Gov�t on backfoot in Molapo Crossing lawsuit
Mpho Mokwape | Friday February 26, 2016 16:59
The ongoing legal battle between the Molapo Crossing Shopping complex boss and the government over lack of easy access of the road to the shopping complex has revealed that there is more to the battle than meets the eye.
Molapo Crossing owner, Luc Vandecasteele who issued a writ of summons against the government in 2012, has claimed that no Environmental Impact Assessment Study (EIA) was ever submitted, approved nor audited before the construction of the road around the Molapo Crossing area started.
In his founding papers before court, Vandecasteele revealed that during a meeting in December 2011 held with the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) he was told that no EIA study was submitted as provided by law.
He explained that as such, with no approved EIA study, no mitigating measures were provided for against any negative impacts of the project to any affected parties, including his shopping centre.
“It is now clear that Department of Roads did not submit, approve or audit an EIA study for the project. Roads (thr department) effectively reduced access to Molapo Crossing. Department of Roads does not have mitigating measures in place and never had, to ensure equivalent, adequate and continuous access to Molapo Crossing and further, does not intend to carry out mitigation and or compensation actions.”
Vandecasteele in his declaration letter said he constantly begged the Department of Roads that he be availed with a copy of the EIA but they spurned his entreaties. He said this forced him to meet with the then Permanent Secretary (PS) and his deputy in the Ministry to raise the issue and discuss the negative impact.
He explained that during that meeting held on December 14, 2011, the PS then promised to look into the matter as to how the Roads Department could re-dress the situation.
However, a new Minister and PS were appointed following the President’s decision that the Ministry was inefficiently managed, he said.
The court documents further read: “By a letter dated January 25, 2012, the PS advised me that his Ministry indeed failed to seek approval for a relevant EIA study and explained why. On February 10, 2012 at a meeting with the DEA, I gave them the PS’s letter and they rejected his explanations, but their version about the EIA study.” Vandecasteele said then the Director of DEA also confirmed that not only was the said EIA study for the project not approved, but also that it was never submitted for approval.
Moreover the DEA therefore could not also execute the required environmental audit, which is done to check if the Department of Roads have indeed implemented all mitigating measures and evaluated the effectiveness thereof.
“It follows that the Department of Roads used the EIA study for the sole purpose to deceive the affected parties and promise them mitigation measures whilst knowing very well that they will not submit nor be subjected to prescribed audit as set down in the EIA Act.
The Department Roads had a full four years to seek approval of their EIA study from the start of the design to the actual start of the project on site, but it willfully chose not to seek approval,” he said.
He maintained that non-compliance with EIA Act made it possible for the Department of Roads to completely negate all prescribed measures set down in the Act and that as a direct result of the Department of Roads’ wrongful and unlawful conduct, he suffered and continues to suffer damages.
The Attorney General, representing the state and the Roads Department have not defended Vandecasteele’s allegations by a way of filing any papers before court and it has since emerged that they are desperately hoping to settle out of court in due course.