Summary of this article
Activists and fishing groups are challenging TotalEnergies’ deep-water drilling plans off South Africa’s west coast, arguing the environmental approval was unlawful and ignores the risk of a "catastrophic" oil spill.
The applicants claim the approval process violated the constitution and environmental laws by prioritizing corporate interests over the rights and livelihoods of coastal communities.
TotalEnergies’ legal team argued that the company complied with all relevant environmental legislation, distinguishing between exploration activities and full-scale production.
A South African court is expected to deliver a ruling on a high-stakes legal challenge against TotalEnergies’ proposed deep-water oil and gas exploration off the country’s west coast, with environmental and fishing groups arguing that the project’s approval was unlawful and poses severe ecological risks.
The case, heard in the Western Cape Division of the High Court, was brought by Aukotowa Fisheries Primary Co-operative Limited, environmental justice organization The Green Connection, and the nonprofit Natural Justice. The applicants are seeking to overturn environmental authorization for ultra-deep-water drilling in the Deep Western Orange Basin, located approximately 200 kilometers from the coast.
The litigation names the Director-General of the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, and TotalEnergies EP South Africa (TEEPSA) as respondents.
Activists and fishing communities have warned of “catastrophic” consequences in the event of a potential oil spill, arguing that the approval process ignored long-term environmental threats and the impact on coastal livelihoods.
At the core of the legal challenge is the claim that the authorization was “fatally flawed, irrational, and inconsistent” with South Africa’s Constitution, the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), and the country’s climate and energy obligations. The applicants contend that the interests of a corporation were unlawfully prioritized over the rights of people living along the coastline.
They are asking the court to review and set aside both the Director-General’s decision to grant environmental authorization and the Minister’s subsequent decision to dismiss their appeals.
On Tuesday, Advocate Chris Loxton, representing TEEPSA, pushed back against the applicants’ arguments. He submitted that the relevant legislation—including NEMA and the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA)—draws a clear distinction between exploration and production activities, and that TotalEnergies was in compliance with both acts.
“The applicants have not shown that there is any requirement of ICMA which was not in the course of complying with NEMA,” Loxton told the court. “They have not said, for example, that you were supposed to have done X and the consequence is Y.”
