R118 billion South African giant under fire
The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) is preparing a new court battle against Sasol over alleged chemical dumping in the Vaal River system.
The department plans to launch the legal salvo in September 2026, after having provisionally withdrawn the charges in 2025 for further investigation.
Since then, new evidence has emerged, including sixteen new witness statements, expanded pollution investigations, and an inquiry into possible falsehoods by Sasol officials to inspectors.
Sasol’s Group Executive Committee and the DFFE briefed the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (PPCFFE) on Tuesday (4 August) on these developments.
The matter is a long-standing dispute that arose from a whistleblower complaint submitted to the DFFE in May 2019.
The whistleblower alleged that Sasol had been dumping hazardous chemicals and had personally victimised them.
This led to a lengthy environmental investigation and a six-count criminal indictment against Sasol in 2022.
Although criminal proceedings commenced that year, the state provisionally withdrew the charges on the trial date in July 2025 to investigate newly submitted witness evidence.
The DFFE is currently reviewing this evidence, with plans to reintroduce the case to the court after September 2026.
The DFFE has published a technical dossier claiming that Sasol unlawfully discharged waste containing vanadium, diethanolamine, and potassium carbonate into its stormwater system.
This alleged discharge reportedly caused significant environmental pollution and elevated vanadium levels in the Klipspruit River, which flows into the Vaal River system.
Sasol firmly denies that any pollution pathway exists. The company asserted that the Benfield plant is equipped with multiple physical containment measures.
This includes bunded storage, chemical sewers, oily water systems, and API Dams 1 and 2, all designed to ensure that contaminated water is contained, treated, and reused.
Sasol also pointed out that a previous inquiry by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) into this matter concluded in 2021 without adverse findings.
The DFFE said that its criminal investigation began after Sasol had already repaired a faulty valve, which prevented the department from collecting immediate physical samples at the alleged discharge point.
It had to build its case using historical water samples, SAP system reports, and technical audit data.
The DFFE is actively investigating whether officials from Sasol provided false or misleading information to inspectors.
Six counts against Sasol
Count 3 of the criminal indictment charges Sasol with victimising, harassing, and unlawfully dismissing a whistleblower for disclosing environmental risks in good faith.
Due to ongoing intimidation and serious concerns for his personal safety, the whistleblower was formally admitted into the national Witness Protection Programme in April 2024.
Sasol said it rejects the retaliation narrative, arguing that the chronology of events does not support a causal link.
The chemical company argued that the whistleblower was never dismissed but left voluntarily in July 2020 under a mutual separation agreement.
It said that his transfer from the Benfield plant in 2017 was requested by the whistleblower.
The disciplinary hearings that began in August 2018, which were related to workplace misconduct, were completely unrelated to the disclosures, it said.
Sasol added that the concerns were investigated through both internal and external ethics channels and were found to be unsubstantiated.
Although Sasol holds valid Waste Management Licenses, the DFFE emphasised that under Section 53 of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (NEMWA), it will formally review these licenses.
This review may include potential amendments, suspensions, or revocations once the criminal case is concluded.
The DFFE also highlighted systemic challenges, noting that the effectiveness of environmental law is hindered by lengthy criminal court proceedings and fragmented regulatory oversight across provincial and local authorities.
In response, Sasol reaffirmed its ongoing commitment to environmental compliance.
The company said that it operates under stringent regulatory oversight, submits monthly reports, pays carbon taxes, and has met the relevant standards.
Loading ...