumping had been issued with a compliance notice by the provincial environmental department — which was intended to halt unlawful environmental activity.

Ordinarily, the issuance of such a notice signals that regulators have stepped in and that the offending activity must stop immediately.

But in this case, the dumping continued.

Truckloads of material kept arriving. The waterbody continued to be filled. The fragile ecosystem that had begun forming inside the quarry was being altered day by day.

At that point the issue no longer appeared to be a simple regulatory oversight or misunderstanding about permits.

What was unfolding looked increasingly like an unlawful activity continuing in defiance of regulatory intervention.

An illegal act of potentially criminal proportions.

Subscribe now

The Realisation

The quarry was changing in real time.

Every truck entering the site meant more material dumped into the waterbody. Every day meant further alteration to a recovering ecosystem that might never return to its previous state.

It was clear that something unlawful was unfolding in full view of regulators and the surrounding community.

The question was no longer whether something needed to be done.

The question was whether the law could move fast enough to stop it.

What happened next was something I should have, but never saw coming…

The draft Code of Conduct for Environmental Management Inspectors (EMIs) and Environmental Mineral and Petroleum Inspectors (EMPIs) was published on 13 February 2026 and is now out for comment.

It represents a significant step in formalizing the ethical framework for South Africa’s “Green Scorpions”. While the Code aims to professionalize the Inspectorate, it sits at a complex intersection of administrative duty and public transparency.

Subscribe now

The Professionalization of the Green Scorpions

For the Inspectorate, this Code is less about “new powers” and more about “regulated behaviour.”

• Standardization of Integrity: The Code moves beyond vague “good behaviour” to specific prohibitions, such as the use of intoxicating substances during duty and the strict regulation of “deadly force” during arrests.

• Conflict of Interest: Sections 13 and 14 create a hard line against personal gain, prohibiting the acceptance of any gifts and requiring the disclosure of financial interests that could compromise objectivity.

• Conflict with Other Prescripts: Crucially, Section 5.4 establishes that this Code prevails over other codes (like the Public Servants Code) specifically regarding the execution of EMI duties. This gives the Green Scorpions a distinct, specialized identity within the broader civil service.

Implications for Communities

The Code explicitly links the duties of EMIs to the Section 24 Constitutional right to an environment not harmful to health or well-being.

• Section 4.3 mandates that the Inspectorate promote “environmental justice” as provided for in NEMA. For frontline communities, often those most affected by industrial pollution, this provides a formal standard against which they can hold inspectors accountable.

• Section 4.4 requires inspectors to be non-discriminatory. In practice, this means that a community member in a rural area should theoretically receive the same level of investigative rigour as a well-funded NGO.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

The Transparency Paradox

The most contentious area for environmental advocates and affected communities lies in the balance between Batho Pele principles and statutory confidentiality.

While Section 9.3 requires “courteous, effective and timely” responses to public queries, Section 16 acts as a muzzle. For a community suffering from illegal dumping or water contamination, the “timely response” they receive may often be a refusal to share details of the inspector’s report due to this confidentiality clause.

The current Draft Code (as seen in Clause 16) is too passive. It merely references Section 31Q of NEMA. To truly empower EMIs and communities, Clause 16.1 should be amended to explicitly list the categories in 31Q(1A). It should read:

Clause 17.1 (objective and transparent reporting) should be linked to the EMI’s duty to inform. A new Clause 17.4 could be added:

Clause 9 (Batho Pele) should be interpreted as a mandate for the “Openness and Transparency” principle to override bureaucratic secrecy when a community’s right to a healthy environment is at stake.

By framing the EMI’s role as a facilitator of environmental justice rather than a “gatekeeper of secrets,” the Code can transform from a restrictive document into one that aligns with the democratic values of the NEMA principles.

Critical Enforcement Gaps

The Code provides for the suspension or withdrawal of designation if an inspector breaches serious ethical standards (like fraud or misuse of force). However:

• While EMIs are required to report their colleagues’ unethical behavior, there is no explicit mention of a whistleblower protection mechanism within the Code itself to protect junior EMIs who report senior officials.

• The Code focuses on internal disciplinary processes. It lacks a clear, accessible portal for the public to lodge complaints specifically regarding breaches of this Code, relying instead on existing (and often slow) departmental channels.

The current Draft Code, particularly Clause 16, creates a ‘Secrecy Trap’ that encourages EMIs to prioritize the confidentiality of the regulated entity over the safety of the public. This is a misdirection of law.

Members of the public have until 15 March 2026 , 12h00 to submit comments or objections.

Download the Notice HERE

The needles, the tissues, and the materials soaked in blood or body fluids generated by modern medicine cannot simply be tossed into a standard bin.

To address this, the South African government has introduced the “National Norms and Standards for the Transportation, Storage, and Treatment of Health Care Risk Waste”.

This regulatory “rulebook” is designed to ensure that the dangerous residues of healthcare never cross paths with the public in a way that could cause harm. It is a technical framework that turns waste management into a high-stakes operation of cold-chain logistics and rigorous safety protocols, ensuring that the “hidden life” of medical waste is managed with absolute precision.

The proposed National Norms and Standards aim to establish a uniform regulatory framework for the management of Health Care Risk Waste (HCRW) throughout its entire lifecycle in South Africa. The primary objective is to mitigate threats to human health, animal welfare, and the environment by prescribing rigorous requirements for the handling, storage, transportation, and treatment of such waste.

General Prohibitions

To ensure public safety and environmental integrity, the following actions are strictly prohibited:

• Land Disposal: Disposal of untreated infectious, laboratory, pathological, or sharps waste to land.

• Sewer Discharge: Discharging HCRW to municipal sewers without National Water Act compliance and municipal approval.

• Packaging Non-Compliance: Using containers that do not meet SANS 10248 standards.

• Manual Handling Limits: Manually lifting any HCRW container weighing more than 15kg.

• Unsecured Access: Leaving HCRW unattended in areas where unauthorized personnel or the public have access.

• Unauthorized Treatment/Disposal: Treating waste at facilities not designed for that specific waste type or disposing of residue at unauthorized sites.

• Unsafe Recycling: Recycling, recovering, or reusing infectious HCRW without prior treatment.

Share

Duties of All HCRW Holders

Every holder of HCRW must ensure that once waste is placed in a container, it is not manually removed for decanting or sorting. Holders must comply with the waste manifest system and maintain a spill response plan.

Duties of Waste Transporters

Their obligations include:

• Compliance: Ensuring waste is packaged according to SANS 10248-1 or SANS 452.

• Logistics: Transporting waste in accordance with the National Road Traffic Act, 1996.

• Vehicle Safety: Storing waste only in suitable vehicles parked in secure locations and cleaning/decontaminating vehicles to an aesthetically acceptable level.

• Documentation: Developing procedures for site management, including descriptions of waste types, storage areas, and cold room details.

Duties of Waste Managers

Their obligations include:

• Verification: Weighing all received HCRW and refusing incorrectly packaged waste.

• Operational Standards: Operating non-combustion technology according to prescribed norms and ensuring waste residue is unrecognizable and treated as hazardous (unless classified otherwise).

• Safety Systems: Maintaining a radiation detection system to monitor waste loads.

• Reporting: Documenting system failures, unplanned shutdowns, and routine maintenance.

Subscribe now

Storage and Timeframe Requirements

Storage Facility Standards:

Storage areas must meet specific technical criteria

Maximum Storage Timeframes:

The standards mandate strict time limits for waste storage before it must be delivered for treatment or disposal.

Efficacy Testing and Validation

For non-combustion treatment technologies, the standards prescribe a rigorous validation process to confirm disinfection.

The End of Manual Sharps Handling

Perhaps the most dangerous item in the medical waste stream is “sharps waste”, the needles and scalpels that carry the highest risk of injury and infection. The new standards take a firm stance on how these items are processed, effectively “removing the human hand” from the most hazardous part of the cycle.

The mandate states that reusable sharps containers can only be opened using methods that are “mechanised.” This requirement is not just about avoiding needle sticks; it is specifically designed to control “bioaerosol emissions”, the suspension of airborne particles that contain living organisms.

Share

A Five-Year Paper Trail for Public Safety

The proposed new standards mandate a rigorous five-year paper trail. Every transporter and waste manager must maintain accurate records that reflect the specific quantities of waste transported, treated, or disposed of. These records must be available to competent authorities at any time, ensuring that no gram of hazardous material vanishes from the grid.

DOWNLOAD THE NOTICE

Closing date for comments is 3 March 2026.

For 2026, I am going all out.


I want to shift the narrative from "tearing reports apart" to helping Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) build bulletproof applications.


Let’s be honest: no one wants to be the person who launches an appeal against your hard-earned Environmental Authorisation. It’s costly, it’s time-consuming, and it stalls development.


But if we are going to stop the "sinking" of EAs on appeal or review, we have to start by talking about the one error that continues to bug me—and the one that judges are increasingly unforgiving of:

Subscribe now

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Public Participation is not a "tick-box" administrative hurdle. It is the cornerstone of environmental law and a constitutional right to administrative justice.


The Fatal Errors I see far too often:

• Selective Notification: Missing key Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs).

• The "Holiday Squeeze": Pushing comment periods during restricted windows (like Dec 15 – Jan 5) where meaningful engagement is impossible.

• Dismissive Responses: Failing to provide substantive, evidence-based answers to the concerns raised by the public.

• Language Justice: We can no longer ignore the dominant language of the affected area.
  

  The Supreme Court of Appeal made this crystal clear in SDCEA v Minister: DFFE (2025). If the community can't understand the impact in their primary language, the process isn't just "poor"—it's legally invalid.

SPECIALIST STUDIES

SPECIALIST STUDIES (or the lack thereof) can cause your EIA ship to run aground.


This is another major error by EAPs which I find most worrying.

• Failing to commission the appropriate specialist study (for e.g. a project having major heritage issues, but no heritage studies commissioned)... or failing to commission a particular study despite it being raised as a significant issue during scoping.

• Relying on desktop studies from 7 years ago or failing to conduct seasonal sampling.

• Downplaying the findings of specialists or even contradicting the findings without providing a reasoned explanation as to why they departed from the specialists findings.
  
  or
  

• Just plain ignoring the findings of the specialists in the impact statement/EIR.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

MITIGATION

Failure to Adhere to the Mitigation Hierarchy:



The Error:


Skipping straight to "minimization" or "offsetting" because it is more convenient for the developer, without proving why the impact cannot be avoided entirely.



This remains one of the most common points of failure for EAPs.




EAPs often assume that because a developer has a "preferred" site, avoidance is impossible.



They skip straight to "Minimizing" or "Rehabilitating" impacts that could have been avoided entirely through better site selection or technological alternatives.



Our courts increasingly demand proof that avoidance was genuinely explored.


If the EAP cannot show a rational "No-Go" or "Site Alternative" analysis, the mitigation plan is legally flawed from the outset.

ALTERNATIVES

One error by EAPs that is particularly frustrating is the Failure to Assess Reasonable Alternatives . This is the most common "fatal flaw."


EAPs often focus only on the developer’s preferred layout, failing to investigate the "No-Go" alternative or genuine site/technology alternatives.



Then there is the practice of presenting "alternatives" that are not feasible or are merely slight variations of the same plan.



A dangerous trend has emerged where EAPs present "alternatives" that they know from the start are impossible and unfeasible. This is done to give the false impression that they have investigated alternatives in compliance with the regulations.



These are called "SWEET-HEART" reports: a biased document intended to justify a decision already made.



The "No-Go" option (the status quo) is frequently dismissed in a single paragraph as "economically detrimental."


These errors have the effect of preventing the decision-maker from weighing up the environmental cost, as there is no comparative scientific assessment of what happens if the project does not proceed.


