Fishing communities united as they marched to the Constitutional Court for the landmark case Wild Coast Communities vs Shell. They stand firm against Shell’s oil and gas exploration, prioritising environmental and cultural preservation.
On 16–17 September 2025, the Constitutional Court of South Africa sat to hear arguments in what many are calling a landmark environmental and constitutional case: Wild Coast Communities and environmental organisations vs Shell.
Parallel to the courtroom proceedings, a march and demonstration unfolded outside the Court, led by community organisations including Coastal Links, the Amadiba Crisis Committee, Sustaining the Wild Coast, and allied solidarity groups. Around 200 activists carried banners and placards reading “We cannot eat oil and gas,” “To hell with Shell,” and other slogans demanding the right of coastal communities to say no to destructive development.
Speakers from the Amadiba Crisis Committee, Coastal Links, and legal representatives addressed the gathering. According to Nonhle Mbuthuma from the Amadiba Crisis Committee, the communities’ cultural rights and heritage must be respected. One of the central messages was that this is not just about oil or profits; it’s about communities, dignity, coastal life, and the right to say no. Matthews Hlabane, Right to Say No Campaign National Organiser, said the court case outcome is important as it will protect the community’s right to say no, because the current consultation processes are rushed and often dominated and influenced by the interests of transnational corporations.
Inside the Court, arguments roared around procedural and constitutional principles. Community counsel challenged the notion that a flawed initial consultation can be fixed later. They argued that consultation at the renewal stage is too late and cannot cure the original constitutional defect. The applicants pressed that coastal environmental rights, cultural and spiritual rights, and intergenerational equity must be considered. They pointed to South Africa’s climate commitments and the Integrated Coastal Management Act’s duty on the State to act as trustee of the coastal public
property.
In 2024, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) allowed Shell the opportunity to apply for a third renewal of the exploration right under a “just and equitable” remedy. The communities argued that the SCA’s remedy is inconsistent with constitutional fairness, lacks clarity (i.e. what Shell and the Minister must do), and improperly shifts the burden onto vulnerable communities. They asked the Court to revise the SCA order or set it aside entirely, insisting that the original grant should remain invalid and any fresh process must begin anew.
Shell and the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) argued that reopening consultation at the renewal stage is permissible and can cure prior defects. They also warned that completely invalidating the exploration right would unfairly penalise Shell, which claims to have
invested more than R1 billion. They cautioned that harsh remedies may chill investment and undermine energy development.
At the end of the day, the Court reserved judgment, meaning the judges will issue a written ruling in due course. The communities have vowed to stand firm against Shell’s oil and gas exploration, prioritising environmental and cultural preservation.
