, LEG2601
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2
2026
DUE 24 AUGUST 2026
1. The Effect of the Lack of Public Participation on the Application
The failure by Ms Dube, the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), to include the objections
raised by interested and affected parties has a significant and detrimental effect on the application
submitted to the competent authority. This failure renders the application procedurally flawed and
unlawful for several reasons.
Firstly, the failure violates the principle of administrative justice. Section 33 of the Constitution
guarantees everyone the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally
fair (LEG2601, Study Guide, p. 48). The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA)
gives effect to this right. The public participation process is a critical component of ensuring that
administrative action is procedurally fair. By failing to include the objections, the EAP and the
competent authority have disregarded the community's right to be heard, a fundamental aspect of
the audi alteram partem rule (the right to be heard) (LEG2601, Study Guide, p. 25).
Secondly, the failure contravenes the specific legal requirements for public participation in the
environmental impact assessment (EIA) process. The NEMA stipulates that procedures must ensure
that public information and participation provide all interested and affected parties with a
reasonable opportunity to participate (LEG2601, Study Guide, p. 59). The EIA Regulations (GNR 982)
mandate that the EAP must "consider all objections and representations received from interested
and affected parties" when preparing a Basic Assessment Report or a Scoping and Environmental
Impact Report (LEG2601, Study Guide, pp. 73-74, 76).
Ms Dube's action is a direct breach of her professional obligations as an EAP. Regulation 13 of the
EIA Regulations requires an EAP to perform work objectively, even if this results in findings not
favourable to the applicant, and to take into account all relevant matters (LEG2601, Study Guide, p.
70). By omitting the community's objections, she failed to act objectively and with integrity, which
undermines the entire assessment process.
Finally, the competent authority's decision to grant the authorisation based on a flawed report is
likely to be considered unlawful. The authority is obligated to consider all relevant information,
including objections from the public, before reaching a decision. The Fuel Retailers case illustrates
that an environmental authority must consider both socio-economic factors and cumulative
impacts, and if it fails to do so, its decision can be set aside (LEG2601, Study Guide, pp. 23-24).
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2
2026
DUE 24 AUGUST 2026
1. The Effect of the Lack of Public Participation on the Application
The failure by Ms Dube, the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), to include the objections
raised by interested and affected parties has a significant and detrimental effect on the application
submitted to the competent authority. This failure renders the application procedurally flawed and
unlawful for several reasons.
Firstly, the failure violates the principle of administrative justice. Section 33 of the Constitution
guarantees everyone the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally
fair (LEG2601, Study Guide, p. 48). The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA)
gives effect to this right. The public participation process is a critical component of ensuring that
administrative action is procedurally fair. By failing to include the objections, the EAP and the
competent authority have disregarded the community's right to be heard, a fundamental aspect of
the audi alteram partem rule (the right to be heard) (LEG2601, Study Guide, p. 25).
Secondly, the failure contravenes the specific legal requirements for public participation in the
environmental impact assessment (EIA) process. The NEMA stipulates that procedures must ensure
that public information and participation provide all interested and affected parties with a
reasonable opportunity to participate (LEG2601, Study Guide, p. 59). The EIA Regulations (GNR 982)
mandate that the EAP must "consider all objections and representations received from interested
and affected parties" when preparing a Basic Assessment Report or a Scoping and Environmental
Impact Report (LEG2601, Study Guide, pp. 73-74, 76).
Ms Dube's action is a direct breach of her professional obligations as an EAP. Regulation 13 of the
EIA Regulations requires an EAP to perform work objectively, even if this results in findings not
favourable to the applicant, and to take into account all relevant matters (LEG2601, Study Guide, p.
70). By omitting the community's objections, she failed to act objectively and with integrity, which
undermines the entire assessment process.
Finally, the competent authority's decision to grant the authorisation based on a flawed report is
likely to be considered unlawful. The authority is obligated to consider all relevant information,
including objections from the public, before reaching a decision. The Fuel Retailers case illustrates
that an environmental authority must consider both socio-economic factors and cumulative
impacts, and if it fails to do so, its decision can be set aside (LEG2601, Study Guide, pp. 23-24).