A "smokescreen" is easy for high court judges to see through. They simply ask: "Was there a version of this project that caused less harm but met the same goal?"

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

When an EAP faces scientific uncertainty, they often make a "fatal" choice:

* they interpret the absence of evidence as evidence of absence of harm. *



The Precautionary Principle, enshrined in NEMA, mandates a "risk-averse and cautious approach" which takes into account the limits of current knowledge.



When specialists provide conflicting data or state that "more research is needed," EAPs frequently default to a "Low Significance" rating in the EIR.


They argue that because a specific harm has not been proven to occur in South Africa, it is unlikely to occur.



In the 2025 TEEPSA (TotalEnergies EP SA) Judgment, the court found that the EAP's failure to assess the "worst-case scenario" (a full blowout) because it was "unlikely" was a violation of the Precautionary Principle.


The court ruled that unlikely does not mean impossible, and a cautious approach requires planning for the catastrophe.

EAPs often try to bypass uncertainty by suggesting: "We will monitor the impact during construction, and if we see harm, we will stop."



This "wait and see" attitude is a direct violation of the duty of care.

REGISTER FOR THIS POPULAR BEGINNER’S COURSE

The draft National Waste Management Strategy (NWMS) 2026, published in December 2025, represents a strategic pivot for South Africa as it attempts to address a significant regression in waste diversion performance over the last five years.

This strategy seeks to transition the country toward a Circular Economy (CE) while addressing systemic failures in municipal service delivery.

The public and affected stakeholders are encouraged to submit comments on the Draft Strategy 2026.

Subscribe now

Strategic Pillars of NWMS 2026

The strategy is built upon four primary pillars designed to provide a comprehensive response to the waste crisis:

• Pillar 1: Circular Economy and Waste Minimisation: Focuses on shifting away from the “take-make-dispose” model toward resource recovery and waste reduction.

• Pillar 2: Effective and Sustainable Waste Services: Aims to stabilise municipal waste collection and ensure financial stability in waste management services.

• Pillar 3: Capacity Building and Awareness: Targets the development of a culture of zero tolerance for pollution and littering through education.

• Pillar 4: Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement: Strengthens the regulatory oversight to ensure adherence to the Waste Act and other environmental standards.

Key Performance Regression

A critical takeaway from the draft is the acknowledgement of a net 15 million tonne increase in waste generation alongside a 25% decrease in the waste diversion rate compared to 2018 levels.

This suggests that while the NWMS 2020 established a necessary framework, it struggled to achieve practical “game-changing” innovation in the sector.

The status quo assessment reveals the following:

• Waste diversion rates dropped from 35% in 2018 to 10% .

• Total waste volumes increased from 107 million tonnes in 2018 to 122 million tonnes.

Share

Expanded Scope of Priority Waste Streams

The 2026 draft significantly expands the list of prioritised waste streams to include materials that have historically been difficult to manage. These include:

• Absorbent Hygiene Products (AHPs) and Clothing and Textiles.

• Organic and Food waste, which are major contributors to landfill gas.

• Coal ash and Construction/Demolition waste, addressing industrial and urban development footprints.

Emphasis on the Informal Sector

Unlike previous iterations that focused primarily on formal municipal services, the 2026 strategy explicitly recognizes the informal sector led by waste picker organisations as key actors in the Circular Economy.

This acknowledges that a “just transition” is required to integrate these individuals into the formal value chain.

Implementation Challenges

The strategy highlights a major service delivery gap: while 12.7 million tonnes of municipal waste are collected annually, an estimated 3.67 million tonnes remain uncollected.

The NWMS 2026 attempts to address this through Pillar 2, but its success will depend on the financial stability of municipalities, a recurring challenge in the South African context.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

We’re Losing the War on Trash

The NWMS 2020 wasn't just "slow", it presided over a massive 25% collapse in effectiveness while waste volumes increased by 15 million tonnes.

The 2026 strategy adds several highly complex new waste streams to its priority list, which may be a case of "running before we can walk."

The reality is that while the DFFE is planning for complex automobile and coal ash management, municipalities are failing at the basics: 3.67 million tonnes of municipal waste still go completely uncollected every year.

The 2026 strategy aims for a culture of “zero tolerance” for illegal dumping and litter and acknowledges that a “dramatic improvement in the status quo” is required, but it relies on municipalities that are currently struggling with financial (and political) stability.

It could be argued that the "Circular Economy" is being used as a high-minded distraction from the systemic breakdown of traditional waste management infrastructure.

Beacon of Hope or Pie in the Sky ?

Whether the Draft National Waste Management Strategy (NWMS) 2026 is a beacon of hope or “pie in the sky” depends on whether you focus on its ambitious theoretical framework or the sobering data it reveals about the last five years of failure.

The strategy itself admits that South Africa is currently moving in the wrong direction, which serves as both a justification for its “game-changing” goals and a warning of the systemic hurdles ahead.

The NWMS 2026 offers hope because it identifies exactly where the previous strategy failed.

However, it leans toward “pie in the sky” because it proposes adding more complexity (new waste streams) to a system that is currently failing at the basics (collection and diversion).

Without a radical shift in how municipalities are funded and held accountable (Pillar 4), the 2026 strategy risks becoming another well-written document that watches waste volumes grow while diversion rates continue to fall.

Public comments on the DRAFT WASTE STRATEGY are due by Tuesday, February 17, 2026 at 12h00.

Download the draft National Waste Management Strategy

Judges are traditionally viewed as the ultimate guardians of the law, impartial figures robed in the authority and ethics of the justice system. They are expected to be beyond reproach, the final arbiters in a world of complex legal and moral questions.

But in a recent wave of arrests and allegations in South Africa, several judges have found themselves on the wrong side of the law.

From accusations of corruption and fraud to sexual harassment, these cases have sent shockwaves through the nation.

The Staggering Irony of a Judge on Trial, Presiding Over a Trial

In a case brimming with irony, an acting judge convicted a former traffic department employee, on 50 charges of fraud, forgery, racketeering, and corruption related to issuing bogus driver’s licences. The employee was awaiting his sentence, but the case took a strange turn of events before it could be delivered.

In May ‘25, before the Acting Judge could sentence the employee, she was herself arrested on charges of fraud and corruption. The state alleges that she and a co-accused, bypassed internal systems at the State Attorney’s office to have payments made directly into their private accounts.

The scheme allegedly involved creating fake invoices related to inactive case files, forging signatures for approval, and defrauding the office of approximately R200,000.

It’s Not Just a Few Bad Apples

The Eastern Cape High Court Judge President is facing possible impeachment over a sexual harassment complaint filed by a young secretary. This marks an unprecedented moment, as he is the “first sitting judge and court judge president to be accused of such conduct,” highlighting the severe power dynamics at play within the courts.

An Acting KwaZulu-Natal high court judge was arrested and accused of fraud and money laundering in a scheme to acquire a R1.3 million luxury SUV for the agriculture department’s former head. The scheme allegedly involved the Acting Judge, who was a service provider to the department at the time, facilitating the acquisition.

In another stark example, a sitting Pretoria High Court Judge was arrested on corruption charges reportedly connected to the direct adjudication of a “church succession matter.”

When a Judge President faces a sexual harassment tribunal and other high court judges are arrested for corruption linked to both state tenders and the outcomes of cases, it points to a deeper, more troubling pattern that threatens public trust in the entire judicial institution.

The System Can Correct Itself, But Justice Is Not Swift

Amid these damaging revelations, there is evidence that the system has mechanisms for accountability, even for the most powerful judges.

The cases of Judge President Hlophe and retired Judge Motata demonstrate that removal from office is possible. President Cyril Ramaphosa formally removed both judges after the National Assembly passed resolutions with the required two-thirds majority.

The grounds for their removal were severe. The Judicial Conduct Tribunal found that Judge Hlophe’s attempt to influence Constitutional Court justices was gross misconduct that “seriously threatened and interfered with the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of the Constitutional Court and further undermined public confidence in the judicial system.” Judge Motata was removed for “gross misconduct” following a drunk driving conviction that dated all the way back to 2009.

While the removal of these two judges confirms that accountability can be achieved, the timeline of Judge Motata’s case is telling. The fact that a conviction from 2009 led to his removal over a decade later highlights the extremely slow and arduous nature of the judicial conduct process. Accountability is possible, but the path to achieving it is exceptionally long.

In a recent development, the Judicial Conduct Tribunal found Western Cape Judge Mushtak Parker guilty of gross misconduct, and the JSC has resolved to refer the matter to the National Assembly to commence removal proceedings.

These actions demonstrate that while the wheels of justice turn slowly, a path to accountability does exist.

A Crisis of Trust and a Call for Transparency

The South African judiciary is facing an unprecedented crisis. With judges at all levels, from acting officials to a Judge President, accused of serious misconduct ranging from corruption to abuses of power, public faith in the institution is under severe strain.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

While these revelations are deeply damaging, the fact that they are being investigated and prosecuted in the public eye is a necessary, albeit painful, step toward reform.

But as these cases unfold, the critical question is not just how to restore faith.

When a judge who convicts a fraudster is herself on trial for fraud, and the highest judicial offices are tainted by scandal, the real question is whether the mechanisms for accountability, now proven to be agonizingly slow, can work fast enough to prevent the collapse of public trust altogether.

Have you ever marvelled at how easily a non-stick pan cleans up, or how a spill beads up and rolls right off a stain-resistant carpet? These modern conveniences often rely on a dark secret: a class of substances known as “Persistent Organic Pollutants” (POPs), or more grimly, ‘forever chemicals’.

For decades, environmental scientists have warned about the bio-accumulative nature of these compounds. These chemicals are designed to last, which is precisely what makes them so dangerous.

The proposed regulation marks the moment that policy has finally caught up with the science.

The South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment has recently proposed new regulations to strictly manage persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

High-risk substances like Dechlorane Plus and UV-328 are targeted for total removal from the market by the end of 2035.

To ensure compliance, businesses must notify the government of their chemical use and submit detailed phase-out plans that track annual reduction targets.

Failure to adhere to these environmental protections can result in severe legal penalties, including multi-million rand fines or imprisonment.

Consolidation of Laws

The proposed regulations will repeal and merge two existing legal instruments:

• The Regulations to Prohibit the Production, Distribution, Import, Export, Sale and Use of Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2021 (Government Notice R.414).

• The Regulations to Phase-out the Use, Production, Distribution, Sale, Import and Export of Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2019 (Government Notice R.1150).

Substances for Immediate Prohibition

Under Regulation 3, no person may produce, distribute, import, export, sell, or use any of the listed substances, including their formulations and products.

Substances for Phased Elimination

Regulation 5 mandates the phase-out of the production, distribution, import, export, sale, and use of the following three substances by December 31, 2035:

• Dechlorane Plus

Flame retardant in adhesives, sealants, and polymers for motor vehicles, aerospace, defense, electronics, industrial machines, and medical devices.

• UV-328

Ultraviolet filter in plastics, automotive coatings, industrial coatings, photographic paper, and liquid crystal displays for medical and industrial instruments.

• Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)

Fire-fighting foams (especially at airports and training areas), non-stick cookware, grease-resistant food packaging, water/stain-protective coatings for textiles, and industrial surfactants.

Share

Exemptions

The phase-out requirements under Regulation 5 do not apply in two specific cases:

• A substance used for laboratory-scale research or as a reference standard.

• A substance that occurs as an unintentional trace contaminant in other substances, preparations, or articles.

Offences and Penalties

A person commits an offence if they contravene the core regulations or furnish false or misleading information.

The penalties for a conviction are :

• First Offence: A minimum fine of 5 million Rands or 5 years imprisonment.

• Second or Subsequent Offence: A maximum fine of 10 million Rands or 10 years imprisonment, or both a fine and imprisonment.

Subscribe now

Submission of Comments

Written representations or objections must be submitted by Wednesday, February 4, 2026 at 12h00 to:

The Director General,

Attention: Ms Margaret Molefe,

The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment,

Email: mmolefe@dffe.gov.za.

Download the Draft Regulations

REGISTER NOW | EARLY BIRD REGISTRATION FEE APPLIES

The Minister for Water and Sanitation has proposed new “Regulations for the Protection and Management of Groundwater Resources, under the authority of the National Water Act, 1998.

Published in the Government Gazette on December 10, 2025, these regulations signify a comprehensive overhaul of groundwater management in South Africa, aiming to ensure the resource’s protection and sustainable use.

The regulations will apply universally to all new and existing groundwater users throughout the Republic of South Africa, including those operating under existing entitlements, permits, or water court orders.

Centralized Data Management and Reporting Mandates

A cornerstone of the new regulatory framework is the mandatory capture and submission of all groundwater-related data into a series of national information systems.

• National Groundwater Archive (NGA): The NGA is the primary database for all geosite information. All borehole owners must capture their details and geosite information on the NGA. Existing users are given a 12-month grace period to comply.

• Mandatory Pre-Drilling Registration: A person must first obtain unique geosite identifiers from the NGA’s Geosite Identification Allocator Tool (GIAT) before commencing any drilling.

• Post-Activity Reporting: Drillers and water users must capture comprehensive drilling data on the NGA within two months of project completion. Similarly, pump installers must upload pump installation settings and yield test results to the NGA before abstraction begins.

• Other Key Systems:

◦ Geohydrological Reports System: All geohydrological reports, including geophysical data and geological logs, must be uploaded to this system.

◦ Integrated Regulatory Information System (IRIS): Water quality analysis results must be captured on the IRIS platform.

Prohibitions and Restrictions on Groundwater Development

Prohibited Areas: Drilling of boreholes for any purpose is strictly prohibited in the following areas:

• Within 50 meters of cemeteries, informal waste disposal sites, animal kraals, pit latrines, fuel tanks, dipping tanks, and other potentially hazardous operations.

• Within 1 kilometer of strategic infrastructure.

Prohibited Activities: The following activities are forbidden:

• Using any geosite that is not registered on the NGA.

• Disposing of or injecting any waste or chemicals that could pollute water resources without a water use authorization.

• Injecting chemicals for borehole rehabilitation without approval and a water use authorization.

• Disposing of hazardous substances from mining, agricultural, or industrial activities in designated groundwater protected areas without authorization.

Restricted Areas: Drilling is restricted and subject to specialist studies and further approval within:

• A locally defined distance from Strategic Water Source Areas.

• 5 kilometers of a freshwater ecosystem, priority area, or critical biodiversity area as determined by SANBI.

• Any area declared restricted under international conventions.

• A designated groundwater protection zone where there is a potential impact from activities like mining or agriculture.

Leave a comment

Expanded Role and Responsibilities of Municipalities

A significant feature of the regulations is the devolution of specific groundwater management responsibilities to the municipal level.

• Municipalities are required to develop a comprehensive groundwater protection scheme within five years of the regulations’ promulgation.

• All municipalities must develop and enforce local abstraction limits for all boreholes within their area of jurisdiction.

• Any person intending to drill a Schedule 1 borehole must first inform the municipality.

• Municipalities are tasked with ensuring the appropriate education of the public regarding the safe, effective, and efficient use and management of groundwater.

Standards for Development, Assessment, and Decommissioning

The regulations formalize the use of South African National Standards (SANS) and other best practices across the entire lifecycle of a borehole.

• Any new drilling must be managed by a driller who is officially registered on the NGA.

• Siting must follow SANS 10299-1:2003 or applicable best practices.

• All new boreholes must be constructed according to SANS 10299. This standard also applies retroactively to existing dry and abandoned boreholes.

• Boreholes used for abstraction must be test-pumped according to SANS 10299-4. Pumps installed must be suitable for the borehole’s tested yield.

• All dry or unused boreholes must be decommissioned within 60 days of final use, adhering to SANS 10299-9.

• Owners of artesian boreholes must have them capped at their own expense by a registered driller, with the information captured on the NGA within 60 days.

Subscribe now

Offences

A person is guilty of an offence if they:

• Fail to provide data, provide false or misleading information, or intentionally omit material information.

• Obtain a water use authorization through fraud, non-disclosure, or misrepresentation.

• Fail to comply with any provision of these regulations.

Public Comment on Draft Regulations

Any person wishing to comment on or make representations with regards to the proposed Regulations is hereby invited to do so by emailing:

groundwaterregs@dws.gov.za

Any enquiries in connection with the proposed Regulations may be directed to Ms R. N. Mazwi at 012 336 7554 or to mazwir@dws.gov.za.

Download the Draft Regulations

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

The Mystery of the Tainted Authorization

Not long ago, a client came to me with a fascinating legal dilemma. They strongly suspected that an Environmental Authorisation had been issued under dubious circumstances, likely due to fraudulent activity or misrepresentations by the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP).

My client did the right thing: they lodged a formal complaint with the relevant Provincial Environmental Authority. The Authority wrote back, assuring my client they would investigate the alleged irregularities.

But then, they dropped a legal bombshell:

The HOD and MEC, as regulatory authorities, have made their respective decisions... and are thus “Functus Officio”. In order to suspend, amend or dismiss the decisions taken, you will have to approach the court.

Essentially, the Authority was claiming their hands were tied—once the decision was made, it was final. Was that really true, even if the decision was based on a lie?

Unpacking the ‘Functus Officio’ Doctrine

To challenge the Authority’s claim, I had to dive deep into one of the bedrock principles of administrative law: the functus officio doctrine.

In plain English, functus officio (Latin for “having performed his office”) means: once a decision-maker has completed their duty and issued a final, official decision, they lose the power to go back and revisit, revoke, or amend it. This rule is designed to ensure certainty and finality in administrative actions.

My research led me straight to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) decision: Retail Motor Industry Organisation v Minister of Water & Environmental Affairs (2013).

The RMI Case: A Surprising Twist

The central question in the RMI case was whether the Minister, after initially approving a waste tyre plan, was functus officio and therefore unable to legally withdraw or amend it.

The court’s conclusion was a crucial lesson: The functus officio principle did NOT apply in this instance!

Why? The Distinction Between a Decision and a Rule

The SCA reasoned that the industry waste management plan was not a simple administrative decision granting individual rights (like a licence). Instead, it was a form of “subordinate legislation”—a set of general rules or regulations for the entire industry, similar to a municipal by-law.

Critically, the court affirmed a statutory principle (Section 10(3) of the Interpretation Act): the power to make rules automatically includes the power to rescind or amend them. If a Minister can create a regulation, they can generally repeal or change it.

When is a Decision Truly FINAL?

The RMI judgment clarified the boundaries of the functus officio doctrine. It generally applies only when:

• The decision is truly final and conclusive.

• It has granted a right or benefit to an individual, and revoking it would be unfair (i.e., the right has “vested”).

• Crucially: It does not apply to the amendment or repeal of subordinate legislation (general rules/regulations).

• THE KEY EXCEPTION: An administrative decision-maker may vary or revoke a decision if the empowering legislation expressly authorises them to do so.

Subscribe now

The Answer to Our Client’s Problem

Returning to my client’s case—was the Department correct to say their only recourse was to go to court?

Absolutely not!

While the functus officio doctrine is the general rule, we found the specific exception in the regulations governing Environmental Authorisations (EIA Regulations, 2014).

Regulation 38(1) clearly states:

If the competent authority has reason to believe that the authorisation was obtained through fraud, non-disclosure of material information or misrepresentation of a material fact, the competent authority may, in writing, suspend or partially suspend... the environmental authorisation... pending a decision to withdraw the environmental authorisation.

Share

Power to the Regulator

The specific empowering legislation (Regulation 38(1)) overrides the general principle of functus officio. It directly grants the HOD or MEC the power to suspend and withdraw an Environmental Authorisation if fraud or misrepresentation is suspected.

The Department had the authority to act; they just needed to be reminded of their own regulations!

This case confirms that when dealing with administrative decisions, one must always check the empowering legislation—because sometimes, the law provides the decision-maker with the power to change their mind, even after the ink has dried.

We tend to think of recycling as an absolute environmental good. Companies that turn plastic waste into new products are often seen as heroes in the fight against pollution. But what if a company dedicated to recycling was actually causing significant environmental harm in the process?

This is not a hypothetical question. A recent court case in South Africa, where the City of Ekurhuleni took a plastic recycling company to court, brings this paradox into sharp focus.

The High Court’s judgment, which granted a final interdict to shut down the plant, found the company’s conduct to be unlawful and in “conspicuous disregard of the law.” The ruling reveals several shocking and important lessons about environmental law, corporate responsibility, and the power of community vigilance.

THE UNAUTHORISED INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY

The first respondent, New Star Technology CC, operated a plastic recycling business in Germiston, having commenced operations in 2009.

The core of their business involved the thermal processing of plastics, where used plastics were cut, washed, dried, and fed into heated machines to be converted into pellets. These operations produced emissions and an odour at levels that created a nuisance.

Crucially, the respondents were conducting these activities without an Atmospheric Emission License (AEL) or a Waste Management License (WML). More significantly, they had no application pending for an AEL.

While they had applied for rectification of their unauthorised activities under section 24G of NEMA, that application had been suspended pending the finalisation of a related criminal matter.

HOW IT ALL STARTED

A complaint from a concerned resident of “the burning of plastic which causes a malodorous smell; flies present in the vicinity and the leaking of water on the premises…” triggered an official site inspection.

The initial site inspection conducted by the City revealed that the first respondent was conducting thermal treatment of general hazardous waste without a required Atmospheric Emission License (AEL).

Based on the inspection findings, the Environmental Management Inspector (EMI) issued a formal notice of intention to issue a compliance notice to the respondents.

In their written representations, the respondents admitted that they did not possess an AEL or a Waste Management License (WML). They claimed to have appointed a service provider to assist in applying for the necessary licenses with the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD).

The applicant, finding the respondents’ reasons insufficient, issued a formal compliance notice. The notice required the respondents to, among other things, cease all activities within 24 hours of receipt of the notice.

The EMI conducted a follow-up inspection and found that the respondents had failed to comply with the notice and were continuing their unauthorized activities unabated, showing a “conspicuous disregard of the law.”

The complete failure of these procedural enforcement steps to halt the unlawful activities led the applicant to seek a final interdict from the High Court.

Subscribe now

WE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT !

At the heart of its defense, New Star Technology argued that its work was beneficial, claiming it “contributes to a clean and safe environment” and “to the creation of employment.”

The investigation, however, painted a very different picture. The company was operating without the two most fundamental legal requirements for its business: a waste management license (WML) and an atmospheric emission license (AEL). A site inspection revealed widespread operational failures.

Beyond the “thermal heat processing of plastic without any abatement equipment,” which produced a “malodorous smell,” inspectors found the company was also illegally:

• Sorting, shredding, and recycling general plastic waste.

• Channelling process wastewater directly into the municipal sewer system.

• Storing wet waste from the process outside in an uncovered area.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

THE CONSEQUENCES FOR WILFUL DEFIANCE ARE SEVERE

The court granted the final interdict sought by the City of Ekurhuleni and, to mark its disapproval of the respondents’ conduct, issued a punitive costs order against them.

The key directives of the court’s final judgment are as follows:

• The respondents were interdicted and restrained from conducting section 21 listed activities without an atmospheric emission license.

• The respondents were interdicted and restrained from conducting section 19, Category A listed activities without a waste management license.

• The respondents were interdicted and restrained from conducting section 19, Category C waste management activity in contravention of national norms and standards for the storage of waste.

