HEADS OF ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1 ST , 2ND AND 5TH RESPONDENTS

This document contains the heads of argument submitted on behalf of the Minister of Environmental Affairs, the Minister of Mineral Resources, and the MEC for Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs of Mpumalanga Province. The respondents oppose a judicial review application brought by several environmental organisations seeking to set aside the written permission granted to Atha Africa (Pty) Ltd to conduct underground mining within the Mabola Protected Environment (MPE). The respondents argue that the decision-making process was procedurally fair, that they were entitled to rely on interrelated statutory authorisation processes to avoid duplication, and that the permission was granted subject to stringent environmental and social conditions.

• The respondents argue that the Ministers were justified in departing from the procedural requirements of sections 3 and 4 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) to avoid unnecessary duplication of public participation processes. They contend that the section 48 process under the National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act (NEMPAA) overlapped with other required authorisations, including the mining right under the MPRDA, environmental authorisations under NEMA, and the Water Use Licence (WUL) under the National Water Act.
• The respondents reject the 'silo approach' advocated by the applicants, which suggests that each statutory authorisation should be considered independently with a 'fresh discretion'. The respondents maintain that intergovernmental co-ordination and harmonisation are required by NEMA and that they were entitled to rely on the expertise of specialist entities, such as the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) regarding water-related issues in the MPE.
• The respondents contend that section 48 of NEMPAA does not require mining to be permitted only in 'exceptional circumstances'. They argue that the statute only requires written permission from the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Mineral Resources, and that the applicants' interpretation would impermissibly read words into the statute that are not present.
• The respondents assert that the interests of local communities were adequately considered, noting that the Mpumalanga Province and Wakkerstroom area are economically depressed. They highlight that the final Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) indicated that semi-skilled and unskilled labour would be sourced locally and that local government representatives supported the application to create jobs and utilize local businesses.
• The written permission to mine in the MPE was granted subject to several conditions, including the submission of a Plant Rescue and Protection plan, the implementation of an alien plant control programme, the management of acid mine drainage according to DWS requirements, and the establishment of an Environmental Management Committee (EMC).
• The respondents argue that the absence of a final approved management plan at the time of the decision did not invalidate the section 48 approval. They state that the Ministers considered the draft management plan and that the approval was conditional upon Atha obtaining all other necessary statutory authorisations.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). HEADS OF ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1 ST , 2ND AND 5TH RESPONDENTS. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/State_Heads_Final.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. HEADS OF ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1 ST , 2ND AND 5TH RESPONDENTS. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/State_Heads_Final.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=HEADS OF ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1 ST , 2ND AND 5TH RESPONDENTS |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/State_Heads_Final.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndheads, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{HEADS OF ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1 ST , 2ND AND 5TH RESPONDENTS}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/State_Heads_Final.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }