Introduction
Following the publication of the Mine Health and Safety Amendment Bill in October 2024, the last few weeks have been extremely eventful in the mining industry, with the publication of proposed changes to several environmental laws including in relation to dust and waste, and the mining laws. The dust has settled (well a little at least) and the focus has shifted to more substantial debates around what this all means for the mining industry.
On 20 May 2025, the Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (Minister) published the Draft Mineral Resources Development Bill, 2025 (Draft Bill) for public comments to be submitted by 13 August 2025.
The Draft Bill proposes some significant, and important amendments to the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, No. 28 of 2002 (MPRDA). While some of the proposed amendments aim to clarify and streamline the relationship between the MPRDA and the National Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA) there are several substantial changes proposed which will have – reaching consequences. The proposed amendments substantially expand the authority of the Minister and introduce mandatory beneficiation requirements, transformation objectives, and transfer approvals, while introducing stricter consultation requirements and enhanced penalties. Although the MPRDA already contemplates the establishment of the Regional Mining Development and Environmental Committee (RMDEC), the Draft Bill now introduces a number of additional provisions regulating the establishment, functioning and composition of the RMDEC.
Illegal Mining and New Permits
The Draft Bill has proposed formalising the artisanal mining sector. This follows the publication of the Artisanal and Small Scale-Mining Policy in 2022. The intention of the legislature appears to be that mining permits are to be replaced by “small-scale mining permits” and “artisanal mining permits”. Additionally, the Draft Bill empowers the Minister to identify and designate certain areas for “black persons”, which has now been defined through incorporating the definition from the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, No 53 of 2003 (BEE Act), for small scale and artisanal mining. The Draft Bill further introduces prohibitions on assisting illegal miners (whether directly or indirectly, or providing services, to enable or aid that person in committing illegal mining or prospecting activities). The ability to regulate and monitor these small-scale and artisanal mining operations will provide enhanced regulatory oversight, and enforcement of proper health and safety standards for these operations, and hopefully avoid further tragedies which have been seen in the last few years. It is important to note that the proposed amendments relating to illegal mining are not limited to the widely – publicised illegal mining activities and will extend to any mining which is carried out without relevant rights and authorizations, and where existing rights and authorizations are not being complied with.
The Draft Bill also provides that no person may possess or transport any minerals outside of the mine, works or property where the mineral is mined or worked, unless he or she is in possession of the “prescribed documentation”. The Draft Bill does not define what the required documents will be and amendments to the Regulations published under the MPRDA will need to be promulgated to define the prescribed documents. There are several concerns around this proposed amendment which places restrictions on the transportation of minerals owned by a holder of a right to mine.
The Minister’s Power to make Regulations
Section 107 of the MPRDA prescribes the nature of the regulations which the Minister is authorised to make. A number of proposed amendments have been made to this section in the Draft Bill, which will have the effect of empowering the Minister to make regulations regarding issues such as the rehabilitation of disturbances to land surfaces connected to prospecting or mining operations; (ii) the determination of terms and conditions applicable to the beneficiation of mineral resources; (iii) the manner and form in which interested and affected persons must be informed of any applications and the manner and form of consultation with such persons; and (iv) the promotion of transformation and BEE ownership, inclusive procurement, supplier and enterprise development, human resources development, employment equity and mining community development.
The Draft Bill further proposes to amend the definition of “this Act” to include the “Codes of Good Practice for the South African Minerals Industry and Housing and Living Conditions Standards for the Minerals Industry”. These codes of good practice, standards for housing and living conditions and BEE initiatives have been proposed to be inserted into the MPRDA at section 100(3) as (i) considerations to be taken into account by the Minister when granting applications for mining rights; and (ii) empowering the Minister to amend or repeal any of these policies.
The implication of this is that these policies will be considered as law and will no longer be considered merely as guidelines and recommendations. Non-compliance with these would accordingly constitute an offence under the MPRDA and may result in the increased penalties that the Draft Bill proposes to introduce.
Applications, Renewals and Appeals
The Draft Bill proposes that the first-come-first-served system for the processing of applications be scrapped. As presently proposed, the Minister now cannot accept any new applications where existing applications, rights, or permits already cover the same area (irrespective of whether the applications relate to the same mineral or not).