• The respondents were interdicted and restrained from operating a waste facility in contravention of national norms and standards for the sorting, shredding, grinding, crushing, screening or baling of general waste.

• In the event of non-compliance, the applicant was authorized with the assistance of the sheriff and the South African Police and Metro Police and or a private security company to demolish and remove all items and illegal structures on the premises used for the unlawful activities.

• The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved on an attorney and client scale.

Subscribe now

YOU CAN’T POLLUTE YOUR WAY TO COMPLIANCE

The judgment makes it clear that the law requires a business to cease illegal activities immediately. A company cannot continue to operate in violation of the law and continue to profit from that violation, while it belatedly seeks the necessary legal authorization.

The court’s final order was not a slap on the wrist. It was a complete and forceful termination of the company’s illegal operations, demonstrating the severe consequences for persistent non-compliance. The judgment went far beyond simply telling the company to stop.

This outcome sends a clear message: wilful and persistent non-compliance with environmental law will not just be penalized, it can result in the complete dismantling of a business, with the defiant owners bearing the full, substantial cost.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

THE POWER OF ONE CITIZEN’S COMPLAINT

This entire legal battle, which culminated in the complete shutdown of an illegally operating factory, did not begin in a boardroom or a legislator’s office. It started when the municipality “investigated the complaint received from Mrs. Angelique.”

Her complaint detailed the real-world impact of the plant’s operations on its neighbours. She reported “the burning of plastic which causes a malodorous smell; flies present in the vicinity and the leaking of water on the premises.”

This single report from a concerned resident triggered the official site inspection that uncovered the company’s numerous and long-standing violations of environmental law.

It’s a powerful reminder that community members are the first line of defence in environmental protection. Their voices, when directed to the proper authorities, can initiate significant and decisive legal action.

Leave a comment

A SOBERING REMINDER

While recycling remains a vital part of our environmental strategy, the case of New Star Technology is a powerful reminder that “green” industries are not above the law.

The goals of an enterprise cannot justify illegal and harmful means. The impact of their operations on local communities and the environment must be legally compliant, safe, and transparent.

This case forces us to ask not just if we are recycling, but how and to demand that the industry’s methods are as clean as its mission.

A company’s stated mission, no matter how noble, does not grant it a free pass to break environmental laws. The methods used to achieve that mission matter just as much as the mission itself.

The McGregor Trust, the owner of a guesthouse in the Bakoven area of Cape Town, undertook unauthorized construction activities in a watercourse, leading to a substantial fine from environmental authorities.

Yet, this was not their most expensive mistake. Their costliest error was a procedural one, made in the aftermath.

The Trust’s story reveals how a failure to follow the correct procedural steps can lock the courthouse doors, leaving you with no legal recourse, no matter how strong you believe your case to be.

The Section 24G Quagmire

When a person or entity has already commenced an activity that required, but did not receive, prior environmental authorization, Section 24G of NEMA offers a path to rectify the situation.

However, this is a perilous process. It is not a simple “get out of jail free” card; it is a formal admission of liability that requires the applicant to pay an administrative fine before the authorities will even consider authorizing the unlawful activity.

The sequence of events that led the McGregor Trust into this quagmire is a textbook example:

• To address erosion and enhance the guest experience, the Trust undertook significant work within and adjacent to the Kasteelspoort River. This included building four concrete weirs, lining stream banks, and constructing wooden boardwalks and paving along the watercourse.

• Critically, even though the Trust’s stated goal was to address erosion and improve the property, these intentions were legally irrelevant in the face of unauthorized activities that caused, as the parties agreed, “extensive degradation of the riverine environment.”

• Recognizing its error, the Trust applied for rectification under Section 24G of NEMA, formally admitting that the activities were unlawful.

• Following a site visit and a committee meeting, the Director of the Provincial Environmental Department determined that an administrative fine of R475,000 was appropriate.

This decision marked the end of the first chapter of the Trust’s troubles. But it was their next move—the attempt to challenge this fine—that sealed their fate and provides the most critical lesson.

Ignoring the Internal Appeal Pathway

Receiving a significant administrative fine is not necessarily the end of the story. The law provides an appeal mechanism for challenging such a decision. Under Section 43(2) of NEMA, an affected party has the right to an internal appeal to the Member of the Executive Council (MEC).

This is a mandatory first step, not an optional detour on the way to court. The McGregor Trust’s attempt to use this pathway was a case study in procedural failure.

MISSED DEADLINES:

The Director’s decision explicitly advised the Trust of its right to appeal. It clearly stated that a “notice of intention to appeal” had to be submitted to the MEC within 20 calendar days.

DEFECTIVE SUBMISSION:

The Trust eventually submitted its appeal 44 days late based on the final extended deadline, and it also failed to comply with the procedural requirements laid out in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations.

NO REQUEST FOR CONDONATION:

The Trust never sought condonation from the MEC. Condonation is a formal request for an official extension or forgiveness for failing to meet a deadline. By not asking for it, the Trust gave the MEC no legal basis to overlook the lateness of its appeal.

The MEC refused to consider the appeal, stating in a letter that the requirement to submit a notice of intention to appeal within 20 days is “peremptory” (meaning mandatory and not open to interpretation) and that the Trust had “failed to comply” with the regulations.

With the internal appeal process closed to them due to their own procedural errors, the Trust was left with one remaining option: the courts.

Subscribe now

The Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment

At the heart of this case lies a fundamental principle of administrative law: the duty to exhaust internal remedies. This rule, mandated by Section 7(2) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), is not a mere suggestion.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) affirmed that it is a “compulsory” requirement that acts as a gateway to the courts. Before a judge will even listen to your case, you must first prove that you have used all available appeal mechanisms provided within the administrative system itself.

The court rejected the idea that an aggrieved party can simply miss the deadline for an internal appeal and then claim the remedy is no longer available.

The failure to take “reasonable steps” to use the remedy, such as submitting a late and defective appeal without asking for condonation, is a self-inflicted wound, not an exceptional circumstance.

