Sasol faces environmental charges relating to pollution by DFFE
“On 27 July 2022, the National Prosecuting Authority served Sasol with a summons instituting criminal proceedings. The charges relate to aspects of environmental management at its SO. Sasol is busy studying the summons and the charges contained therein and will adhere to the legal process that will follow.”
A small note at the bottom of page 8 of the “Annual financial results for the year ended 30 June 2022” was Sasol’s way of informing its shareholders and investors about the pending court case regarding possible pollution of our water systems.
The Bulletin wrote to Sasol in March enquiring about the “Spillage into and subsequent contamination of the Klipspruit”
In their response, Sasol mentioned that they observed raw sewage seeping into the Klipspruit. Our investigations showed that the sewage spillage had been ongoing for several days and could not result in a spike of dead fish as observed by Sasol.
The Bulletin wrote to Sasol again about the spillage. We also enquired about charges that were laid at Secunda SAPS. “To date, no charges have been brought against Sasol” were their response.
The case number is Secunda CAS 19/06/2021. This clearly indicates that the charges were made in June 2021.
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has now served Sasol with a summons to appear in the Secunda magistrate’s court on 20 September to face criminal proceedings. This was done in July.
Also read: Klipspruit stream contaminated near Sasol
“The summons was issued on the 27 July 2022 by the Secunda Magistrates court under instruction of Advocate Bekwa, the prosecutor in the matter,” said Albi Modise, spokesperson for the Department of Forestry, Fishery and the Environment. “ This summons was issued to Sasol South Africa Limited as well as Ms Nomia Machebe (in her capacity as a representative of SASOL South Africa Limited).”
The Bulletin asked the Department of Forestry, Fishery and the Environment for more details. Albi Modise confirmed that The charges relate to the following alleged misconduct:
- The unauthorised disposal of waste;
- Dismissing information which may have disclosed evidence of potential environmental risk;
- Disposal of waste in a manner which is likely to cause pollution;
- Commencing activities in the absence of an environmental authorisation;
- Unlawful, negligent disposition/discharge of contaminated water into a water resource
It was also confirmed that this case related to the complaint made by Mr Ian Erasmus, a former employee of Sasol and now turned whistleblower.
In March last year, the Mail & Guardian reported how Erasmus, who worked as a senior process controller at Sasol from 2005 until he was allegedly forced to resign in 2020, had endured “years of hell” after blowing the whistle on the company’s alleged unlawful disposal of the hazardous chemicals, vanadium, diethanolamine and potassium carbonate, into the river. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has listed diethanolamine as cancer-causing.
But Sasol is not only in the proverbial “dogbox” in South Africa. The company also encountered some problems with its Lake Charles project.
A group called VICE released a video about a small community called Mossberg and their dealings with Sasol. The community is only about two minutes drive away from the Lake Charles project.
Here is a quick description of VICE taken from their Facebook page: VICE is a global media channel focusing on investigative journalism and enlightening videos about everything from world news, travel, art, drugs, politics, sports, fashion, sex, and super cute animals.
Watch the video below
There is also the story of the Meyer family living in Lake Charles. Sasol tried to buy the property, allegedly far below market value. When this did not succeed, they approached the district for help.
The Meyers were successful in fighting off the land grab for the time being.
Here are a few excerpts from that court document granting a preliminary injunction against the district:
“Mr Rase confirmed that were it not for Sasol’s Megaproject, the District would not have looked at acquiring the Meyers’ property.”
“Instead, the Meyers submit that the sole purpose of the Resolution is to deprive them of their private property for the sole benefit of another private, for-profit, foreign-controlled company.”
The Bulletin asked Sasol for a response but did not receive anything from them at the time of placing this article.
