Three environmental justice organisations have launched a High Court challenge to the environmental authorisation granted for Eskom’s proposed Nuclear-1 power station, arguing that the approval was granted in breach of mandatory requirements of South Africa’s environmental impact assessment laws. The proposed 4,000 MW project would be built at Duynefontein next to the existing Koeberg nuclear power station near Cape Town.
The Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI), Greenpeace Africa and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg describe Nuclear-1 as a “zombie” nuclear project, revived nearly two decades after the environmental approval process first began in 2007. The environmental authorisation was granted in 2017, and appeals against it were only dismissed in 2025, after an unusually prolonged appeal process.
The organisations are concerned that nuclear projects of this scale could involve capital commitments running into the hundreds of billions of rand and potentially exceeding one trillion rand, depending on technology choices, construction costs and financing arrangements, with possible implications for electricity tariffs and taxpayers.
The application challenges both the 2017 decision by the Chief Director: Integrated Environment Authorisations, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the environment to grant Eskom the environmental authorisation for the project as well as the 2025 decision by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment dismissing appeals against that approval.
The organisations argue that the environmental authorisation was granted in circumstances where mandatory requirements of South Africa’s environmental impact assessment laws were not properly complied with.
The review application is based on several grounds, including the following:
- The organisations contend that decision-makers did not conduct a proper project-specific assessment of whether constructing the proposed nuclear power station at Duynefontein was necessary or desirable, relying primarily on national electricity planning policy rather than conducting the required project-specific need and desirability assessment.
- The organisations argue that renewable energy technologies were not properly assessed as alternatives to the proposed nuclear power station. The environmental assessment relied on outdated assumptions about electricity demand, energy costs and the need for nuclear “base-load” power, and did not adequately consider developments in renewable energy and battery energy storage systems. According to the organisations, electricity supply needs can be met through combinations of renewable generation – such as solar and wind – supported by energy storage technologies.
- The organisations contend that the option of not proceeding with the project was not meaningfully evaluated during the environmental assessment process, as required by environmental law.
- The organisations argue that the environmental assessment did not adequately evaluate the potential environmental, health and socio-economic consequences of a catastrophic nuclear incident involving the uncontrolled release of radiation.
SAFCEI’s Executive Director, Francesca de Gasparis, said: “The granting of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Duynefontein site seventeen years after it was originally submitted is a resurrection of a nuclear energy plan that should have been shelved more than a decade ago, in 2017, when it was originally appealed by our three organisations. What we are witnessing now is a ‘zombie’ revival of that same plan – without transparency, proper parliamentary oversight, economic justification, or meaningful public participation.”
Cynthia Moyo, Greenpeace Africa’s Climate & Energy Campaigner, emphasised: “It is fundamentally unjust to saddle South Africans and future generations with the financial risk, radioactive waste and catastrophic accident potential of a massive nuclear project when safer, quicker and more affordable renewable energy options are available today. South Africa is in the midst of a climate and economic crisis and pushing ahead with nuclear without fully accounting for its long-term impacts is reckless and irresponsible.
“Climate justice means protecting communities from unnecessary risk and debt, not locking the country into decades of costly infrastructure that benefits the few while burdening the many. This case is about drawing a clear line, our energy future must be safe, equitable and aligned with the constitutional right to a healthy environment for present and future generations.”
Lesai Seema, Director of Cullinan and Associates, said: “We are delighted to support these organisations in ensuring that decisions with long-term consequences for millions of South Africans are taken in accordance with the law. A commitment to spend billions of rands on nuclear power plants is one that must comply with national legislation and reckon honestly with its environmental, social and economic consequences for present and future generations.”
The organisations are asking the High Court to declare the environmental authorisation and the Minister’s appeal decision unlawful and to set them aside.
Following service of the founding affidavit, the case is now a matter of public record.