Tag: mining rights

A recent Supreme Court judgment has clarified that ministerial consent under section 11 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) is needed for both direct and indirect changes of control of a company that holds mining rights.

Proposed amendments to the Mine Health and Safety Act (MHSA) place greater obligations on employers, which is to be welcomed in some respects, but other amendments are problematic and may be open to legal challenge.

Mining companies are under increased pressure from regulators, investors, and communities to manage social and environmental risks arising from mine closure and rehabilitation. Abandoned mines and their dumps are common features of the South African mining landscape.

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).

Recent regulatory developments have helped to increase the pressure that communities are able to exert on mining companies. This highlights the need for companies to implement more effective negotiations with and solutions for their affected communities.

Mining Charter III (MCIII) heaps more pain on South Africa’s alluvial diamond producers who already face enormous cost burdens and high risks. This previously productive and successful small or junior diamond mining industry consists of just 180 remaining entrepreneurial mining operators employing around 5,000 people at an annual salary bill of R550 million.

The publication of the Draft Broad-based Socio-Economic Empowerment Charter for the Mining and Minerals Industry, 2018 (Draft Mining Charter 2018) on Friday, 15 June 2018 came in the wake of the widely-criticised Reviewed Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Charter for the South African Mining and Minerals Industry on 15 June 2017 (Mining Charter 2017).