APPLICANTS’ HEADS OF ARGUMENT

This document contains the applicants' heads of argument in a legal application to review and set aside decisions made by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Mineral Resources to grant Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd permission to conduct commercial coal mining in the Mabola Protected Environment (MPE) in Mpumalanga, South Africa.

• The applicants seek the review and setting aside of decisions made on 20 August 2016 and 21 November 2016 by the Environment Minister and Minerals Minister to grant Atha written permission under section 48(1)(b) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (NEMPAA) to mine in the Mabola Protected Environment (MPE).
• The proposed Yzermyn mine involves underground workings entirely within the MPE, which was declared a protected environment on 22 January 2014, while surface infrastructure would occupy approximately 22.4 hectares outside the MPE.
• The applicants argue that the NEMPAA decisions were taken without transparency or public participation, noting that the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and other applicants were not notified of Atha's May 2016 application and only learned of the decisions in January 2017 via a document from the Department of Water and Sanitation.
• The mine area is identified as strategically important across multiple frameworks: it is classified as "Irreplaceable" or "Optimal" Critical Biodiversity Areas in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan, a "sensitive natural area" in the Local Municipality's Spatial Development Framework, and a "Zone 1: Conservation" area in the Local Municipality's Environmental Management Framework.
• The mine area is recognized as a high-value water resource, falling within a River Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (FEPA) and partially within the Enkangala Drakensberg Strategic Water Source Area, which supplies water to Gauteng.
• The applicants contend that the Ministers failed to exercise an independent discretion under NEMPAA, instead relying on authorisations granted under other statutes (MPRDA, NEMA, NWA) without considering the specific protective objectives of NEMPAA.
• The applicants argue that mining in a protected environment should only be permitted in "exceptional circumstances," and that the proposed mine would cause lasting damage, including groundwater drawdown of up to 50 metres in the deep aquifer and the likely occurrence of acid mine drainage (AMD) post-closure.
• The Ministers are alleged to have ignored the requirement for an approved management plan for the MPE, as the MEC has not yet approved the plan submitted by the Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association (MPELA).
• The applicants claim the Ministers failed to consider the interests of local communities, noting that the mine's expected revenue of over R1.235 billion per annum dwarfs the limited social commitments, such as a R342,000 budget for learnerships and R1.3 million for a mobile clinic over five years.
• The applicants assert that the Ministers failed to apply the precautionary principle and the vulnerable ecosystems principle from NEMA, specifically by tolerating potential damage of up to 20% to the integrity of Category A and B wetlands.
• The applicants argue that Atha has made inadequate financial provision for rehabilitation, specifically failing to provide for the treatment of polluted water, a fact the Ministers admit they did not consider during the NEMPAA decision-making process.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2018). APPLICANTS’ HEADS OF ARGUMENT. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Applicants-Heads-of-Argument.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. APPLICANTS’ HEADS OF ARGUMENT. 2018. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Applicants-Heads-of-Argument.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=APPLICANTS’ HEADS OF ARGUMENT |date=15 June 2018 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Applicants-Heads-of-Argument.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrights2018applicants, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{APPLICANTS’ HEADS OF ARGUMENT}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2018}, month = jun, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Applicants-Heads-of-Argument.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }