MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The South African High Court concludes hearing a landmark case challenging TotalEnergies’ Deep-Water Drilling project and offers to deliver its ruling on notice.

Published

3 months ago

March 27, 2026

The South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) stand in solidarity with small‑scale coastal fishing communities on the West Coast as they challenge TotalEnergies SA’s Deep‑Water Orange Basin drilling approval in the Cape Town High Court.

By the Witness Radio team.

Cape Town, South Africa- The Western Cape High Court has concluded a two-day hearing in a landmark environmental justice case challenging the approval of ultra-deep-water oil and gas exploration by TotalEnergies in the Deep Western Orange Basin (DWOB), off South Africa’s West Coast.

The case, brought by environmental organizations including The Green Connection and Natural Justice, alongside the Aukotowa Primary Fishing Co-operative, challenges the legality of the environmental authorization granted by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources.

The applicants argue that the decision was unlawful, irrational, and inconsistent with South Africa’s constitution and environmental laws, particularly in its evaluation of the environmental, climate, and socio-economic risks of the proposed exploration.

The Director General, Department of Mineral & Petroleum Resources, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries & the Environment, and Total Energies EP South Africa S.A.S are the respondents in the case, which has sparked debate on environmental concerns likely to be caused by the project.

Neville van Rooy, the outreach ambassador for The Green Connection, told the Court that the project introduces unprecedented risks.

“The DWOB presents conditions unlike anything South Africa has ever faced – both in water depth and technical complexity. Neville van Rooy emphasized that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) did not adequately address these unprecedented risks, which could have serious environmental consequences.”

The case dates back to 23 October 2023, when the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources granted environmental authorization, and appeals were dismissed on 24 April 2024, highlighting the ongoing legal process.

In October 2024, the applicants filed a case in the Western Cape High Court challenging the environmental authorization. They are also seeking to have both the Director-General’s decision and the Minister’s dismissal of their appeal reviewed and set aside.

The nearly 100 small-scale fishers and community members protested outside the Western Cape High Court, voicing concerns about marine ecosystems and the threat to local livelihoods posed by the project.

The demonstrators highlighted threats to marine ecosystems, declining fish stocks, and the livelihoods of coastal communities already facing the growing impacts of climate change.

“The State failed to meaningfully assess how this project will affect our livelihoods, food security, cultural heritage, and constitutional rights – effectively prioritising corporate interests over vulnerable fishing communities. We have the right to be heard and the right to a healthy environment. But the approval process ignored our lived realities and the warnings we have repeatedly raised.” Walter Steenkamp, the chairperson of Aukotowa Fisheries, a small-scale fishing cooperative in Port Nolloth, revealed.

The applicants argued that the government failed to assess the project’s need and desirability properly, downplayed the risks of ultra-deep drilling, ignored the socio-economic impacts on coastal communities, and overlooked obligations under the Integrated Coastal Management Act. They also maintain that the project conflicts with South Africa’s net-zero commitments and that the narrative of gas as a ‘bridge fuel’ is unsupported by science.

“Decision-makers disregarded key environmental laws, particularly the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA). The public trustee duty requires the State to safeguard coastal public property for current and future generations. Both the Director-General and the Minister failed to apply mandatory criteria on coastal public property, public interest, and intergenerational justice, rendering their decisions unlawful.” Melissa Groenink-Groves, Programme Manager of the Defending Rights Programme at Natural Justice, emphasized.

Further, Steenkamp criticized the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for downplaying the risks associated with drilling at depths greater than 2,000 metres below sea level.

“Without robust, site-specific scientific evidence and a Blow-out Contingency Plan tested in South African waters, approving this project violates the precautionary principle, which requires decision-makers to act with heightened caution where activities pose the risk of serious or irreversible harm.”

In response, the government of South Africa and TotalEnergies defended the approval, arguing that the process complied with national laws, including the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).

On the issue of “need and desirability,” the respondents submitted that the project’s value lies in the knowledge to be gained through exploration, which is critical for informing future energy planning and resource management. They insisted that it would be premature and legally inappropriate to assess the impacts of production at this stage.

Addressing concerns about oil spill risks and socio-economic impacts, the respondents pointed to several technical studies—including the Oil Spill Modelling Report, Fisheries Impact Assessment, and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment respondents argued that the decision-makers relied on credible global datasets to assess the socio-economic impacts on small-scale fishers in the final ESIA, which presented a full evaluation of the potential consequences in a range of scenarios, including the socio-economic impact of an oil spill on small-scale fishers.

Regarding compliance with coastal protection laws, government lawyers argued that the principles outlined in the Integrated Coastal Management Act were substantively addressed within the broader ESIA process.

The respondents further argued that the applicants had failed to establish sufficient legal grounds to challenge the decisions, urging the Court to dismiss the case and order the applicants to cover legal costs.

This case is part of a broader wave of resistance by communities opposing projects they say threaten their survival and ecosystems. Large oil corporations have faced mounting criticism for financing projects associated with environmental destruction and, in some cases, for fueling conflict and social disruption.

In Uganda, for example, TotalEnergies has faced criticism over its involvement in major oil developments, including the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. These projects have been linked to widespread displacement, livelihood losses, and social disruption affecting more than 100,000 people.

For South African Communities and civil society groups, projects like DWOB threaten marine biodiversity, traditional livelihoods, and South Africa’s climate commitments.

“Decisions made in Cape Town about TotalEnergies and Shell will have a major impact on the future of our fishing industry. For generations, our families have relied on traditional fishing to put food on the table. Oil exploration threatens our ability to provide for our children and support our communities.” Ernest Titus from Lambert’s Bay added.

The Court is expected to announce the judgment soon, a decision that could have significant implications for South Africa’s fishing communities, marine ecosystems, and future offshore oil exploration.

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Ugandan farmers take TotalEnergies’ pipeline to UK court

Published

2 hours ago

July 9, 2026

witnessradio.org

Police apprehend a Ugandan activist during a protest against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) plans in Kampala, Uganda, on 15 September, 2023. © Reuters

Four Ugandan farmers filed a case against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) at the UK’s High Court on Tuesday, seeking to have Ugandan constitutional, environmental and climate law applied to EACOP Ltd, the UK-registered company financing the project

Rights NGO Avaaz, which is supporting the case, has called it “first-of-its-kind” litigation against the $5.6 billion project, led by French energy giant TotalEnergies, which holds the majority stake.

Due to begin operating in 2027, EACOP would become the world’s longest heated pipeline, running 1,443km (897 miles) from Uganda’s oilfields near Lake Albert to the Tanzanian coastal port of Tanga.

The claim was filed before the pipeline starts operating and asks the court to enforce Uganda’s legal protections against a company incorporated in England and Wales.

EACOP has already faced several lawsuits in France, where a Paris court ruled last week that TotalEnergies was liable for emissions generated by its clients, a decision hailed as a landmark for climate law.

A ‘global test case’

The claimants argue the project would affect more than 100,000 people through land acquisition, and that it crosses critical freshwater systems and protected habitats.

“The case seeks remedies that could go to the heart of the project’s commercial viability, including an injunction to stop oil being transported through the pipeline,” Avaaz said in a statement earlier this year.

The NGO said it believes this is the first time Ugandan environmental law has been brought before a foreign court, describing EACOP as a “global test case for whether new fossil fuel megaprojects can still be forced through despite mounting legal, financial, climate and community opposition.”

Claimants say a successful ruling could ultimately prevent the pipeline from becoming operational.

Company denies harm

TotalEnergies maintains that “strict measures have been taken to avoid, mitigate and offset” the project’s environmental impact, pointing to efforts to restore forest and wetland areas and boost biodiversity nearby.

Ugandan opponents of the pipeline, meanwhile, have told local media they have faced intimidation and arrest by police in the area, where the project is seen as a political priority.

The UK claim alleges that the pipeline violates Uganda’s constitution and breaches the country’s environmental and climate legislation.

(with newswires)

Source: rfi.fr

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Lawyers Move to Court to Stop New Luxury Tourism Projects in Maasai Mara

Published

1 day ago

July 8, 2026

witnessradio.org

A coalition of regional legal and environmental organisations has moved to court seeking to halt the approval and development of new luxury tourism facilities in the Maasai Mara National Reserve, arguing that the projects threaten one of the world’s most important wildlife ecosystems.

The petition, filed before the Environment and Land Court, seeks orders stopping further construction of high-end tourist accommodation within the reserve pending the determination of the case.

Those behind the petition include East Africa Law Society, Natural Justice, JustAct and Africa Centre for Peace and Human Rights, who have sued several government agencies and private investors involved in the developments.

Among the respondents are Marriott International, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Minor Hotels, National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and the Narok County Government.

Narok Governor Patrick Ole Ntutu and the Maasai Mara National Reserve date in Narok County.

Photo| County Government of Narok / Maasai Mara National Reserve.

The petitioners contend that approvals granted for the tourism developments violated constitutional and environmental safeguards, arguing that the projects were allowed within ecologically sensitive areas meant primarily for wildlife conservation.

Court documents further claim that the developments sit close to critical wildlife habitats and migration routes linking the Maasai Mara ecosystem with Serengeti National Park.

This, according to them, potentially disrupts the annual wildebeest migration that attracts thousands of tourists every year.

They have asked the court to certify the matter as one raising substantial constitutional questions and refer it to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a five-judge bench to hear the case.

The latest legal challenge comes months after the planned opening of the luxury Ritz-Carlton safari camp sparked public debate, with conservationists raising concerns that the facility could interfere with wildlife movement near the Sand River.

At the time, the Kenya Wildlife Service dismissed claims circulating online that the camp had blocked the wildebeest migration, describing videos shared on social media as misleading.

“The Ritz-Carlton safari camp is situated within a designated tourism investment low-use zone, as provided for in the Maasai Mara National Reserve Management Plan, 2023-2032,” KWS said at the time.

The agency also maintained that camps established along the Mara, Sand and Talek rivers have historically coexisted with wildlife movements without obstructing migration.

Source: kenyans.co.ke

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

More than 17,000 people in the Philippines face eviction from their ancestral land for a multimillion-dollar energy project.

Published

3 days ago

July 6, 2026

witnessradio.org

By Witness Radio Team,

In the Visayas and Mindanao regions, in the Iloilo municipality on Panay Island in the central Philippines, thousands of Indigenous Tumandok people face forced displacement as a major energy project advances through their ancestral territories.

The Jalaur River Multi-Purpose Project, a state-backed dam and hydropower initiative, has triggered fears of forced evictions affecting more than 17,000 people and has already submerged ancestral land belonging to Indigenous communities.

The Tumandok have relied on the river basin as burial grounds, fishing sites supporting their livelihoods, and sacred landscapes preserved through oral history and cultural tradition for decades.

In 2012, the Korean Export-Import Bank provided a USD 260 million loan to the Philippine government for a multi-purpose project on the Jalaur River. Authorities present the project as a long-term solution for irrigation, flood control, and hydropower generation, designed to benefit agricultural production across thousands of hectares of farmland. However, host communities say the development has come at a high human cost.

The dam project, which began in the 1960s, entered a new construction phase in 2012, triggering new waves of human rights violations, from attacks and killings to arrests, and is expected to reach full completion in 2027.

As construction progresses, Indigenous ancestral domains within the project-affected watershed—covering approximately 16,780 hectares in the Calinog component—are being impacted by the Jalaur River Multi-Purpose Project Stage II. Community leaders say this is displacing Indigenous families from their homes amid concerns over inadequate consultation and potential violations of Indigenous land rights and free, prior, and informed consent standards.

Article 19 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires states to consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned, through their own representative institutions, to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Article 32(b) of the same declaration urges states to make consent the objective of consultation before any projects that affect Indigenous peoples’ rights to land, territory, and resources, including mining and other uses or exploitations of resources.

John Ian Alecianga, coordinator of the Jalaur River People’s Movement, says opposition to the project has drawn allegations of intimidation, killings, arrests, and a heavy security presence in affected communities.

“Mobilizing these indigenous communities to fight for their rights has come at a cost. Indigenous leaders and activists have been subjected to surveillance, harassment, and red-tagging due to their resistance to the dam,” John said in an exclusive interview with our team.

According to John, tensions escalated in December 2020 when a police attack in Tumandok communities killed at least nine Indigenous leaders and elders and led to the arrest of 16 others.

“The military was deployed, human rights were violated, many elders were killed, and others were arrested, escalating into what we call a massacre. A fake search warrant was used in a staged operation to enter the houses of the Tumandok leaders. This is how much the government has ignored the rights of the indigenous peoples from the project conception until the project implementation,” he said. “The event remains one of the most traumatic moments in the ongoing conflict around the project,” John added.

Despite pressure, Indigenous communities continue to resist eviction through local and international advocacy networks, calling for justice for those killed in 2020, recognition of their land rights, and immediate protection from further displacement.

“The people are resisting because land is their life. Without it, there will be no community. There will be no identity,” he said.

The Jalaur River People’s Movement also seeks accountability through international mechanisms, including engagement with South Korean institutions linked to project financing.

NGO WORK4 days ago

‘Oil is a curse’: villages in Uganda face land ownership uncertainty

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week ago

NEMA says it is restoring wetlands, but poor urban families say it is using the exercise to grab their land for new infrastructure projects – now they demand compensation and resettlement.