founding-affidavit-5-a3e6db7eb939cdcd.pdf

This statement, submitted by Earthlife Africa, argues that the environmental authorisation for the Thabametsi coal-fired power station was granted unlawfully because it lacked a necessary climate change impact assessment. The document outlines the specific requirements for such an assessment and presents four legal grounds for reviewing and setting aside the decisions made by the Chief Director and the Minister, citing breaches of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the 2010 EIA Regulations.

• Earthlife Africa proposes that a climate change impact assessment for the Thabametsi power station must address three specific areas: the project's impact on climate change (including direct, indirect/life-cycle, and cumulative GHG emissions, and the social cost of carbon), how the station may worsen climate change effects in the Limpopo Province and Waterberg region, and how climate change will affect the station's own operational efficiency and lifespan.
• The Thabametsi power station is projected to have a total water demand of 1,300,000m³ per annum upon full completion (1200MW), which Earthlife Africa argues threatens to worsen water scarcity in the already water-scarce Waterberg region of the Limpopo Province.
• The project's proposed water supply relies on the Mokolo Crocodile Water Augmentation Project (MCWAP), but this project has not yet received environmental authorisation, making the reliance on it "speculative at best".
• The first ground for review is that the decisions to grant environmental authorisation were ultra vires and unlawful because they failed to comply with section 240(1)(b) of NEMA and Regulation 31(2) of the 2010 EIA Regulations, specifically by omitting a climate change impact assessment and failing to consider the National Climate Change Response Policy.
• The second and third grounds for review claim that the decision-makers overlooked material considerations and acted irrationally. Specifically, the Minister agreed that a climate change impact assessment was necessary but upheld the authorisation regardless, which is argued to be a contradiction.
• The fourth ground for review asserts a material error of law, suggesting the Minister wrongly believed she possessed the power to withdraw the environmental authorisation later in light of a climate change impact assessment, a power that does not exist under NEMA or the EIA Regulations except in cases of non-compliance with a notice or breach of law.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). founding-affidavit-5-a3e6db7eb939cdcd.pdf. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FOUNDING-AFFIDAVIT-5.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. founding-affidavit-5-a3e6db7eb939cdcd.pdf. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FOUNDING-AFFIDAVIT-5.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=founding-affidavit-5-a3e6db7eb939cdcd.pdf |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FOUNDING-AFFIDAVIT-5.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrightsndfoundingaffidavit5a3e6db7eb939cdcdpdf, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{founding-affidavit-5-a3e6db7eb939cdcd.pdf}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FOUNDING-AFFIDAVIT-5.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }