 |
|
|
|
|
On the 15th September 2003, Earthlife Africa - Cape Town (Earthlife Africa CT) launched a High Court application seeking to review and set aside the environmental impact assessment (EIA) authorization granted to Eskom to build a demonstration module Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) at Koeberg, Cape Town. Earthlife Africa (CT) is challenging the EIA authorisation as it believes that the Director General (DG) of the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Dr Chippy Olver, made his decision in a procedurally unfair manner, as well as on other grounds. When the final version of the EIR was submitted to DEAT for consideration of Eskom?’s application for authorization, it contained a substantial amount of new information that Earthlife Africa (CT) had not had sight of when commenting on the draft EIR, including critical safety information that Earthlife Africa (CT) had requested sight of but had been refused. The Legal Resources Centre (LRC), acting for Earthlife Africa (CT), had during the EIA repeatedly called upon the DG to afford Earthlife Africa (CT) a reasonable opportunity to make representations to it as the decision-maker. The LRC had also called upon the DEAT to afford Earthlife Africa (CT) access to information placed before DEAT by the applicant, and upon which the decision would be based. These requests were repeatedly refused. In an effort to secure its right to be heard prior to the decision being made, Earthlife Africa (CT) launched a High Court application earlier in 2003 seeking an order that DEAT should afford it a hearing before making its decision on authorization. An urgent application was simultaneously made for an interdict in an attempt to prevent DEAT from making its decision until the hearing issue had been adjudicated, but was struck from the roll on the basis that it was not sufficiently urgent. However, before Earthlife Africa (CT) was able to have the main relief sought heard by the court, DEAT granted its authorization. Earthlife Africa (CT) believes that their right to procedurally fair administrative decision-making was violated by the DG, and that the authorization falls to be set aside as a consequence. Earthlife Africa (CT) also believes that the authorization is flawed because the DG abdicated his responsibility to ensure that the proposed demonstration module PBMR is safe. Earthlife Africa (CT) is also challenging the decision on other grounds. These grounds include that the DG failed to comply with mandatory and material provisions of the empowering legislation, that he took irrelevant considerations into account, that he failed to take relevant considerations into account, and that the decision was not rationally connected to the purpose of the empowering EIA legislation. The court date has now been set for the 29th November 2004. Adrian Pole Legal Resources Centre see press releases for latest updates re the court case and other related matters . ?? |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||