A new section 9A has been proposed which requires the Minister to actively invite applications:
- for rights and permits in respect of relinquished or abandoned land which was previously subject to rights or permits; and
- for small-scale and artisanal mining in designated areas after consulting with the Council for Geoscience.
The Draft Bill introduces definitions for “meaningful consultation” and “interested and affected persons” which are aligned with the principles that have been set out in recent judgments. These definitions are far-reaching and will place an additional burden on to applicants to ensure that extensive and thorough consultation is conducted. Additionally, the definition of the “community” is proposed to be extended to include groups with interests or rights in any particular area if land (rather than being directly impacted by the mining activities). The Draft Bill also clarifies that interested and affected persons must be meaningfully consulted (before the application is granted), regarding the prescribed social and labour plan. If any objections to an application are made by a person or community, the Minister must refer these objections to the RMDEC for adjudication (a significant change).
The Draft Bill also proposes to remedy some of the current ambiguities experienced with the application process. In particular, an environmental authorisation under NEMA would (in terms of the Draft Bill) only need to be applied for once the application has been accepted (instead of applying for the environmental authorisation simultaneously with the mining or prospecting right application). Additionally, the Draft Bill specifies that once an application is accepted, the Minister must notify the applicant and where necessary, the applicant must apply for a water use licence. Furthermore, rights and permits may only be granted if the Minister is satisfied that (i) an environmental authorisation has been issued; (ii) the applicant has, where necessary, applied for a water use licence in terms of the applicable legislation; and (iii) the granting of such right or permit advances the MPRDA’s socio-economic empowerment objectives and complies with the requirements under section 100(3)(b), as amended.
The Draft Bill proposes that the effective date of rights or permits shall be the date on which the right is granted and the permit is issued, and not the date on which the right or permit is notarially executed. This is intended to align with the decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal in the Mawetse matter.[1]
Additionally, the Draft Bill now provides that holders of mining rights must comply with the approved social and labour plan despite the operational status of the mine. This requirement is to be read with the provisions of Regulation 43 of the MPRD Regulations which prescribe that an approved social and labour plan is, subject to periodic 5-year reviews, valid until a closure certificate has been issued in terms of section 43 of the MPRDA.
Rights and permit holders who apply for renewals (and prospecting right holders who apply for mining rights), will, in terms of the Draft Bill, only have the exclusive right to apply for the renewal or the right in question, and will no longer have the exclusive right to be granted the renewal or the right.
The Draft Bill also proposes that appeals in terms of section 96 of the MPRDA will be lodged to the Minister only, alternatively to the Minister of Water and Sanitation and forestry, Fisheries and the Environment if the decision relates to an environmental matter, in which instance the appeal is lodged and considered in terms of the NEMA.
Additionally, the Draft Bill proposes that any right granted in terms of the MPRDA and any decision related to environmental matters shall not be effective and shall not be executed, unless the prescribed period for the lodgement of an appeal has expired, and if such appeal is lodged, until such appeal has been finalised.
Minerals, Beneficiation and Stockpiles
The Draft Bill introduces a new definition for “associated mineral”, which refers to those minerals which occur in mineralogical association with and in the same core deposit as the primary mineral, where it is physically impossible to mine the primary mineral without also mining the associated mineral. This proposed amendment allows right holders to apply under section 102 of the MPRDA for an amendment to its right, to allow for these associated minerals to be mined and disposed of.
A new section 26(2B) of the MPRDA has been proposed, which will require every producer of minerals to make available minerals or mineral products for local beneficiation. The other proposed amendments to section 26 provide for greater Ministerial involvement and oversight of mineral beneficiation.
The Draft Bill contains a new proposed section 42A, which contains changes as to how historic residue stockpiles and residue deposits created before 2004 will be dealt with. Owners of these historic residue stockpiles will have a period of two years from the date when the amendments come into effect to (i) apply for section 102 amendments to mining rights, small scale mining permits or artisanal mining permits if the historic residue stockpiles or residue stockpiles are located within the existing mining right area; or (ii) apply (on an exclusive basis) for a mining right, small-scale mining permit or artisanal mining permit over such historic residue stockpile, if they do not otherwise have an existing right under the MPRDA. If the owners fail to apply for a right or permit over the historic residue stockpiles within the two-year period set out above, custodianship of the minerals in such historic residues and stockpiles shall revert back to the State.
Transfers of Rights and Changes in Control
The Draft Bill proposes to bring about significant changes to section 11 of the MPRDA. Section 11 currently contemplates that Ministerial consent is required in order to cede, transfer, let, sublet, assign alienate or otherwise dispose of a prospecting right or mining right or an interest in any such right, or a controlling interest in a company or close corporation, that holds such right, except in the case of a change of controlling interest in listed companies.
The proposed amendments, however, contemplate that Ministerial approval will also be require for a change in “any” interest in an unlisted company, and any “controlling interest” in a listed company. These changes will have far-reaching consequences and create uncertainty with regards to what the threshold for “any” interest in an unlisted company will realistically be, and the potential impact of these on transactions involving listed companies, or mandatory offers in terms of the takeover regulations in the Companies Act, 2008.
The Draft Bill also proposes the insertion of section 11(5), which provides that any cession, transfer, letting, sub-letting, assignment, alienation or disposal of a right or an interest in a company in contravention of the amended section 11(1) is void. This proposed amendment provides clarity on the consequence of non-compliance with section 11. Furthermore, the proposed amendments include that, where a right is encumbered by mortgage by any public entity and/or bank and/or financial institution, then the entity must undertake in writing that any sale in execution or any other disposal will be subject to Ministerial consent in terms of section 11(1).
Inspections, Instructions, Offences and Penalties
The Draft Bill contains a new section 91A, which empowers a “member” of the South African Police Service with the same powers those of an authorised person in terms of section 91 of the MPRDA, including powers conferred in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, but excluding the power to conduct inspections in terms of section 92 of the MPRDA and to issue and enforce compliance notices in terms of section 93 of the MPRDA. However, the proposed new section 91A(2) provides that the Minister, in concurrence with the Minister of Police, may assign a member of the South African Police Service with all powers contained in sections 92 and 93 of the MPRDA, on written notice to such member.
The Draft Bill further introduces amendments to sections 98 and 99 of the MPRDA, dealing with offences and penalties, and specifies new sections which, if contravened, would constitute offences in terms of the MPRDA.
The proposed amendments to section 99 increase the potential liability attaching to persons convicted of offences in terms of the MPRDA. Certain offences can carry a fine of up to 10% of the person or rights holder’s annual turnover in South Africa and its exports from South Africa in the preceding financial year or imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both. Additional powers have been granted to authorised persons under section 91 of the MPRDA, allowing such persons to make written recommendations to the Director General for administrative fines to be imposed on holders in certain circumstances, and the procedure to be followed thereafter (similar to the administrative fine process under Section 55A of the Mine Health and Safety Act, 1996).
Conclusion
These changes will have far-reaching implications for mining companies and stakeholders, particularly regarding compliance costs, transaction structures, and operational flexibility. Rights and permit holders should carefully assess their current operations against the proposed amendments to the MPRDA and consider submitting detailed comments during the consultation period. The entire industry would benefit from engaging proactively with the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources to ensure that the final amendments to the legislation balances regulatory objectives with practical implementation considerations and investment certainty.
Please contact Warren Beech (warren@bv-inc.co.za), Chantal Murdock (chantal@bv-inc.co.za), Eben van Zyl (eben@bv-inc.co.za) and Jason Hunter (jason@bv-inc.co.za) should you require any further information, advice, or assistance in submitting comments on the Draft Bill.
[1] Minister of Mineral Resources and Others vs Mawetse (SA) Mining Corporation (Pty) Ltd (20069/14) [2015] ZASCA 82; [2015] 3 All SA 408 (SCA); 2016 (1) SA 306 (SCA) (28 May 2015)
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to serve as legal advice. Readers should consult one of our legal professionals for advice tailored to their specific circumstances.