In July 2026, PTWC appealed the Environmental Authorisation (EA) granted to Ntswatswa Investments by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR), on the grounds that not one legally compliant rehabilitation planning document appeared in the application (NC30/5/1/1/2/14447PR).
This is a growing and concerning trend of missing mandatory documentation that PTWC has observed in several applications, and which has been included in several of our recent appeals.
Moreover, six of nine specialist studies that the National Environmental Screening tool flagged as necessary were not done, among other grounds. While the appeal was under consideration, Nstwatswa withdrew the application. In its response, Ntswatswa Investments stated that the PTWC appeal did not influence their decision to withdraw, citing the fact that a prospecting right had already been granted to an earlier applicant, Namli Exploration and Mining.
“The overlapping right removes the legal basis on which the Applicant’s prospecting right application, and the EA issued in support of it, could proceed,” stated Ntswatswa Investments in their withdrawal letter to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE) Appeal Authority, “The withdrawal is made for this reason alone and is not a concession of any of the grounds of appeal advanced by PTWC.”
Whether or not PTWC played a role in this withdrawal, the removal of any mining or prospecting application that ostensibly does not fulfill the full legal requirements, especially those that directly impact the environment, can be considered another small victory in PTWC’s ongoing fight against poorly regulated mining in the region.
That Ntswatswa Investments applied and were granted an EA in an area already subject to another prospecting right is in itself problematic and indicative of more systemic issues.
The serious issues PTWC raised in its appeal notwithstanding, why did the DMPR accept their application and grant environmental authorisation if there was already an existing prospecting right over the same land and same minerals? Did they care to find out whether the records were available? Did they even have that information? The end result is a waste of time, money and effort for all parties concerned, including Ntswatswa Investments, PTWC, and the DFFE, which is already heavily burdened with appeals.
“The DMPR holds the keys to the mining industry, the mandate to promote it, as well as the power to authorise potential harm to the environment, and the obligations to rehabilitate it,” said Michael Yaman, in-house attorney at PTWC. “Whatever the cause, whether capacity, technical expertise or workload, when it does not apply the laws that are meant to protect people and the environment from harm, now and in future, the public has to step in. That means extra work and delay for everyone involved, the applicant and the DFFE included. Getting the decision right the first time would have avoided this.”
PTWC has long contended that the level of oversight and scrutiny of applications in the mining industry is lacking, the authority to grant environmental authorisations sits in the wrong hands, and there should be a moratorium on all new mining and prospecting applications in the region until a comprehensive strategic environmental assessment is conducted.
Add your voice. Join Ripl www.ripl.co.za
