Simbarashe R. Gundani

This article examines the need to enforce criminal sanctions for environmental crimes being perpetrated daily, particularly by those who engage in mining and extractive ventures. In South Africa, more often than not, the sanctions for environmental crimes are usually premised on civil suits or administrative actions against the perpetrators. However, these sanctions have not been effective in dissuading perpetrators from environmental harm and degradation because they have the financial means to settle any claims or fines imposed by the courts or the administrative tribunals. It is against the backdrop of this culture of deliberate impunity that this article accentuates the need to strengthen sanctions against perpetrators by imposing criminal sanctions in order to serve as deterrent. A precedent was set by the court in the case of Blue Platinum Ventures (Pty) Limited and Maponya, where the court emphatically invoked and applied criminal sanction against the defendant and was held criminally liable for degrading the environment. The case is a landmark, as it sets a new precedent, where the perpetrator was criminally sanctioned. Countries like United States of America and Australia have been successful in criminal sanctioning of environmental crimes; many mining and extractives companies’ executives and managers have been criminally sanctioned and sent to jail. This article looks at the jurisprudence from these jurisdictions and draws useful lessons that could be used to strengthen prosecution and conviction of perpetrators in South Africa.

This article examines the socio-economic impacts and effects of unlawful electricity tariff increase in South Africa. Access to electricity is a vital socio-economic right in South Africa because of its intrinsic role in the fulfilment of other social economic rights. The availability and accessibility of electricity guarantees the success of many businesses and the survival of many households, particularly the rural poor. Eskom, a governmental parastatal, generates, transmits and distributes electricity for the people, and charges for these services are rendered based on the tariff approved by the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA). Recently, NERSA decided to approve tariff increase requested by Eskom which was against the Electricity Regulation Act 4 of 2006 and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996. This increase was contested and nullified in court. If this tariff increase had not been challenged in the court, it would have had a devastating impact on the well-being of the people, particularly the poor. Using literature relevant to socio-economic rights to modern energy, particularly electricity, this article accentuates that electricity is a basic socio-economic right in South Africa that must be accessible and affordable to all. It explains the importance of judicial intervention in ensuring that socio-economic rights are made available and accessible to the people. It points out that the court will not hesitate in using its judicial power to extend any opportunity which allows poor people to access and enjoy right to modern energy and electricity and other socio-economic rights in South Africa.