NGOs Earthlife Africa and the Southern African Faith Communities Environment' Institute are challenging the government's deal to buy 9600 megawatts of new nuclear power - about eight new power stations - and were back in court on Wednesday after proceedings had been adjourned in December.
While a group of colourful protesters gathered outside the court, holding anti-nuclear banners and chanting slogans, the proceedings in court 22 were sober and technical.

The litigants are asking the court to declare unlawful and set aside Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson's signing a nuclear agreement with Russia; President Jacob Zuma's decision to authorise her signing the agreement and the minister's decision to table the Russian agreement under section 231 (3) of the Constitution. They argue the law required that it be tabled under section 231 (2), which would have meant the Russian document would have to be scrutinised by Parliament and that the public would have had a chance to comment on it.

The litigants are also asking the court to declare unlawful and set aside the minister's making a determination in 2013 under the Electricity Regulation Act that South Africa needed to buy 9600MW of new nuclear power, and a later determination in 2016 making Eskom the party responsible for buying the new nukes.

Much of the morning's proceedings focused on whether the two determinations for more nuclear power made by the minister were mere policies or were administrative actions.

Unterhalter said the central thrust of the government's defence was that the minister's determinations were merely policy decisions and so beyond the review of the courts, as policy decisions had no effect and no consequences, whereas administrative decisions did.

Unterhalter argued that the minister's decisions were administrative, but said even if the court found they were policy decisions, it made no difference to the case. "Even if it is pure policy, once it has effect, it has grounds for review," he said.

Source: AllAfrica.com