Press Release 15 Dec 2005

Earthlife Africa loses Eskom Board minutes Court Case

Today, Earthlife Africa Cape Town (ELA) received the judgment of the court case which it has launched against Eskom. 

Earthlife Africa’s application for Eskom’s board minutes was dismissed and ELA was ordered to pay all court costs.

This legal case was to review a decision on internal appeal by Eskom to refuse Earthlife Africa access to certain information requested by it in terms of the promotion of Access to information act.  The Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) is represented ELA in the matter.

“A recent article in Noseweek outlines the financial risk in this project and shows that Eskom themselves tried to pull out of it" said Olivia Andrews, campaigner in Cape Town. “This is the type of information that is being held from the public, but we are the ones paying for the project”
 
It is strange that a body like ELA, that is acknowledged as acting in the public interest, has to pay Eskom’s costs. This is a big blow to small voluntary organisations that are trying to hold government accountable and this may discourage other NGO’s from using the Access to Information Act.

Earthlife hoped that the minutes they were requesting would show Eskom’s rationale for failing to provide adequate information on the health impacts and economics - all information necessary for anyone to have before being able to make an informed choice as to whether this venture is in the public interest.

 “Earthlife Africa fails to understand the reasons why Eskom has opted for this expensive untested nuclear technology when investing in energy efficiency and conservation measures would, in our view, have been a far more effective solution,” said Olivia Andrews.

“ELA still firmly believe that Eskom is accountable to the public, they are a parastatal and are using public money to finance the Pebble Bed project, which still hasn’t presented a solid business case.”

ELA is contemplating appealing, but will meet with their lawyers after the Christmas break to discuss the full implications of the judgment.