EFF leader Julius Malema and bodyguard Adriaan Snyman in firearm case
Malema is charged with the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, discharging a firearm in a built-up area or public place, reckless endangerment of people and property, and failing to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger to people or property.
Snyman, the EFF leader's bodyguard, is charged with failing to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger to people or property, and providing a firearm or ammunition to someone not allowed to possess it.
TimesLIVE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald
8 hours ago
- The Herald
'Urgent, decisive action' being taken after deadly e-hailing attack: Creecy
Meanwhile, the South African Metered Taxi and E-Hailing Association (Samtea) in Gauteng has also condemned the incident. The association has welcomed the MEC for roads and transport's crisis committee, which it said brings together all stakeholders in the public transport value chain. 'This inclusive platform is vital to restoring peace, clarity and stability in the sector,' said Samtea chair Sibongiseni Shange. Explaining the structure, Shange said Santaco was the apex council representing all public transport modes — minibus taxis, metered taxis, e-hailing, and scholar and cross-border transport — under one constitution aligned with the supreme law. He said SAMTEA represents metered taxi and e-hailing operators within this framework. 'We caution that actions by individual operators — legal or illegal — can distort public perceptions, unfairly painting the entire sector as criminal. Criminal syndicates exploit policy gaps, unemployment and exclusionary technologies to infiltrate this essential service,' he said.
Mail & Guardian
9 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
High court victory for coastal communities against TotalEnergies, Shell over offshore drilling
The high court in the Western Cape has set aside the government's approval of the environmental authorisation for TotalEnergies EP South Africa to drill for oil and gas in offshore areas known as Block 5/6/7 along the country's south-west coast. The high court in the Western Cape has set aside the government's approval of the environmental authorisation for TotalEnergies EP South Africa The court has sent the matter back to the department of minerals and petroleum to make a fresh decision, following further studies, the addition of further information and public participation. While the authorisation was initially granted to TotalEnergies, the company intends to transfer the environmental authorisation to Shell to conduct the drilling. Wednesday's In addition to setting aside the environmental authorisation, the court ordered that a fresh decision be made. Before any approval can be reconsidered, Total — or Shell — must submit new or amended assessments. These must fully examine the socio-economic impacts of a well blowout on coastal communities; the project's full life-cycle climate impacts; all factors required under the The bulk of the applicants review grounds were premised on the final environmental impact assessment report failing to meet the standards imposed by the Specifically, they contended that the decisions to grant the environmental authorisation were unlawful and irrational in six respects. Among these were that the final environmental impact assessment report failed to properly assess — and the state respondents failed to consider — the socio-economic effects of the proposed project, 'which a well blowout and consequent oil spill will have on the fishing industry and small-scale fishers'. The applicants argued that the state respondents failed to consider the factors prescribed by the Integrated Coastal Management Act and failed to properly assess and consider the need and desirability of the proposed project in relation to the climate change impacts, 'which will be caused by burning any gas discovered by the proposed project'. The state respondents failed to assess and consider the transboundary effects of the proposed project both on Namibia and on international waters. Neither the final environmental impact assessment report, nor the environmental management programme report, included Total's oil spill or blowout contingency plans, they argued. The respondents were the ministers of environment and energy, the director-general of the department of mineral resources and energy, TotalEnergies EP South Africa Block 567 and Shell Exploration & Production South Africa. In its judgment, the court found that the environmental impact assessment failed to fully examine the consequences of a major oil spill on local and neighbouring coastal communities, ignored coastal protection laws and omitted critical climate and fairness considerations, said Shahil Singh, the legal adviser to the Green Connection. 'A critical omission, the oil spill and blowout contingency plans were withheld from the public until after approval, denying communities the chance to comment on emergency preparedness,' Singh said. 