Shell and South Africa’s Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, Gwede Mantashe, are pushing back against a landmark court decision that halted offshore oil exploration in Block 5/6/7. The appeal follows an August 2025 Western Cape High Court judgment that found the environmental authorization unlawful due to significant deficiencies in its environmental impact assessment.
The appeal hearing took place on October 16, 2025, with environmental groups The Green Connection and Natural Justice defending their victory against what they view as a project that threatens coastal livelihoods. Judge Mangcu-Lockwood’s ruling sided decisively with the environmental advocates, highlighting serious procedural and environmental flaws in how the authorization was granted.
For thousands of small-scale fishers along South Africa’s west coast, there’s a lot at stake. These communities depend on healthy ocean ecosystems for their survival, and they’ve made it clear they won’t stand silently while corporate interests potentially endanger their way of life.
“This appeal attempt is disappointing but not surprising,” says Liz McDaid, Strategic Lead at The Green Connection. She argues that oil and gas companies, together with government, appear determined to forge ahead despite the court recognizing serious shortcomings in the approval process.
The court identified five major issues with the authorization: no proper study of disaster impacts on communities, ignoring coastal protection laws, inadequate climate change assessment, no evaluation of cross-border harm, and withholding key emergency plans from public scrutiny until after approval.
The risks aren’t theoretical. Neville van Rooy, Community Outreach Coordinator at The Green Connection, points to the Benguela Current as a particular concern. Any offshore drilling accident, including a well blowout, could devastate marine life and fisheries, with oil potentially drifting into Namibian waters. These aren’t just environmental fears but economic realities for coastal families whose income depends entirely on fishing.
Shell defended its position, stating that the High Court judgment misinterprets environmental law and imposes constraints outside the Act’s scope. The company argues the ruling conflates exploration with production, creating unnecessary obstacles.
Yet this case may represent something bigger than one disputed offshore block. Environmental advocates suggest it’s part of a broader pattern where fossil fuel companies and government authorities repeatedly sidestep environmental safeguards. South African officials estimate as much as $1.6 billion in investments have been stopped by legal challenges from non-governmental organizations, a figure that highlights the tension between economic development and environmental protection.
Block 5/6/7 is jointly owned by South Africa’s state oil company PetroSA, TotalEnergies, and Shell, with the French firm acting as operator. The block was previously held by TotalEnergies before Shell sought to take over the environmental authorization.
Beyond the immediate concerns about oil spills and fishing stocks, there’s the climate dimension. Van Rooy emphasizes that production from this block could directly increase greenhouse gas emissions, potentially accelerating climate change impacts that would ripple through small-scale fisheries and coastal community wellbeing.
The decision on whether the appeal will proceed, and whether it will be heard by a Full Bench of the Western Cape High Court or the Supreme Court of Appeal, is expected in the coming weeks. For now, The Green Connection and Natural Justice await judgment on whether their August victory will stand or whether the legal battle will continue for years.
What’s certain is that South Africa’s coastal communities aren’t backing down. They’ve shown they’re willing to use the courts to protect what they see as their constitutional right to a healthy environment and sustainable livelihoods. Whether the law ultimately sides with economic development or environmental protection remains to be seen.
