- Communities and environmental groups will argue that Shell cannot renew an exploration right that has already been declared unlawful.
- The case raises important constitutional questions about fair remedies and protecting community rights.
- Protests and educational events will take place alongside the hearing at the Constitutional Court.
For over three years, the communities of the Wild Coast and their allies have fought a legal battle to stop Shell from conducting oil and gas seismic surveys in their ocean waters. Now, they are going to the country’s highest court to seek justice.
On 16 and 17 September 2025, the Constitutional Court will hear arguments from community representatives and environmental justice organisations seeking to overturn a Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling that allowed Shell to renew its exploration right. Both the High Court and the SCA had declared it unlawful.
The court case was brought in December 2021 by Sustaining the Wild Coast, communities, small-scale fishers, and All Rise Attorneys, represented by the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) and Richard Spoor Incorporated. Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa, represented by environmental law firm Cullinan and Associates, later joined the case.
In 2022, the High Court stopped Shell’s seismic exploration and declared its exploration right unlawful. While the SCA upheld this finding in May 2024, it controversially ruled that Shell could still apply to renew the unlawful right, arguing that preventing Shell from doing so would be too harsh.
A fight for rights and environmental justice
In their challenge to the Constitutional Court, the communities will argue that allowing Shell to renew a right already found to be unlawful violates their constitutional rights to fair administrative action, livelihoods, and cultural and spiritual heritage.
They say the SCA’s order is unclear, unjust, and does not direct how the Minister or Shell should fix the problems in the original flawed consultation process. Importantly, the Constitutional Court has already dismissed Shell and Impact Africa’s attempt to appeal the declaration that their right was unlawful, which strengthens the communities’ case.
“For us as coastal communities, this case is about environmental justice. It is about Indigenous coastal communities being able to live peacefully on their land, enjoying the livelihoods they derive from the ocean and being able to care for the environment without facing the negative impacts of extractive industries,” said Sinegugu Zukulu from Sustaining the Wild Coast. “This case recognises that the rights of coastal communities are more important than the profits of oil companies that push for profit amid climate change, which disproportionately affects rural communities with no protection against its impacts.”
Broader constitutional implications
The organisations argue that this case has consequences for how South African courts handle remedies when administrative decisions are found unlawful. They state that the SCA’s approach, which sought to ease the outcome by allowing renewal, undermines the principle that courts must provide clear and effective remedies that protect constitutional rights.
Wilmien Wicomb from the Legal Resources Centre said: “While the SCA reaffirmed the rights of local communities affected by exploration activities, its requirement for an additional public participation process to remedy an inadequate process falls short of being a fair, just, and effective remedy. By delaying the invalidation of the exploration right until Shell’s renewal application is decided, the ruling fails to adequately protect the rights of affected communities and does not fix the flaws in the original consultation process.”
“This case is about more than oil and gas,” added Melissa Groenink-Groves from Natural Justice. “It is about communities along the Wild Coast standing together and resisting a future that harms their livelihoods, our climate, and future generations. We trust that the highest court in the country will prioritize people over profit and uphold their constitutional rights.”
Sherelee Odayar from Greenpeace Africa said: “The Wild Coast supports livelihoods, culture, and biodiversity. Shell’s proposed actions threaten these constitutionally protected rights. When companies like Shell ignore people’s voices and the climate crisis, the courts must intervene.”
Public protest and solidarity
As the hearing approaches, activists from the Wild Coast, small-scale fishers, and mining-affected communities plan to protest outside the Constitutional Court. They will also hold educational events at Constitution Hill to raise public awareness about the case, the ongoing climate crisis, and the rights of communities to protect their environment from harmful corporate activities.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
