- The Green Connection and Natural Justice file answering affidavit opposing expanded appeal by State and Shell.
- Western Cape High Court previously set aside offshore drilling authorisation citing serious legal flaws.
- Case seen as national test for climate accountability, ocean protection and constitutional rights.
As South Africa enters a pivotal phase in its climate and energy transition, civil society organisations are reinforcing their commitment to good governance and environmental justice in the ongoing Block 5 6 7 offshore drilling dispute.
The Green Connection and Natural Justice confirmed that they have filed their answering affidavit in the Supreme Court of Appeal, opposing efforts by the State and Shell to broaden the scope of their appeal in the matter. The case relates to proposed offshore oil exploration approximately 60 km off Cape Point.
According to The Green Connection Outreach Ambassador Neville van Rooy, the matter extends beyond administrative procedure. He said the case concerns good governance, climate responsibility and the constitutional rights of coastal communities whose livelihoods depend on a healthy ocean.
Seismic survey and oil & gas drilling – what is the impact on catch rates and the knock-on effect such impacts would have on small-scale fishers and communities that rely on fishing for their livelihoods and culture. Image credit: Charles Withington
The dispute dates back to 2022 when civil society organisations raised objections to TEEPSA’s environmental impact assessment for offshore drilling of up to five wells. Concerns centred on risks to small scale fishers, marine ecosystems and the climate.
Despite significant public and scientific opposition, the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy granted environmental authorisation in 2023. More than 20 appeals were subsequently lodged by affected communities, civil society groups and experts. These were dismissed by the then Minister of Forestry Fisheries and Environment.
In response, The Green Connection and Natural Justice initiated a High Court review in 2024. Although TotalEnergies later indicated plans to withdraw from Blocks 11B 12B and 5 6 7, the litigation continued. In 2025, the Western Cape High Court set aside the environmental authorisation, finding that the environmental assessment process was fundamentally flawed.
The court granted limited leave to appeal on two of five grounds relating to climate risk and transboundary harm. Shell, which took over the application from TEEPSA, together with the State, is now seeking to expand the appeal to include additional grounds.
Civil society organisations argue that the High Court has already identified serious deficiencies in the process, including the failure to adequately assess socio economic impacts and coastal protection requirements under the Integrated Coastal Management Act. They also point to the late disclosure of critical oil spill and blowout contingency plans, which they say denied communities a fair opportunity to interrogate the risks.
For small scale fishing communities along the West Coast through to KwaZulu Natal, the implications are significant. Stakeholders maintain that offshore oil and gas exploration threatens marine ecosystems as well as food security, cultural heritage and local economies. They argue that potential damage to the ocean cannot be compensated through financial measures alone.
The case also intersects with South Africa’s broader climate commitments. As Africa’s largest CO2 emitter, responsible for roughly 1% of global emissions, the country faces mounting pressure to align energy development with climate objectives. Civil society groups contend that new offshore oil and gas expansion risks undermining these commitments while diverting capital from renewable and community centred energy solutions. They further highlight that methane is up to 86 times more potent than CO2 over a 20 year period, amplifying concerns around new fossil fuel development.
The Supreme Court of Appeal will now determine whether the State and Shell may widen their appeal to include additional grounds relating to socio economic impacts, coastal protection and contingency planning.
For civil society, the Block 5 6 7 matter has evolved into a national test case on environmental governance, transparency and the application of precaution in energy decision making. At stake, they argue, are constitutional rights, food security, marine biodiversity and the long term integrity of South Africa’s coastal economy.
Author: Bryan Groenendaal
