“Energy planning is child rights planning.”
That was the message outside court this morning from Sibusiso Mazomba, advocacy co-ordinator at the African Climate Alliance, as a youth-led climate case over South Africa’s plans for new coal-fired power went to the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein today (Wednesday).
The case concerns the government’s appeal against a December 2024 Pretoria High Court judgment that declared plans to procure 1,500 megawatts (MW) of new coal-fired power unlawful and invalid.
The challenge was brought by the African Climate Alliance, Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action and groundWork, represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights. The groups argued that government had failed to properly consider the impact of new coal-fired power on the environment, health and children’s rights.
The High Court found that there was no evidence that the Minister of Electricity and Energy or the National Energy Regulator of South Africa had adequately considered the potential harms of the new coal capacity to health, air quality, the environment or children’s rights.
The proposed 1,500MW is equivalent to roughly three to four large coal-fired power plants.
The case matters because decisions about South Africa’s energy mix extend beyond electricity supply. They can affect public health, electricity costs, communities living near coal infrastructure and the long-term environmental conditions faced by children and future generations.
The African Climate Alliance says air pollution from coal-fired power stations kills more than 2,200 South Africans every year and causes thousands of cases of bronchitis and asthma among adults and children. It also cites estimates putting the wider economic cost of air pollution in South Africa at more than R980 billion a year. These are figures cited by the campaign and should be understood in that context.
The Highveld, South Africa’s coal-producing heartland, has separately been associated with estimates of around 10,000 premature deaths a year from air pollution, according to government-linked evidence cited in previous court proceedings.
The government has appealed the High Court judgment, bringing the dispute before the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal comes after the government’s 2025 Integrated Resource Plan, which contains no provision for new coal-fired power. The applicants acknowledge that the latest plan has dropped new coal, but argue that the appeal remains important because the court can clarify the legal obligations government must follow when making future energy decisions.
The government argues that energy policy must balance environmental considerations with the need for a reliable electricity supply. It has challenged the High Court’s findings on the original coal procurement decisions and has also pointed to the subsequent 2025 IRP, which no longer provides for new coal.
The applicants argue that the original decision could have committed South Africa to another 30 years of coal-fired power and that government did not adequately demonstrate that new coal was necessary for energy security or more cost-effective than alternatives.
Outside court today
Mazomba said this morning, talking outside court, that children and young people were particularly affected by decisions on coal and other fossil fuels because they would live with their long-term consequences.
“We are the ones who are going to inherit the world of tomorrow,” he said, arguing that young people should not be treated as passive victims of energy policy but as “co-architects” of South Africa’s energy future.
The African Climate Alliance has also launched a petition calling on government to end plans for new coal and invest in renewable energy. The campaign says more than 800 young people have signed the petition opposing the government’s appeal.
Mazomba said the case was about ensuring that young people had a meaningful role in decisions shaping that future.
“Not only are young people leaders, thinkers, actors, entrepreneurs, innovators and changemakers, but it’s only right that they are part of the processes to determine South Africa’s energy future,” he said.
For the government, the appeal provides an opportunity to challenge the High Court’s findings. For the applicants, the case is about establishing whether children’s rights and environmental consequences must be explicitly considered when government makes long-term energy decisions.
The significance of the case therefore extends beyond the original 1,500MW proposal. The Supreme Court of Appeal’s ruling could help establish how future energy decisions must balance electricity security, economic considerations, environmental protection and constitutional rights.
Mazomba said the government’s decision to appeal the High Court judgment should also be viewed in the context of young people’s rights.
“The government is now appealing the court case. I think that is symbolic of not just appealing the court case, but really appealing our rights and our future,” he said.
The Supreme Court of Appeal is presently hearing the matter.