{"id":25959,"date":"2023-02-27T10:20:06","date_gmt":"2023-02-27T08:20:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/amabhungane.org\/?p=25959"},"modified":"2025-01-28T10:59:00","modified_gmt":"2025-01-28T10:59:00","slug":"230227-npa-reveals-why-it-declined-to-prosecute-in-karpowership-case-but-decision-raises-new-questions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/230227-npa-reveals-why-it-declined-to-prosecute-in-karpowership-case-but-decision-raises-new-questions\/","title":{"rendered":"NPA reveals why it declined to prosecute in Karpowership case, but decision raises new questions"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The state will not prosecute Karpowership\u2019s environmental consultants because the case hinges on a single witness, according to advocate Sibongile Mzinyathi, the director of public prosecutions in Pretoria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case was opened in May 2021 by the Environmental Management Inspectorate, aka the Green Scorpions, who alleged that Karpowership\u2019s consultants misled a chief director in the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) in order to obtain an exemption from South Africa\u2019s strict environmental laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But according to Mzinyathi, there was \u201cno reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution\u201d because it the case relied on the testimony of a single witness: the DFFE\u2019s chief director of compliance Sonnyboy Bapela. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo, in this case we are dealing with the evidence of a single witness and in criminal law there are stringent rules applied by our Courts when the State\u2019s case relies on the evidence of a single witness,\u201d Mzinyathi told amaBhungane in a written response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in revealing why the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) will not prosecute the case, Mzinyathi also revealed another intriguing detail: the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) may have known about Karpowership\u2019s controversial plan to skirt environmental laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNo emergency\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In June 2020, David Mabunda \u2013 the former CEO of SanParks, now an environmental consultant \u2013 approached Bapela with an urgent request: the country was in the grip of a pandemic and an electricity emergency; his client Karpowership South Africa could supply emergency power to ensure an uninterrupted supply to the healthcare sector, but only if it was granted an exemption from complying with the National Environmental Management Act (Nema).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 30A of Nema is only meant to be used in emergency situations when quick action can save lives or prevent an even greater environmental disaster. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Normally, Karpowership\u2019s floating power plants would not qualify, but the NPA says Bapela’s version was that \u201cone of the contributing factors in issuing the Verbal Directive [i.e. exemption] was that, Prof D Mabunda informed him that they, i.e. Triplo4 Sustainable Solutions for Karpowership, had consulted with the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy with regards to their application for a directive or authorisation to generate electricity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not clear exactly what was said \u2013 the application was made verbally and no recording exists \u2013 but Bapela was evidently convinced that Karpowership would be able to immediately supply power to the grid and keep hospitals and ventilators running. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same day, he granted the company an exemption from complying with the costly and lengthy environmental impact assessment process. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two months later, however, the department withdrew the exemption, saying \u201cthere was in fact no emergency situation\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This, however, is where the case gets murky. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Mzinyathi, Karpowership\u2019s lead environmental consultant Triplo 4 Sustainable Solutions and its director Hantie Plomp deny that they spoke to the DMRE:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn the media \u2026 Triplo4 stated that they never consulted or negotiated with any government entity at the time they applied for the Verbal Directive. Triplo4 then also denies having informed the Chief Director as stated and all the documents they submitted in the [subsequent] application process, corroborates their denial.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We asked the DMRE for comment but have not received a response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smoothing the way<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would be significant if DMRE had been smoothing the way for Karpowership in June. Two months later, the DMRE\u2019s IPP office released a tender for the Risk Mitigation Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (RMI4P). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tender was widely interpreted as being written to favour gas projects and Karpowership in particular.<\/p>\n\n\n\n