'Total and Shell will now need to undertake additional studies, make these plans publicly available and properly assess both coastal and cross-border risks before any decision is taken.' The court found that the lack of oil spill and blowout contingency plans meant that there had not been a full assessment and description of the manner in which Total intended to respond to pollution or environmental degradation, as required by the National Environment Management Act. The court found it even more problematic that there was no public participation in relation to the response plans. Singh termed the court victory a significant win for transparency, precaution and for the rights of coastal communities and small-scale fishers who refuse to be sidelined in decisions that affect their livelihoods and the future of our oceans. While the project's final environmental impact assessment report admitted that an oil spill or blowout could cause serious damage to the coastal environment, it did not assess the full economic and social impacts on the small-scale fishers and coastal communities who depend on these waters for food and income. To the extent that there were or are limitations in conducting such assessments, Total was compelled to adopt a cautious approach and take protective and preventive measures before the anticipated harm of an oil spill or blowout materialised. 'Once the final environmental impact assessment report identified the potential blow out and oil spill as potentially significant impact or risk, it was obliged to assess the consequences and the probability of the impact or risk, including those with a low degree of probability of a blowout or oil spill,' the judgment read. That is in light of the risk-averse and cautious approach espoused by the National Environment Management Act and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, in terms of which the limitation on present knowledge about the consequences of an environmental decision must be taken into account. 'The precautionary approach entails that where there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage to a resource, the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. 'It means that, where there exists evidence of possible environmental harm, such as a possible blow-out or oil spill as the final environmental impact assessment report accepts, a cautious approach should be adopted, and if necessary decision-makers may compel the party to take protective and preventive measures before the anticipated harm materialises.' Scientific spill modelling for the project showed that oil from a disaster could reach the waters and shores of Namibia. International law, and South Africa's own laws, require that the impacts on neighbouring countries should be considered, and that there was an obligation for the environmental impact assessment to consider the harms caused by transboundary impacts, and for this to be considered by the decision-makers. The court found they did not. According to the judgment, at the very least, it has been established that there is a risk of oil spill and a blowout occurring, and a risk of the oil reaching Namibian waters and the Namibian shoreline. The approach adopted by the respondents, to the effect that the National Environment Management Act and the environmental impact assessment regulations do not require environmental impact assessment to assess and predict transboundary harm is 'inconsistent with the customary international law and international law obligations. 'It is also contrary to the [ National Environment Management Act] principles and Integrated Coastal Management Act, which recognise the need to discharge global and international responsibilities,' the court found. The court confirmed that the assessment of climate change impacts should form part of this assessment. 'While it is correct that the specific activity for which the environmental authorisation in this case is granted is exploration and not production, and that the former process will not always result in the latter process, the two processes are intertwined,' the judgment noted. There would be no point in conducting an exploration activity unless an entity hoped to proceed to the next phase of production. 'And it is not speculation to conclude that by the time such an entity applies for authorisation to conduct the next phase, it is armed with information that places it at an advantage to proceed to the next phase.' Climate change is relevant to both exploration and production activities. 'It makes no sense to rely on the positive consequences of the production stage for purposes of considering an application at the exploration stage, only to resist considering the negative consequences of the production stage when it comes to consideration of climate change.' The judgment is 'a victory in the growing opposition to oil and gas exploration in our country', said Melissa Groenink-Groves, the defending rights programme manager at Natural Justice. 'Recently, a number of oil and gas projects have been given environmental authorisation but this judgment again confirms that companies must follow due process, undertake comprehensive assessments and provide communities with an opportunity to have their voices heard, in respect of all relevant information. 'It confirms that our fight for our environmental rights is strong and that we must continue for the future for our children,' she said. Lesai Seema, director at Cullinan & Associates, which represented the applicants, said the judgment makes it clear that the granting of environmental authorisation for offshore oil and gas exploitation will be unlawful if the decision-maker does not carefully consider a range of factors necessary to 'safeguard the long-term collective interests of people and other living organisms who depend on the coastal and marine environment'.
Mail & Guardian
10 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
How South Africa's Lesotho water project costs ballooned by R45bn
Watershed: The Lesotho Highlands Development Authority building in Maseru. Photo: Sechaba Mokhethi The cost of the second phase of the In 2008, phase two was projected to cost R8 billion. By 2022, this had ballooned to R42 billion. It now stands at R53 billion, raising questions about governance, oversight and accountability. 'Despite Minister [Pemmy Majodina]'s public acknowledgement that a probe into the escalating costs of phase two of the [Lesotho Highlands Water Project] would be conducted, no further details have been shared with parliament or the public,' Democratic Alliance deputy spokesperson on water and sanitation Stephen Moore said last week. Moore has filed a Promotion of Access to Information Act application to the department of water and sanitation. This follows two unanswered letters, the first sent on 8 May. The department's spokesperson Wisane Mavasa said the May letter had not been sent directly to the minister or director general. 'Unfortunately, the letter was not acted upon by the officials that it was sent to,' she said, adding that the minister would respond 'shortly'. The department says the escalation is the result of various factors, including years of delays, treaty complications and market fluctuations. Oversight gaps South Africa's portfolio committee on water and sanitation raised concerns about the cost of the project with the auditor general at a sitting on 6 May. Delays have pushed completion from 2019 to 2028, affecting the delivery schedule and future phases of the project. The committee also noted constraints stemming from the 1986 treaty preventing the auditor general from auditing the LHDA directly, 'leaving South Africa reliant on Lesotho's audit structures'. But, says Mavasa, the Lesotho Highlands Water Commission (LHWC) has equal representation from both governments, had 'full access to the cost records of the LHDA' and had received detailed information about the delays. The committee also criticised the royalty arrangement, which it said obliges South Africa to continue payments to Lesotho even when water deliveries are interrupted. Other concerns included limited local procurement, dominance of foreign contractors and opaque financial flows. Some MPs went as far as calling for an immediate funding suspension, citing mismanagement and treaty flaws. However, the auditor general cautioned against such a drastic move, warning of legal consequences. It recommended treaty reforms, including joint audits, instead. Mavasa says South Africa and Lesotho have agreed to review the treaty, but the 'matters for review' have yet to be decided. Lesotho's Finance Minister Retselisitsoe Matlanyane From R8 billion to R53 billion Mavasa outlined the project's financial journey in detail. The original 2008 feasibility study produced a preliminary R8 billion estimate — excluding inflation, currency shifts, contingency allowances and modern environmental and social safeguards. Construction of the main works was expected to start in 2013 and deliver water to Gauteng by 2019. However, she said, the main contracts were only awarded in 2022 because negotiations with Lesotho took longer than expected. The situation had worsened with years of administrative and procedural delays. 'The phase two agreement was signed in August 2011. It then took 14 months for the [South African] parliament to ratify the phase two agreement and a further seven months for the Lesotho parliament to ratify the agreement after the ratification by the SA parliament,' Mavasa said. After Lesotho's 2013 change of government, the agreement was subjected to fresh scrutiny, adding further delays, according to Mavasa, who also pointed out that, between 2013 and 2022, the department of water and sanitation had five different ministers and 11 directors general, which slowed decision-making. There were also financing complications. Funders raised concerns over procurement processes for the main contracts and requested they be tendered afresh. The Covid pandemic also disrupted preparatory work. In October 2022, the LHDA projected a R42 billion completion cost — incorporating contract prices; social and environmental programmes; foreign exchange effects and administrative costs. More than R20 billion in extra costs was due to inflation linked to the delays, Mavasa said. In October, the figure rose to R53 billion. The department attributed this to: • R4.2 billion from boosting the contingency provision in line with international good practice from R3.3 billion in 2022 to R7.5 billion last year • R5.4 billion for additional social obligations requested by Lesotho, such as rural water supply and road infrastructure • R1.7 billion in price escalations, design changes and contractor claims linked to delays, including work-permit issues. Governance fixes and audits According to Mavasa, the project costs and time overruns have been a major concern for the department of water and sanitation and Minister Majodina. She said the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority has developed a plan to minimise any further delays and cost overruns. The LHWC would appoint a multidisciplinary team of experts to conduct management audits of contracts. Although the project is about half completed, she said two primary contracts are behind schedule. 'However, the LHDA is executing a turnaround plan to avoid further delays and recover lost time.' Last year, Mavasa said the department had established a governance committee comprising the department, the Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority and the South African delegation to the LHWC, which meets monthly to review progress. The director general of the department of water and sanitation and the principal secretary of the relevant department in Lesotho held ad hoc and quarterly meetings to address issues arising from the project. Unresolved issues were escalated to the ministers. Lesotho's Minister of Natural Resources Mohlomi Moleko said he could only respond next week as he was outside the country.
