annexures-part-2-a-5c0e968dca8cb11d.pdf

This document is an affidavit deposed by Moegamat Ishaam Abader, Acting Director-General of the National Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, responding to the submissions of Mr. Boyd, a United Nations Special Rapporteur admitted as an amicus curiae in a High Court of South Africa case. Abader argues that Mr. Boyd's affidavit is biased, relies on inadmissible hearsay evidence, and fails to distinguish between binding 'hard law' and non-binding 'soft law' in international environmental law. The affidavit asserts that South African courts must balance environmental protection with the constitutional mandate for sustainable development and socio-economic progress, and that the state's obligations are to be realised progressively within available resources.

• The Acting Director-General argues that Mr. Boyd's submissions are biased because they prioritize environmental protection for human health while ignoring the broader legal requirements for sustainable development and the specific socio-economic context of South Africa.
• The affidavit contends that Mr. Boyd's evidence is inadmissible because it relies on reports from non-governmental organisations, specifically Greenpeace and the Health Effects Institute, which were not confirmed under oath by their authors and are considered hearsay.
• Abader asserts that Mr. Boyd fails to make a necessary legal distinction between 'hard law' (binding legal obligations) and 'soft law' (non-binding norms based on shared moral convictions), which complicates the utility of his submissions for interpreting the South African Bill of Rights.
• The document argues that the South African Constitution requires a balance between environmental protection and the state's obligation to address the historical legacy of Apartheid and promote socio-economic development, meaning the court cannot prioritize air quality over other fundamental rights.
• The affidavit states that environmental rights in South Africa, including those in section 24 of the Constitution and the Air Quality Act, are 'third-generation' or 'fourth-generation' human rights, which by nature must be progressively realised rather than immediately fulfilled.
• Abader claims that Mr. Boyd's reliance on the 'right to breathe clean air' is not supported by the South African Constitution, as section 28 (regarding children) and section 24 do not formulate the right in those specific terms.
• The document argues that the conduct of South Africa's foreign policy is the constitutional prerogative of the National Executive, and judicial endorsement of reports by international experts like Mr. Boyd could compromise this policy.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). annexures-part-2-a-5c0e968dca8cb11d.pdf. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Annexures-Part-2-a.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. annexures-part-2-a-5c0e968dca8cb11d.pdf. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Annexures-Part-2-a.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=annexures-part-2-a-5c0e968dca8cb11d.pdf |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Annexures-Part-2-a.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrightsndannexurespart2a5c0e968dca8cb11dpdf, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{annexures-part-2-a-5c0e968dca8cb11d.pdf}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Annexures-Part-2-a.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }