TotalEnergies: Who really benefits from regulating environmental NGOs in South Africa?

Recent comments in the Mail & Guardian (19 July 2024) by Sampson Mamphweli, the head of the energy secretariat at the South African National Energy Development Institute — a government agency tasked with promoting energy research and development — should send a shiver down the spine of all citizens interested in living in a healthy and vibrant democracy.

Commenting on TotalEnergies’ recent statement that it may abandon its Brulpadda-Luiperd gas find in South African waters (TotalEnergies has since confirmed it is abandoning the gas find), Mamphweli blamed environmental activists for driving the company away. While providing no evidence to support any of his claims, Mamphweli argued that environmental NGOs were spreading “misinformation” in South Africa and stopping “development”, which meant that the time had come for the government to “regulate environmental activism”.

Apparently oblivious to the fact that it appears that Total Energies could not find a buyer for the gas due to the expense involved in risky ultra deep-water extraction, Mamphweli’s comments mirror those of Gwede Mantashe, the minister of mineral resources and energy (now mineral resources and petroleum). He has repeatedly blamed environmental NGOs for blocking “development”, stating that they should be “registered”, and be forced to declare who funds them. He has repeatedly blamed environmental NGOs for blocking “development”, stating that they should be “registered”, and be forced to declare who funds them.

These calls to regulate environmental NGOs are deeply worrying because they are, in effect, calls by the government to narrow and restrict the space within which people and organisations of people can voice their opinions on environmental matters that affect them.

The Constitution guarantees the rights to hold and express opinions, to associate with others, to protest and to access the courts to let them decide if these rights are being properly upheld. Furthermore, section 24 of the Constitution states that “everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing” both now and in the future. 

Within this constitutional context, what does it actually mean to “regulate” environmental NGOs? Does regulation mean preventing environmental NGOs and environmental activists from voicing their opinions? Does it mean preventing them from protesting or from accessing the courts with communities who are tired of the environmental harms that are making them sick? Does it mean preventing environmental activists and organisations from aligning with communities, such as those in Musina Makhado in Limpopo or Xolobeni in the Eastern Cape, who want development, but not the kind of “development” that the government is trying to force on them?

These are important questions, especially considering the ongoing restrictions being placed by governments throughout the world, and particularly in Africa, on NGOs and the spaces within which they operate. Over the past several years, governments on the continent have adopted deeply anti-democratic laws to constrain the activities of NGOs. 

Watchdog organisation Freedom House, which has monitored the spread of these laws, states that “restrictions that hamstring NGO activity form part of a broader strategy adopted by regimes to narrow democratic space and prevent challenges to the rule of strongmen and governing parties”. When calls are made to “regulate” environmental NGOs in South Africa, is the objective to similarly “narrow democratic space”?

The 2023 General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill waiting for the president’s signature suggests that the regulation of democratic space is already on the government’s agenda. This bill expands the definition of state security away from one narrowly focused on threats to South Africa’s people, the constitutional order and the country’s territorial integrity. It states: “National security means the capabilities, measures and activities of the state to pursue or advance any threat, any potential threat, any opportunity, any potential opportunity, or the security of the Republic and its people.”

Within the context of state security, what does it mean to “pursue” and “advance any opportunity or potential opportunity” in the interests of national security? Could this be read to mean that any person or institution opposing the exploitation of gas by TotalEnergies could be considered to be opposing the state’s pursuit of an “opportunity” which it considers to be in the interests of national security? Does this then make that person or institution a potential threat to national security?

The wider definition of state security could be applied to all NGOs and activists in South Africa.

We would do well to remember that the victory over apartheid was in no small part due to the courage and organisational capacity of numerous NGOs in civil society. As Nelson Mandela remarked in 1996, “Non-governmental organisations played an outstanding role during the dark days of apartheid.” If we are to retain the hard-won dividends of our democracy, we must wholeheartedly resist any attempts to “regulate” NGOs because an overwhelming amount of evidence from throughout the world shows that they play a vital role in making sure that authorities act in the public’s best interest.

Therefore, the critical question that should be at the forefront of all our minds is: whose interests are actually likely to be served by the “regulation” of NGOs in South Africa? Will it be the public, the government, or corporations?Dr Neil Overy is an environmental researcher, writer and photographer. He has worked in the nonprofit sector for more than 20 years and is particularly interested in the intersection between environmental and social justice issues. He is a research associate in Environmental Humanities South at the University of Cape Town.