Xolobeni objection lodged after delay
Objectors had to ask the High Court to compel TEM to furnish a copy of the mining right application.
AFTER a legal battle to obtain a copy of the mining right application, attorneys acting on behalf opponents of the Xolobeni Mineral Sands mining area have at last been able to lodge an objection.
In March last year, Transworld Energy and Minerals Resources (TEM) , the South African subsidiary of an Australian mining company, Mineral Resources Commodities, reapplied to mine a stretch of Wild Coast shoreline in the Xolobeni area. The proposed mining area is 22 km long and 1,5 km wide .
Normally, an objection should be filed within 30 days of receiving notice on a mining rights application, However, the Legal Resources Centre and Richard Spoor Inc Attorneys have only now been able to file the objection on behalf of the objectors. They include members of the Umgungundlovu Inkosana’s Council and the Amadiba Crisis Committee and 89 residents of the proposed mining area.
WHEN they first heard about the application, the attorneys sought a copy of the mining right application to enable the objectors to file an informed objection. This request was initially refused. A provisional objection was lodged in July last year to record the objectors’ grounds for objecting to the mining right application. After repeated requests were refused, the objectors launched an application in the High Court to compel TEM to furnish a copy of the mining right application.
In February this year, TEM furnished a redacted copy of the mining right application to the objectors’ attorneys. The attorneys have pointed out that the objection has been lodged within 30 days of receiving the applications but that the redacted copy the objectors received appears to be incomplete. As some pages seem to be missing and unaccounted for, the objectors’ right to supplement this objection once the missing pages are furnished is reserved.
The essence of the objection is that the proposed mining would have profound and far-reaching negative impacts upon the objectors’ livelihoods, ways of life, environment, and land rights in exchange for limited benefits to a few. Attorneys say this impact cannot be justified without the objectors’ agreement, and as the objectors have not and will not agree to mining on their land the mining right application should be rejected.
The objectors also believe the application fails to comply with several specific grounds required by the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act and other legislation. They argue that the application itself is a deeply flawed document that fails to satisfy the technical requirements of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act.
The controversy over the proposed mining project goes back more than ten years and has caused a rift in the affected community. Although a mining right was eventually granted for a section of the proposed mining area, mineral resources minister, Susan Shabangu withdrew the right in 2011, after which TEM lodged this, the second mining right application.
HAVE YOUR SAY
Like our Facebook page, follow us on Twitter and Instagram
For news straight to your phone, add us on BBM 58F3D7A7 or WhatsApp 082 421 6033
