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)
22 September 2021
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). 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:
Section 100(2) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (MPRDA) – the provision which provides for the development of a broad-based socio-economic empowerment Charter - does not empower the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy (Minister) to make law. As a consequence, Mining Charter III is simply a policy document and not a statutory instrument such as an Act or Regulations. It follows that Mining Charter III cannot give rise to legally binding obligations.
Owing to its status as a policy document mining right holders may, but are not legally obliged to, comply with the remaining requirements imposed under the Charter. This is subject to two qualifications: