‘Damning’ high court judgment sets aside Mining Charter’s re-empowerment obligations

Court finds that the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act does not empower the minister to make law.
The Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, Gwede Mantashe. Image: GCIS

A full bench of the Gauteng High Court this week ruled against the minister of Mineral and Energy Resources and in favour of the Minerals Council of SA, setting aside a number of key clauses within the Mining Charter III, including the re-empowerment clause which required mining rights holders to maintain black economic empowerment (BEE) ownership targets of 26% for pre-existing mining rights and 30% for new mining rights.

Also set aside were the charter’s procurement, supplier and enterprise development targets, and some of its penalty and enforcement provisions.

“The judgment vindicates my long-held view that the charter, in all its iterations, was nothing more than a socio-economic compact between government, labour and the mining industry,” says Peter Leon, global co-chair for Africa at law firm Herbert Smith Freehills. “The original charter, signed in October 2002, reflected exactly this principle. Regrettably the 2010 and 2018 versions purported to turn what was no more than a compact into a binding legislative instrument with all the associated regulatory uncertainty.

“Hopefully this carefully reasoned and strong judgment will give the DMRE cause to reflect on what has gone wrong in the last ten years and put the industry back on a much needed path of regulatory certainty and predictability.”

The case was originally brought in May 2020 by the Minerals Council against the minister and 13 other defendants, including a number of trade unions and community groups. The ruling says the question in dispute was whether the minister has the power in terms of Section 100(2) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) to make law in the form of subordinate legislation, and whether the charter constitutes law or policy.

The minister and other respondents argued that the minister did indeed have the power to make law through the charter, which would then impose binding obligations on mineral rights holders.

The Minerals Council disagreed, arguing that the charter is a formal policy document, and is only binding on holders of mining rights “to the extent that its terms have been lawfully incorporated by the minister into such mining rights.”

In response to the judgment, the Minerals Council South Africa says it welcomes the ruling that “the Mining Charter 2018 is a policy document, that the continuing consequences of previous black economic empowerment deals should be recognised and that the specific challenged provisions in the document should be removed.

“The Minerals Council and its members remain fully committed to the transformational objects of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA), but the objectives must create policy and regulatory certainty for long-term investment and inclusive growth in the sector.”

The minister had argued that the transformation objects of the MPRDA cannot be achieved unless the charter is binding subordinate legislation. The Gauteng High Court said the flaw in this argument is that it ignores the enforcement structure provided by the MPRDA.

The minister is able to enforce empowerment obligations through the issue of mining rights, which impose obligations on the rights holder in terms of the act, not the charter. Some of the enforcement tools available to the minister include the approval of a social and labour plan which, if violated, allow the minister to suspend or cancel the right.

The minister claimed he needed the power to make subordinate legislation in the form of the charter to advance the transformation of the mining sector – which, he said, it had failed to do despite previous charters. In support of this argument, he presented in-house studies to the court, though these were disputed by studies presented by the Minerals Council showing there had, indeed, been substantial transformation in the sector.

The minister also argued that incorporating charter provisions in mining rights would be ineffectual in achieving transformation because of the relatively short duration of mining rights.

The impact

Commenting on the judgment, Herbert Smith Freehills says the court once again confirmed the “once empowered, always empowered” principle.

This means that the Historically Disadvantaged South African (HDSA) ownership status of existing mining right holders who wish to renew or transfer their rights must automatically be recognised by the DMRE (Department of Mineral Resources and Energy).

“The judgment has a materially positive impact on the security of tenure of existing mining rights holders. As a result, existing mining right holders now know that if they previously satisfied the empowerment requirements imposed under any version of the charter, they will not be required to do so again,” says Herbert Smith Freehills.

In view of the fact that the court has determined the charter to be a policy document rather than a legally-binding instrument, mining right holders may, but are not legally obliged to, comply with the remaining requirements imposed under the charter.  This is subject to two qualifications:

  • Not all of the provisions of the charter were reviewed and set aside. For example, the clauses which concern employment equity, human resource development, mine community development, and housing and living conditions still form part of the charter. These clauses will not automatically impose obligations on the holders of existing mining rights, but may do so if such requirements are incorporated as specific terms or conditions of the mining right.
  • Second, the clauses which are set aside have now been removed from Mining Charter III. A significant example is the charter’s procurement, supplier and enterprise development requirements.

