CIVICUS discusses a landmark court ruling halting oil and gas exploration off South Africa’s coast with members of The Green Connection, one of the two civil society organisations that led the legal challenge.

The Green Connection and Natural Justice successfully challenged a major offshore oil and gas project by Shell and TotalEnergies off South Africa’s southwest coast. The Western Cape High Court ruled that environmental impact assessments were deeply flawed, particularly in their failure to assess impacts on small-scale fishers and coastal communities. The ruling means no exploration can proceed until new, comprehensive and inclusive studies are completed. The case offers yet another example of civil society using climate litigation to hold governments and companies to account.

Why did you take legal action against this project?

We chose to go to court because the government’s approval of this offshore drilling project didn’t comply with South Africa’s constitution and laws. Section 24 of the constitution guarantees the right to an environment that is not harmful to health or wellbeing and places a duty on the state to protect the environment for present and future generations. This is not a policy aspiration; it is a binding constitutional obligation.

Laws such as the Integrated Coastal Management Act and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) require environmental decision-making to be precautionary, transparent and inclusive, and to properly assess economic, environmental and social impacts before authorisations are granted.

When we reviewed the environmental authorisation for this project, it was immediately clear these legal requirements hadn’t been met. Key risks to fishers and coastal livelihoods were ignored, climate change and cross-border impacts were inadequately assessed and essential information was withheld from the public. Allowing such a flawed approval to stand would have normalised the idea that constitutional and environmental safeguards can be set aside when powerful corporations are involved. That’s why we took legal action.

How did the flawed assessment threaten coastal communities?

The assessment threatened coastal communities in two ways: because it failed to fully acknowledge the impacts and because communities were excluded from decision-making.

Although the assessment recognised that an oil spill or well blowout could be catastrophic for marine ecosystems, it failed to properly examine what this would mean for people whose lives depend on the ocean. Small-scale fishers along the west coast rely on these waters for food, income and cultural continuity. Pollution or loss of fish stocks are not abstract environmental harms. They would mean the collapse of livelihoods and the erosion of traditions passed down through generations. NEMA explicitly requires these socio-economic impacts to be assessed, yet they were largely ignored.

Equally serious was the exclusion of communities from the assessment process. Critical documents, including oil spill and blowout contingency plans, were only disclosed after the project had already been approved. This made informed participation impossible. The law is clear: public participation must be meaningful, informed and effective. Communities cannot comment on information they are not given access to.

Despite these barriers, coastal communities played a crucial role in the case. Their lived experiences and testimony grounded the legal arguments in reality and demonstrated to the court that this was not merely a technical dispute, but a matter of constitutional rights, dignity and survival.

What message does this ruling send?

The message to international oil companies is that South Africa’s constitution and environmental laws are not negotiable. Projects that fail to properly assess socio-economic harm or properly disclose critical information to the public, or that exclude affected communities, will not withstand legal scrutiny. The court has firmly rejected the assumption that profit can justify shortcuts in environmental governance.

For coastal communities, the ruling is empowering. It confirms that constitutional environmental rights are enforceable and communities are not passive observers in decisions that affect their lives. They have the right to be informed, consulted and taken seriously.

How can future environmental assessments ensure meaningful community participation?

The legal framework for meaningful public participation already exists. What has been missing is proper implementation.

All critical documents must be disclosed early in the process, including oil spill response plans, blowout scenarios and climate studies. Participation cannot be meaningful if information is hidden until after decisions are taken. Engagement must also be accessible: information should be shared in plain language, translated into local languages and presented in formats communities can realistically use, with meetings held at times and places that allow real attendance. Decision-makers must respect local knowledge, as coastal communities possess generations of experience with marine ecosystems.

This judgment shows that when civil society and communities organise and persist, they can hold the state and powerful multinational corporations accountable. When participation is treated seriously rather than as a procedural formality, environmental decision-making becomes not only lawful, but just.

What happens next, and are you planning further challenges?

While this judgment is a major victory, the legal process is not over. The Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment has chosen not to oppose the ruling, but the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, the Director-General of that department and Shell have been granted leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal. What is crucial though is that leave to appeal has only been granted on two specific grounds, while the rest of the judgment remains binding law. This means the environmental authorisation is still set aside, and if future environmental authorisations are applied for, they must abide by the directions set by the High Court. This shows what a large impact this case will have on the future of our environment.

We believe the High Court’s judgment is legally robust and constitutionally necessary, particularly its findings on socio-economic impacts and public participation. We are confident these findings will withstand further scrutiny.

Beyond this case, we are involved in several related matters. These include additional court proceedings involving TotalEnergies and TGS seismic survey operations, administrative appeals against new offshore exploration proposals and engagement in multiple environmental impact assessment processes along the west coast. These cases consistently raise the same concerns: inadequate assessments, exclusion of communities and disregard for climate realities.

Our aim is to ensure compliance with the law and respect for constitutional rights. Where the state or companies fail to meet their obligations, we will continue to act in the interests of the environment and small-scale fishing communities.