On 15 May 2026, the Minister published proposed amendments to the section 24G Fine Regulations. The goal is to bring the Regulations in line with changes to the Act that have been in force since 30 June 2023. Most of what is being proposed is not new. The ZAR 10 million fine cap, the mandatory directives and the public participation requirements already apply under the Act. This alert focuses on what is genuinely new and what the proposed amendments fail to address.
1. A potential door for pre-directive representations
The proposed amendments list the directives that the competent authority must issue to a section 24G applicant: cease the activity, investigate and assess impacts, remedy harm, undertake public participation and compile a report. None of this is new. It already appears in the Act.
What is new is a potential opportunity for applicants to challenge those directives. Proposed Annexure A expressly allows applicants to make representations explaining why specific directives should not apply to them. Final directives will only be issued after those representations have been considered.
This is significant. There is currently no equivalent mechanism in either the Regulations or the Act. It creates a potential avenue for applicants to challenge directives before they are issued, including directives requiring the immediate cessation of activities. For example, an applicant could argue that shutting down would cause greater environmental harm than allowing the activity to continue. How much weight competent authorities will attach to these representations remains to be seen, but applicants should take the opportunity seriously and make full use it.
2. Formalisation of the two-stage public participation process
The Regulations already require a preliminary advertisement before a section 24G application is submitted and the Act already requires the competent authority to direct further public participation. The proposed amendments formalise this into a clear two-stage process: a preliminary notification process (with at least 20 days for comment), followed by a second round of public participation directed by the competent authority after the application has been received. Applicants should therefore anticipate a longer process overall.
What should you do?
If you have a pending application (submitted on or after 30 June 2023):
The Act's requirements already apply. Review your application carefully to ensure compliance and take note of the new opportunity to challenge directives. This could provide meaningful protection, particularly against a cessation directive.
If you are planning a new application:
Budget for the formalised two-stage public participation process and a longer timeline. Prepare detailed representations in respect of any directives you intend to challenge.
The repeat contravener gap: a significant oversight
The proposed amendments provide welcome clarity to the section 24G process. However, they remain silent on one of its most problematic aspects of the regime: the repeat contravener framework.
Since 2023, the Act has expressly recognised innocent successors-in-title, businesses that inherited environmental non-compliances from previous owners, as legitimate applicants. The intention is to encourage those entities to come forward and regularise the non-compliances. Despite this, the Regulations still treat them as repeat offenders. By the second application, the fine committee must recommend the maximum ZAR 10 million fine, regardless of fault or actual environmental harm.
For businesses operating across multiple sites, which is common in sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, mining and property, the exposure is cumulative. A company seeking to regularise several inherited non-compliances could face maximum fine recommendations amounting to tens of millions of rands, not for causing the non-compliance but for attempting to rectify it. The failure to address this issue in the proposed amendments is a significant gap and is something that should be raised during the public comment process.