The High Court had granted the Trust an exemption partly because it believed the Trust had a strong case on the merits (i.e., that the R475,000 fine was unreasonably high).

The SCA overturned this logic completely, describing it as putting “the cart before the horse.” The strength of your case is irrelevant to the procedural requirement. You must follow the process before a court will agree to consider the substance of your complaint.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

The Final Judgment

The final outcome was as follows:

• The appeal from the environmental authorities succeeded.

• The lower court’s order, which had reduced the fine, was set aside.

• The original administrative fine of R475,000 was effectively reinstated.

Lessons to be Learnt

• Treat Section 24G with Extreme Caution.

Applying for rectification of an unlawful activity is a formal admission of guilt. It is not a simple administrative process. The potential fines are severe and are calculated based on environmental impact, the nature of the activity, and other factors.

Proceed with the utmost care and professional advice.

• Internal Appeals are Mandatory, Not Optional

The internal appeal process is your primary, and initially only, avenue for redress against an administrative decision like a fine. Do not view it as a bureaucratic hurdle to be cleared on the way to court. It must be treated with the same seriousness, diligence, and attention to detail as a formal court case.

• Deadlines are Not Suggestions

As this judgment powerfully demonstrates, procedural deadlines in environmental regulations are strict. Missing them without formally and successfully applying for condonation can be fatal to your case, as demonstrated by the judgment. Simply ignoring a deadline and hoping for the best is a recipe for disaster.

Share

The Courts Are Not a Shortcut

You cannot bypass internal remedies simply because you believe you have a strong case, because the process seems inconvenient, or because you made a mistake and missed the deadline.

The courts will strictly enforce the “exhaustion of internal remedies” doctrine, and a failure to comply will likely result in your case being dismissed without any consideration of its merits.

The McGregor Trust’s costly journey to the Supreme Court of Appeal provides a perfect lesson in risk management.

Receiving a Compliance Notice from the national or provincial environmental department or municipality can be alarming — and with good reason. These notices may lead to severe penalties, operational disruptions, or even criminal prosecution under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).

But you do have legal rights and options. I explain what these notices mean, what steps to take, and how to challenge them effectively.

What is a Compliance Notice ?

A compliance notice is a formal document issued by an Environmental Management Inspector (or Environmental Mineral and Petroleum Inspector). According to Section 31L of NEMA, an inspector can issue one if they have “reasonable grounds for believing that a person has not complied” with:

• A provision of the environmental law; (e.g. You have commenced a listed activity without the required approvals); or

• A term or condition of a permit, authorisation, or other legal instrument.

In simple terms, an inspector believes you have broken an environmental rule, and this notice is the first step in compelling you to fix the problem.

The notice itself must be clear and specific. It will tell you:

• What you did wrong: Details of the conduct constituting the non-compliance.

• What you must do: The specific steps you must take to correct the issue and the time period you have to do it.

• What you must stop doing: Any activities you are prohibited from doing and for how long.

• Your right to object: The procedure you must follow to lodge an objection to the notice

What is a Pre-Compliance Notice ?

Well, before a Compliance Notice is issued, you are usually issued with a Notice of Intent, spelling out the allegations against you and what the Inspector intends doing (issuing the compliance notice) and what the notice may entail.

You are then given an opportunity to provide reasons why you should not be issued with a Compliance Notice.

This is your first opportunity to challenge the intention of the Inspector and exercise your legal rights and options.

Your Legal Rights and Options

When you receive a compliance notice, you generally have two main options: comply or challenge.

• Option 1: Comply with the Notice

If you agree with the inspector’s findings, your most straightforward option is to take the steps outlined in the notice within the specified timeframe. Once you have fully complied, the matter is typically resolved.

• Option 2: Challenge the Notice (Lodge an Objection)

Subscribe now

Lodging an Objection to a Compliance Notice

If you believe the notice is incorrect, unfair, or that you were not in violation, you have a legal right to challenge it. This is a multi-step process.

First, Section 31M of NEMA gives you the right to lodge an Objection to the notice.

If you decide to lodge an objection, you should also be aware of Section 31L(5).

This provision allows you to make representations to the relevant authority (e.g., the Minister, MEC, or municipal council) to suspend the operation of the compliance notice while your objection is being considered.

This is a crucial step. If you don’t request a suspension, you are technically required to comply with the notice even while you are objecting to it. A suspension effectively “pauses” the notice until a final decision on your objection is made.

How to Challenge a Compliance Notice: A Step-by-Step Guide

If you choose to challenge the notice, you must follow the correct procedure.

Step 1: Act Quickly

You must lodge your objection within 30 days of receiving the notice. The authority may grant a longer period, but you should not rely on this. Act immediately.

Step 2: Put it in Writing

Your objection cannot be verbal. You must make your case “by making representations, in writing”. Your written objection should clearly state who you are, reference the compliance notice, and detail the reasons why you are objecting.

Step 3: Submit to the Correct Authority

The notice itself will state who you must object to. This will be the relevant Minister, MEC, or municipal council, depending on the jurisdiction.

Step 4: The Objection Review Process

After receiving your written representations, the authority will review your objection and any other relevant information. They will then make a decision to:

• Confirm the notice (it stands as it is);

• Modify the notice (change parts of it); or

• Cancel the notice (you win your objection).

The authority must then notify you of their decision and, if the notice is confirmed or modified, must give you a new time period within which to comply.

Share Advocate Kuben Samie's Newsletter

What Happens if You Fail to Comply?

Doing nothing is not a viable option.

Section 31N outlines the serious consequences of failing to comply with a compliance notice (and not successfully challenging it).

The authorities may:

• Revoke or vary your permit or authorisation, which could stop your operations.

• Take the necessary steps themselves (e.g., hire a clean-up crew) and then recover the costs of doing so from you.

• Register a criminal case against you (failing to comply with a Compliance Notice is a criminal offence)

Share

Final Word

A compliance notice is a serious legal document that demands your immediate attention. However, NEMA provides a clear and fair process for you to exercise your rights.