Site icon bbrief

JUDGEMENT | Key consequences of the Mining Charter III


Peter Leon | Partner | Africa Chair | Herbert Smith Freehills | mail me | 


There are key consequences of the Gauteng Division of the High Court’s decision in Minerals Council of South Africa v The Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Thirteen Others (Case No. 20341/19) (Mining Charter III Judgment).

On 21 September 2021 a full bench of the Gauteng Division of the High Court delivered a unanimous and damning judgment declaring that the Broad-based Socio-economic Empowerment Charter for the Mining and Metals Industry, 2018 (Mining Charter III or the Charter) is simply policy and not legislation or subordinate legislation as long contended by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) (para 55).

Significant consequences of the judgement

As a result of this, the Court likewise set aside a number of Mining Charter III’s key clauses (para 68).

These include the re-empowerment obligations which the charter purported to impose on existing mining right holders when they wish to renew or transfer their rights, the charter’s onerous procurement, supplier and enterprise development targets, as well as some of its penalty and enforcement provisions.

In our view the most significant consequences of Judge Kathree-Setiloane’s decision, writing for the Court, are as follows:

A significant victory for the rule of law

We are delighted that the court reiterated many of the views (including our own) which the industry has held for years. It is a significant victory for the rule of law, regulatory certainty and predictability.

The judgment vindicates my long held view that the charter, in all its iterations, was nothing more than a socio-economic compact between government, labour and the mining industry. The original charter, signed in October 2002, reflected exactly this principle.

Regrettably the 2010 and 2018 versions purported to turn what was no more than a compact into a binding legislative instrument with all the associated regulatory uncertainty.

Hopefully this carefully reasoned and strong judgment will give the DMRE cause to reflect on what has gone wrong in the last ten years and put the industry back on a much needed path of regulatory certainty and predictability.


 

Exit mobile version