TotalEnergies on Trial: A Year of Reckoning

With contributions from Eva Church and Rosie Church

In the fourth case to stall offshore oil and gas operations in South African seas, a landmark ruling delivered on 13 August 2025 in the Western Cape High Court set aside the environmental authorization granted to TotalEnergies and Shell for offshore oil and gas exploration in Block 5/6/7 – off the southwest coast stretching from Cape Town and Cape Agulhas¹.

More on this victory–that reaffirms the importance of public participation and the legal power of civil society to protect communities, ecosystems, and future generations–later, first let’s look north to cases which collectively paint a troubling picture and clear warning to South Africans who might be drawn in by the development rhetoric of TotalEnergies. The question, as always, is – development for whom, and what is the public good of 11th-hour gas-development when the climate science is clear on its threat? 

East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) Displacement and Land Rights Disputes
TotalEnergies holds a 65% stake in EACOP. Its development has been fraught with public legal resistance since 2012and human rights litigation largely in Uganda, where the oil fields are located (Tilenga and Kingfisher), and where eviction, land acquisition, violent displacement and rejected compensation claims have been most contested.

Involuntary Manslaughter / Failure to Assist Victims investigation– Mozambique LNG Project

In March 2025, French prosecutors opened a preliminary judicial investigation into TotalEnergies for potential involuntary manslaughter and failure to assist persons in danger during the jihadist attack on Palma, Mozambique, in March 2021. Survivors and families of victims allege TotalEnergies failed to warn about imminent risk or protect workers or provide emergency evacuation plans. TotalEnergie denies any wrong doing and contends it helped evacuate over 2,500 people. If evidence supports the claim, TotalEnergies could face trial. 

UK Human Rights Probe into Mozambique LNG Project

Separately, the UK government has launched a human rights investigation into potential abuses associated with TotalEnergies’ Mozambique LNG project. The focus is on alleged actions by Mozambican soldiers—potentially implicated in torture, extrajudicial killings, or other abuses—who were tasked with project protection. The investigation is being conducted by a legal group under commission from UK Export Finance (UKEF), which is also reviewing whether to withdraw its £1.15 billion financial support. The probe aligns with the UK’s broader shift away from fossil fuel financing and towards green energy.

NGO Pressure Over Financing of Mozambique LNG

NGO Les Amis de la Terre threaten litigation in the U.S. to challenge a $4.7 billion loan from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to the Mozambique LNG project—citing the region’s instability and human rights concerns. TotalEnergies is pushing back by intervening in the litigation to defend the financing. Though the legal outcome is pending, recent reactivation of U.S. funding and security improvements indicate growing momentum to restart the project .

Court Victory in South Africa (Block 5/6/7)

Block 5/6/7 is home to critically endangered African penguins and other seabirds, unique marine ecosystems, migratory whale species and thriving small-scale fisheries and tourism that sustain thousands of families³. The livelihoods of these communities are intertwined with the health of the ocean, and any oil spill or industrial accident could have catastrophic consequences. Despite this, the Director General (DG) of the Department of Minerals and Energy authorised exploratory oil and gas well drilling without fully considering the risks⁴.

In August, Judge Nobahle Mangcu-Lockwood of the High Court of Cape Town found that the granting of environmental authorization to TotalEnergies is reviewed and set aside. As part of this process, TotalEnergies is entitled to submit new or amended assessments to address the deficiencies and public participation must be conducted with the new or amended assessments before a decision is made.

The Green Connection and Natural Justice brought the case, arguing that communities were denied meaningful participation and that environmental decision-making had been undermined by corporate and governmental shortcuts⁸ . These civil society groups, reviewed the final Environmental Impact Report on the following grounds: 

1. Inadequate disaster impact assessment for local communities

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) failed to properly assess the potential devastation of a well blowout or oil spill on fishing communities, even though it acknowledged a blowout as the greatest environmental threat from offshore drilling⁵. Regarding this ground, the court found that the final EIR failed to quantify the economic impact of unplanned event of a blowout and oil spill.

The judgment delivered by Judge Nobahle Mangcu-Lockwood, as she set aside the environmental authorisation granted by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment in April 2023 was clear: “risks from oil spills cannot be dismissed as speculative – they must be meaningfully assessed”, and cannot rely on a lack of scientific knowledge as a reason for not properly assessing the potential risks and impact in terms of NEMA and EIA Regulations ¹². 

• Violation of coastal protection laws

The decision maker failed to consider the factors prescribed by the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA). The ICMA uniquely refers to the “interests of the whole community” which is determined by prioritizing collective interests in coastal public property, adopting long-term perspective that considers the interests of future generations and considering the interests of other living organisms dependent on the coastal environment. TotalEnergies and Shell failed to prove that these requirements were met by generic consideration of NEMA, the ICMA was not specifically referenced, including the long-term health of ecosystems and the livelihoods that depend on them⁶ and thus seem to not have been considered in the decision-making process. 

• Insufficient climate change impact evaluation

TotalEnergies’ claim that the project was necessary for South Africa’s energy future required a thorough assessment of climate impacts, which had been neglected. The EIR failed to assess the need and desirability of the proposed project because no consideration was given to the climate change impacts which will be caused by burning any gas discovered by the proposed project¹¹. Here the court relied on the Earthlife judgment which stated that the effects of climate change pose substantial risks and that sustainable development is intertwined with intergenerational justice and thus short-term needs must be evaluated and weighed against long-term consequences

• Failure to consider transboundary impacts 

The EIA also failed to consider how an oil spill might have transboundary effects, potentially affecting Namibia and international waters. An obligation arises from customary international law and international law on South Africa to not allow our territory to be used to cause transboundary harm. It is also a responsibility to consider global and international law as a consideration when interpreting NEMA and ICMA.

• Withholding oil spill contingency plans from the public

Neither the EIR nor the Environmental Management Plan included Total’s Oil Spill Contingency plan or Blow Out Contingency Plan. Total had developed a generic plan and this was determined to lack sufficient detail, were not made available to the public and this in turn, undermined the public participation requirement under NEMA. 

The Petroleum Agency of SA delivered an appeal response report which seemed to be submitted on behalf of the DG and was treated as such by the Minister The 6^th ground was dismissed. 

In Fuel Retailers, the Constitutional Court held that should an environmental decision-maker fail to take into consideration an environmental impact, its decision should be reviewed as set aside in terms of PAJA. 

The setting aside of the environmental authorisation granted to TotalEnergies means that the matter has been sent back to the Director General of Minerals to reconsider the decision after revised assessments have been conducted in order to rectify the deficiencies identified in the EIA. TotalEnergies (and Shell, who will likely ‘farm in’ – see below) must conduct new environmental and socio-economic studies. Public consultation must be considered mandatory and any new application must consider climate impacts, community risk, and cross-border effects.

This judgment reinforces the principle that environmental assessments must be detailed and transparent and that the precautionary approach should be adopted – especially when there is a threat of irreversible damage to natural resources. For the public, this judgment highlights the right of the public to be involved in decision-making where their rights may be infringed. Finally, this judgment heightens the importance of climate and ecological accountability in South African law, sending a message to governments and corporations alike that environmental protection cannot be side-lined.

TotalEnergies’ Walks Away

The timing of the judgment coincided with TotalEnergies’ decision to withdraw from Block 5/6/7, ceding operational control to Shell¹³. While Shell was allowed to join the case, the environmental authorisation itself has now been set aside. The scrutiny of SLR Consulting’s role in the EIA highlights how vital transparency is in environmental consulting, and the court’s decision demonstrates that communities can hold corporations accountable for lapses in environmental responsibility¹⁴. TotalEnergies’ withdrawal signals a broader shift within the fossil fuel industry as companies increasingly recognise that mounting legal challenges, intensifying public scrutiny and persistent environmental advocacy represent significant opposition that can no longer be dismissed or delayed. This development reflects not only the legal risks of pursuing extractive projects, but also the growing strength of civic movements demanding accountability and a transition towards more sustainable and just energy futures.

What Comes Next

While other oil and gas projects continue, including Shell’s seismic surveys on the Wild Coast and further exploration off the West Coast, this ruling sets an important precedent. Fossil fuel expansion in South Africa is now on uncertain legal ground. Communities are empowered to continue advocating for a future rooted in climate justice, ocean protection, and a just transition to renewable energy. The court has affirmed that environmental decision-making must be rigorous, transparent, and inclusive – principles that will continue to guide activism and legal challenges in the country.

Since the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance v the Ministers of Environment, Forestry’s and Fisheries + Mineral Resources and Energy, The DG, Petroleum Agency South Africa, Sasol (and Subsidiaries) + Eni South Africa (June 2021) case South African coastal communities have raised alarms about the dangers of offshore drilling, sending a clear precautionary message that the voices of communities cannot be ignored².

Huge appreciation for the efforts of The Green Connection and Natural Justice and their legal team

References

Natural Justice, 2025. TotalEnergies Block 567: A case to keep our coastline free of the fossil fuel multinationals.

Final Green Connection v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries & Environment (Case No. 5676/2024, Western Cape High Court, judgment delivered 13 Aug 2025).

Fact Sheet: Block 5/6/7, The Green Connection & Natural Justice, updated 2 May 2024.

Ibid. (ICMA review ground).

Natural Justice, 2025. Offshore drilling project halted in landmark high court victory for coastal communities against Shell & TotalEnergies.

Fact Sheet: Block 5/6/7, The Green Connection & Natural Justice, updated 2 May 2024.

Clare Martens, Judgment Summary: The Green Connection and Natural Justice v TotalEnergies(Natural Justice, Aug 2025).

Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs (2017); Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy (2021).

Green Connection v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries & Environment (Case No. 5676/2024).

Fact Sheet: Block 5/6/7, The Green Connection & Natural Justice, updated 2 May 2024.

NewsBase, 2025. Western Cape High Court revokes TotalEnergies environmental authorisation to drill for oil offshore South Africa. at para. 65 (referring to Section 24 of the Constitution).