The judgment also set aside provisions in the 2018 Charter related to the Diamonds Act and Precious Metals Act to impose targets set out in the charter on licence holders under those acts.

Also removed from the charter by the judgment were provisions in the 2018 Charter related to mining companies not complying with ownership and mine community development requirement and thus being in breach of the MPRDA.

Under the previous version, this meant rights holders could potentially have their mining rights suspended or cancelled.

“The Minerals Council will continue to engage the DMRE on a constructive basis to create the necessary policy and regulatory certainty and to attract much greater investment into the exploration and mining sectors,” says the Minerals Council statement.



Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in and an Insider Gold subscriber to comment.


By implication the judgement only condones the original theft of 26/30% but then has an issue with continued looting.

Wonder if EWC will be treated the same.

Unscrupulous lawyers collude with government officials to institute and defend legal action using taxpayers money even when they know that the argument presented has no basis in law and they haven’t a snowballs chance of winning the case. When a case is dismissed because of flawed legal argument the attorney should be required to refund the taxpayers money in full, or at least in part. This will put a stop to the current situation where government officials use hundreds of millions of rands of taxpayers money to defend the indifensible!

The notion that an institution can be held liable if shareholders sell their stakes of their own choice and as a result the shareholding drops below 26%, is absurd. Would the company then need to approach new BBEEE investors and again sell a stake at a discount to meet that target? Sounds like a racket.

BEE is a racket.

Agreed — It is such a pity that total incompetence is not a criminal offence !!

A racist racket to boot!

How much time, money, lost tax generation, lives spent in poverty, unemployment figures, lost opportunities, and dreams destroyed does it take before it dawns on them that black people ultimately fund BEE requirements?

Investors need a minimum return on investment and they have a world of alternatives. They cannot be coerced into funding a BEE deal to the detriment of their required return on investment. The price of resources is fixed on the international market and does not compensate BEE companies for their special socialist projects. Who funds the BEE deal then? The banks? No – the banks also get their predetermined minimum return on investment. Nobody is here for charity.

That leaves the taxman, pensioners, and the unemployed holding the bill. The recipient of social grants, free medical and municipal services, free education, the poor in other words, are funding BEE projects with the funds they are not receiving and the jobs they are not getting. Members of the GEPF pay with the investment opportunities they are not getting and with the retirement they cannot afford. More than 90% of the members of the GEPF, social grant recipients, and unemployed people are black.

Previously disadvantaged people are paying for BEE schemes. Previously disadvantaged people are empowering previously disadvantaged people by turning politicians into BEE billionaires and common people into paupers. A truly benevolent and selfless bunch of people, these ANC voters.

Well said!….the problem is that the masses (voters) oppressed by their elitist masters, just don’t see the nexus of this destructive and thieving ideology and tgeir devastating life of penury, let alone the impact and consequences it has for them and future generations.

….and that is how communists succeed with their controlling oppression by keeping people ignorant and stupid.

To make matters worse we now learn that ABSA is “mulling” a further BBBEE share deal. As if one were not bad enough.

There is no benefit for poor black citizens and small black businesses. If the corporate sector had any imagination and acumen they would find ways to effectively fund small business and stop enriching a select band of non productive “elites”.

Indeed I will be relocating my long held deposits in Absa to Capitec ( until they also go all BEE soppy ).

Time to get off sibanyes back with that blackballing

I just want to remind the Minerals Council of SA that the ANC is still the ruling party…..don’t get too happy!

End of comments.



Enter company name or share code:


  CPIThe Consumer Price Index (CPI) measures monthly changes in prices for a range of consumer products Apr 2022 5.90%
  CPI ex OERThe Consumer Price Index excluding Owners’ Equivalent Rent (CPI ex OER) measures monthly changes in prices for a range of consumer products excluding Owners’ equivalent rent that measures changes in the cost of owner-occupied housing Apr 2022 6.40%
  RepoThe rate at which the Reserve Bank lends money to the country’s commercial banks and set by the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee. May 2022 4.25%
  Prime lendingThe Prime Lending Rate is the rate of interest that commercial banks will charge their clients when issuing a loan (home loan or vehicle finance) May 2022 7.75%

Instrument Details  

You do not have any portfolios, please create one here.
You do not have an alert portfolio, please create one here.

Follow us:

Search Articles:
Click a Company: