Environmental ‘watchdog’ barks, but hides names of malpractice offenders

Five years after Daily Maverick started asking questions on policing the ethical and professional conduct of environmental consultants, the Environmental Assessment Practitioners Association of South Africa (Eapasa) has finally released a partial record of disciplinary actions since its formation in 2012.

This professional body was established at the insistence of the government 14 years ago, but compulsory registration of practitioners only took effect in 2018 and a formal malpractice policy only appears to have been finalised in 2019.

Over this period, just five of the association’s more than 2,500 registered members have been found guilty of malpractice after the association received at least 69 complaints.

Environmental assessment practitioners (EAPs) are private sector consultants and state officials charged with preparing or assessing environmental impact assessment (EIA) studies – but  Eapasa Registrar and CEO Patrick Sithole has refused to identify the five sanctioned practitioners or to provide details of the transgressions they were found guilty of.

Sithole’s refusal to disclose the identity of transgressors appears to contradict Eapasa’s former commitment to naming and shaming practitioners found guilty of malpractice, in order to demonstrate that the association “has teeth”.

Eapasa’s original malpractice policies required peremptory publication of all findings and sanctions imposed by the professional conduct and appeals committees on the Eapasa website.

But about four months ago (18 May 2026) Eapasa changed this policy to read: “The Eapasa Registrar may, at the discretion of the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) and recommendation of the Registrar and depending on the merits of the case publish the findings and sanction imposed by the PCC or the Appeals Committee… on the Eapasa website.”  

When we asked Sithole to clarify whether the five sanctioned practitioners were found guilty before or after the new discretionary naming policy was introduced in May 2026, he responded: “Eapasa is not in a position to provide the names of those five individuals due to a number of administrative and legal reasons. I hope you understand.”

How many complaints were received against Eapasa members?

After ignoring written questions from Daily Maverick in May 2021 and again in June 2026, Eapasa eventually provided a response this week, stating that it wished to “take this opportunity to issue an update on complaints” lodged against registered members.

“Eapasa was formally established in 2018 and conceptualised in 2012. The association has received a total of 69 formal and informal, written complaints against registered and candidate Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) for alleged transgressions of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Practice (CCEP). The breakdown of the 69 complaints are as follows: Twenty-five (25) complaints reported were of an informal nature due to the fact that they were not submitted in line with the prescribed procedure set by the Eapasa Malpractice Policy. This, despite a detailed guidance on the submission of a complaint to Eapasa. The complaints were therefore closed.”

A further 23 complaints were withdrawn, incomplete and/or became stagnant when the complainants either withdrew the complaints/allegations or the complaints were regarded as  incomplete or stagnated as complainants did not respond to Eapasa correspondence requesting further supporting documents and/or evidence, to enable proper adjudication of the allegations by the PCC.

How many were referred to the Professional Conduct Committee for a formal inquiry

“There were 21 complaints which were referred to the PCC for formal inquiry, after it had been satisfied that there exists a prima facie case for the EAP to answer.”

3. How many complaints were upheld by the PCC; how many were dismissed and what sanctions/measures were applied in respect of the complaints that were upheld?

Sixteen of these 21 complaints were dismissed. According to Eapasa, they “fell outside the mandate of Eapasa” and were referred to the appropriate competent authorities in the national and provincial spheres for further handling; the complaints constituted contractual or commercial disputes, which fell outside Eapasa’s mandate and the scope of the ethical conduct policy; or there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of the alleged violations of on a balance of probabilities.

Ultimately, only five (5) complaints were upheld. The sanctions imposed on the five unidentified offenders were:

• A fine of R20,000 per contravened rule, resulting in a total sanction of R80,000 for four contraventions.

• A fine of R40,000.

• A fine of R20,000 as well as temporary suspension of registration as an EAP.

• A fine of R20,000, with a further requirement to enrol in a mentorship programme under a senior EAP as part of a rehabilitation process for a period of not less than 12 months.

• A formal written warning, with a requirement to undertake a structured mentorship programme and to submit quarterly progress reports to the PCC.

Does Eapasa wish to comment on the reasons why so few complaints have been lodged with or upheld by the PCC?

“The relatively low number of formally lodged and upheld complaints can be attributed to two primary factors. First, some complainants raised concerns informally but did not proceed to lodge a formal written complaint as prescribed by Eapasa’s procedures. Second, upon investigation, certain matters were found to fall outside Eapasa’s mandate, for example, where the respondent was not a registered practitioner (this was prior to making practising as an EAP without registration with Eapasa illegal) or where the conduct complained of did not constitute a breach of the CCEP (Code of Conduct and Ethical Practice).”

How many qualified practitioners and candidate practitioners are registered  with Eapasa?

* Registered EAPs: 1,590

* Candidate EAPs: 938

6. How many members/candidate members are employed in the private sector and how many are employed in the provincial/national government sector?

“Based on current records, 1,707 members (both Registered and Candidates) are employed in the private sector and 613 members (both Registered and Candidates) are employed in the provincial/national government sector.”

Surprising approach

University of KwaZulu-Natal law expert Professor Michael Kidd has expressed surprise at Eapasa’s apparent reluctance to publish the names of errant practitioners.

“Ideally, publication of names and details (of offences) should be the default, unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying withholding that information,” he said, noting that malpractice by attorneys was not kept confidential.

“I would motivate my stance on the basis that ‘customers’ of EAPs (environmental assessment practitioners) should be able to be fully informed in relation to whom they contract to do their work, and it would have an important educative function for other EAPs.”

Attorney Paul Wani Lado from the Centre for Environmental Rights has also re-iterated the need for strong accountability processes to ensure public confidence.

Significant implications

“We believe that effective environmental governance depends on strong, independent and accountable institutions as well as professional processes that inspire public confidence. Environmental assessment practitioners play an important role in decision-making processes which have significant implications for local communities and the environment.

“Appropriate mechanisms for professional accountability are critically important. The appropriate balance between transparency, procedural fairness and the protection of the rights of those involved in disciplinary processes is ultimately something that should be carefully addressed within the applicable legal and regulatory framework,” he said.

In response to Daily Maverick’s recent article highlighting that other regulatory bodies such as the Legal Practice Council and the Engineering Council of South Africa both publish the names of guilty practitioners, Sithole stated: “I would also like to take this opportunity to indicate to you that the legislation that Eapasa operates under is completely different from the other councils. Eapasa was appointed based on a set of regulations emanating from the National Environmental Management Act, whereas the other councils operate under an act of Parliament.

“We can unpack this at some point, but for now just take note that it is not feasible for Eapasa to implement some of the malpractice functions that you have observed from the other councils. We actually do not have the legal standing and/or mandate. The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment is, however, working on establishing further enabling legislation,” he asserted. DM