Environmental (Commonwealth Union)_ In a significant victory for environmental advocates, the Pretoria Division of the High Court of South Africa delivered a landmark judgment in December 2024, striking down a government plan that sought to expand coal-fired power generation. The case, initiated by a coalition of children’s rights and environmental groups, challenged the constitutionality of the government’s decision to approve the addition of 1,500 megawatts (MW) of new coal-fired power under the Integrated Resource Plan 2019 (IRP 2019).
The court ruled that the IRP 2019 was unconstitutional, unlawful, and invalid insofar as it permitted new coal-based energy projects. In his judgment, Judge CJ van der Westhuizen underscored the fundamental right of all individuals, particularly children, to an environment that does not compromise their health and well-being. Recognizing the profound and disproportionate impact of climate change on younger generations, the ruling emphasized the constitutional obligation to safeguard their future.
The legal battle originated in October 2019, when the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy published the IRP 2019, outlining South Africa’s long-term electricity infrastructure strategy. The plan determined future energy generation needs and the sources from which electricity would be produced. A year later, in September 2020, the minister issued a formal determination to implement the IRP 2019, a decision that was subsequently endorsed by the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA).
The African Climate Alliance, the Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action, and the Trustees for now of Groundwork Trust filed a lawsuit against these decisions, saying that the minister and NERSA had broken the constitution by not doing enough environmental impact assessments and not following the rules for public participation. The plaintiffs contended that the government’s actions did not align with the principles of legality, environmental sustainability, or the rights of children.
At the heart of the case was the claim that the government failed to conduct a comprehensive public participation process when finalizing the IRP 2019. While the draft IRP 2018 had undergone extensive public engagement, the final version introduced significant changes, most notably the addition of 1,500 MW of coal-fired power without affording the public a similar opportunity to voice concerns. The government conceded that COVID-19 restrictions had limited its consultation process, but the court found this justification insufficient given the magnitude of the changes introduced.
Moreover, the government’s records failed to demonstrate that adequate consideration had been given to the long-term environmental and health consequences of expanding coal-fired power generation. The court ruled that the government’s approach violated constitutional rights and the principle of intergenerational equity, which requires decision-makers to consider the ability of future generations to meet their own developmental needs.
This case aligns with a broader global movement of youth-led legal challenges aimed at holding governments accountable for climate policies that jeopardize the well-being of future generations.
For instance, in Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in October 2024 that a youth-led case challenging the province’s greenhouse gas emissions targets should proceed, acknowledging claims that inadequate climate action may infringe upon fundamental rights. In the United States, a group of young plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court in September 2024 to reinstate a lawsuit against federal energy policies, although the petition was ultimately dismissed.
Meanwhile, in Europe, courts have been increasingly receptive to climate-related claims. In Finland, environmental and Indigenous Sámi youth groups have taken legal action to compel the government to meet its climate commitments. Similarly, Norway’s Greenpeace-backed lawsuit temporarily halted oil and gas field approvals before the decision was overturned on appeal. At the European Court of Human Rights, six young activists have launched proceedings against 32 governments, arguing that climate inaction constitutes a violation of human rights.
Japan has also seen the rise of youth-driven climate litigation, with plaintiffs in Nagoya filing a lawsuit in August 2024 against ten major carbon-emitting corporations. Their demand? Their demand is for a judicial mandate that enforces emission reduction targets based on scientific principles.
Although these legal battles vary in scope and jurisdiction, they collectively signal a paradigm shift in how courts engage with climate issues. Increasingly, judicial bodies are recognizing that government policies must not only meet present energy demands but also uphold principles of environmental justice and intergenerational equity.
South Africa’s recent ruling contributes to this evolving body of climate jurisprudence, reinforcing the idea that legal systems can and must serve as a check against policies that threaten environmental and human rights. By setting a precedent for constitutional climate litigation, this case underscores the growing role of the judiciary in shaping sustainable governance and holding decision-makers accountable for long-term ecological consequences.
