RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT

This document contains the Respondent's Heads of Argument filed by the Centre for Environmental Rights on behalf of the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The case concerns an appeal by ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited (AMSA) against a High Court judgment that ordered AMSA to provide VEJA with environmental records—specifically an Environmental Master Plan for its Vanderbijlpark site and records regarding the closure and rehabilitation of its Vaal Disposal site in Vereeniging—under the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (PAIA).

• The Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) sought access to two sets of records from ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited (AMSA): an Environmental Master Plan for the Vanderbijlpark site, including progress reports, and records concerning the closure and rehabilitation of the Vaal Disposal site in Vereeniging.
• AMSA admitted that its operations at the Vanderbijlpark site have historically had a significant environmental impact and that pollution levels in that area are of public concern. Additionally, the Vaal Triangle was the first air pollution 'priority area' declared by the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, with AMSA identified as a main source of particulate matter.
• Regarding the Vaal disposal site in Vereeniging, inspections by the Environmental Management Inspectorate in May 2007 found significant and serious pollution of surface and groundwater with hazardous substances such as phenols, iron, oil, and fluoride, as well as particulate emissions to air.
• AMSA was found to be in environmental non-compliance for the continued dumping of hazardous waste on the unpermitted Vaal disposal site, despite repeated instructions from authorities to stop.
• The Respondent argues that under section 78 of PAIA, a court is not limited to the requester's contemporaneous explanation provided in the initial request form when determining if the 'threshold requirement' of section 50(1)(a) is met, but should instead conduct a de novo hearing on the merits.
• The Respondent asserts that South African law, specifically the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), empowers civil society to monitor and enforce environmental laws directly, rather than just reporting issues to the state.
• VEJA argues that the Environmental Master Plan is required as a baseline of scientific data to assess pollution levels and the effectiveness of AMSA's subsequent rehabilitation measures, despite AMSA's claims that the plan is outdated or flawed.
• The Respondent argues that AMSA cannot claim the Master Plan is irrelevant when AMSA used that same plan to obtain current water use and waste management licences.
• Regarding the Vaal Disposal site, the Respondent argues that the requested records are necessary to determine the quantity and concentration of hazardous substances remaining and their long-term effects on air and water quality.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SCA_-VEJA-HOA_FINAL.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SCA_-VEJA-HOA_FINAL.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SCA_-VEJA-HOA_FINAL.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndrespondents, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SCA_-VEJA-HOA_FINAL.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }