ISICELO SOKUDIBANISA 5/6/7

This fact sheet details a legal challenge by Green Connection (TGC) and Natural Justice (NJ) against the environmental authorization granted to Total Energies EP South Africa Block 567 (Pty) Ltd for offshore oil exploration between Cape Town and Cape Agulhas. It outlines six grounds for judicial review and discusses Total's request to join Shell to the legal proceedings following Total's announcement in May 2024 that it would withdraw from exploration in Block 567.

• Green Connection (TGC) and Natural Justice (NJ) are challenging the environmental authorization granted to Total Energies EP South Africa Block 567 (Pty) Ltd to conduct offshore oil drilling between Cape Town and Cape Agulhas. The challenge is based on six grounds: failure to assess socio-economic impacts on small-scale fishers, failure to consider the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA) and public interest, failure to assess climate change impacts from gas combustion, failure to consider transboundary impacts on Namibia, the absence of oil spill response plans in the EIA, and the unlawful involvement of the Petroleum Agency of South Africa (PASA) in the authorization process.
• In May 2024, Total Energies announced its decision to withdraw from exploration in Block 567, where it held a 40% commercial share. Consequently, Total has requested that Shell be joined as a party to the legal challenge initiated by TGC and NJ. TGC and NJ oppose Shell's inclusion on three grounds: the challenge concerns the environmental authorization (EA) held by Total rather than exploration rights, Shell's exploration rights have expired, and the joinder contradicts Total's previous statements and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report.
• The legal challenge argues that the EIA failed to properly assess the socio-economic impacts of potential oil spills on small-scale fishers and the communities dependent on them, despite acknowledging that oil spills are among the most concerning environmental risks of offshore drilling.
• The document asserts that the decision-makers ignored the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA), specifically Section 63, which requires consideration of the 'public interest'—defined as the collective interest of all people living in South Africa and the long-term view of a healthy and productive ecosystem.
• The challenge claims that the EIA failed to assess climate change impacts resulting from the combustion of gas found during the project, which is a requirement established in previous court cases such as Earthlife Africa (2017) and Sustaining the Wild Coast (2021).

APA

Natural Justice (n.d.). ISICELO SOKUDIBANISA 5/6/7. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/isiXhosa-Fact-Sheet-_Block-567.pdf

Chicago

Natural Justice. ISICELO SOKUDIBANISA 5/6/7. n.d. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/isiXhosa-Fact-Sheet-_Block-567.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Natural Justice |title=ISICELO SOKUDIBANISA 5/6/7 |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/isiXhosa-Fact-Sheet-_Block-567.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{naturaljusticendisicelo, author = {{Natural Justice}}, title = {{ISICELO SOKUDIBANISA 5/6/7}}, institution = {Natural Justice}, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/isiXhosa-Fact-Sheet-_Block-567.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }