Pretoria High Court Pretoria High Court where the state’s application for leave to appeal the landmark Deadly Air court judgment over air pollution in the Mpumalanga Highveld will be heard. Picture: Oupa Mokoena/African News Agency (ANA)
Durban – Today the Pretoria High Court will hear the State’s application for leave to appeal the landmark deadly air court judgment regarding air pollution in the Mpumalanga Highveld.
The case started in June 2019 at the behest of the Emalahleni-based Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action (VEM) and environmental justice group groundWork represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and it sought for the government to deal with air pollution in Mpumalanga.
The deadly air court judgment was handed down by High Court Judge Colleen Collis in the Pretoria High Court in March last year. It found that the poor air quality in the Highveld Priority Area (which extends from eastern Gauteng across the Mpumalanga
Highveld), is in breach of residents’ section 24(a) Constitutional right to an environment that is not harmful.
Bobby Peek, executive director of groundWork, said the judgment declared that Section 24 of the Constitution is immediately realisable in the here and now. The judgment also ordered the government to pass regulations to implement and enforce the Highveld Priority Area Air Quality Management Plan (Highveld Plan), which aims to clean up the air in the Highveld to meet health-based air quality standards.
The Minister of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment applied to the High Court for leave to appeal the part of the order relating to the interpretation of Section 20 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (AQA). This is the legal provision relating to the passing of regulations to implement and enforce Air Quality
Management Plans in priority areas.
Peek said they will not oppose the motion.
“VEM and groundWork do not oppose the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal,” he said.
Albi Modise, spokesperson for the department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment, was approached for comment but did not reply at the time of publishing.