Earthlife welcomes cabinet acceptance of court judgement.

Press Statement 8 Feb 2005

Earthlife Africa welcomes the South Africa’s cabinet decision regarding the proposed pebble-bed modular reactor’s (PBMR) environmental impact assessment (EIA) process court judgment. The Cabinet has decided “to abide by the rule of the court” after a briefing on the implications of the recent court judgment on the EIA relating to the PBMR.

“After a two year court battle with the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and Eskom as the second respondent, on the EIA process relating to the PBMR, finally the law has taken its course, showing that no one is above the law” said Sibusiso Mimi anti-nuclear campaign coordinator for Earthlife Africa Cape Town. “I believe that the perception that some are above the law was created by the Director General of DEAT, when he made a requisite authorization of the PBMR environmental impact report (EIR). He declined to afford Earthlife Africa an opportunity to present the other side of the story before such a fundamental decision was made.  He ignored Earthlife Africa’s submissions particularly in relationship to considering nuclear waste and safety problems which he then deferred to the National Nuclear Regulator” said Mimi.

Earthlife Africa believes that seemingly DEAT has learned a lesson or two from the approach taken by the cabinet and have reconsidered their plans to appeal the court decision. This would have been a wasteful exercise in terms of resources and time, and it is clear that the PBMR project has no time to waste – it is rather moving backwards despite a very generous R500 000 (half a billion ZAR) authorized by the cabinet in support of what we believe is a “white elephant” project. This project seems totally alienated by the global investment community.  This is despite such glowing claims by its promoters of being a economically feasible, and somewhat arrogant suggestion that despite the design not having been finalised, it is walk away safe.
 
Judge B.M. Griesel, in a Jan. 26 opinion supported by two other presiding judges, said the June 2003 decision by DEAT Director General Crispian Olver was “fatally flawed” because Olver failed to properly consider objections to the project brought by Earthlife Africa (Cape Town). Griesel said, Earthlife wasn’t allowed to comment on the final EIR, even though the final report contained much new information compared to the draft EIR.

The court decision provides an opportunity for rigorous debate around the PBMR and its future, an opportunity for all voices to be heard.  ELA hopes they will make full use of the opportunity and not simply "hear without listening".