Five years of silence â who is assessing the assessors of SAâs environmental future?

This story has significance for readers across Africa and beyond.

The Legal Practice Council is responsible for investigating complaints and recommending the suspension or striking-off of attorneys and advocates for malpractice. The Engineering Council of South Africa also has procedures to ensure professional service and ethical behaviour from engineers, with the outcomes of disciplinary action published in the Government Gazette.

Similar principles apply to members of the Environmental Assessment Practitioners Association of South Africa (Eapasa). This is the official registration authority for roughly 2,600 private and state-sector professionals charged with assessing and approving mandatory environmental impact assessment (EIA) studies.

But while the results of disciplinary inquiries involving errant lawyers or engineers are published for all to see, Eapasa has maintained a curious silence on this issue.

For five years, Daily Maverick has been asking Eapasa for a list of the environmental practitioners who have been fined, suspended or expelled from the association for misdemeanour or ethical breaches since its official establishment roughly 14 years ago.

The response to our questions in May 2021?

Not a peep.

More recently (on 23 June), we sent the same questions to Eapasa following the election of its new board, now chaired by Durban-based practitioner Sabelo Nkosi.

The questions

Since the establishment of Eapasa in 2012, how many formal, written complaints has the association received against its registered member practitioners/candidate practitioners for alleged misconduct or breaches of the Eapasa Code of Ethical Conduct and Practice?

Of these complaints, how many were referred to the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) for a formal inquiry?

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

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

Eapasaâs registrar and CEO, Dr Patrick Sithole, acknowledged receipt of our queries on 2 July, but nearly two months later, the association has not provided any responses, despite follow-up requests. Nor is there any visible evidence of practitioners being sanctioned on the Eapasa website.

Why are answers to these questions important?

In many respects, environmental assessment practitioners (EAPs) can be considered to be the custodians of a sound and sustainable environmental future for South Africa.

Their broad responsibility includes the planning, management, coordination or review of environmental impact assessments (EIAs), while public sector practitioners are responsible for scrutinising these assessments and drafting authorisations.

As such, they exercise significant influence and power in advising the government on whether to approve, modify or refuse projects with potentially negative environmental impacts.

Though private sector EAP consultants are paid directly by applicants for their professional services, they are required to act independently âeven if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicantâ.

The declarations signed under oath by EAPs are legally binding documents, confirming their independence, professional registration and commitment to providing objective and truthful information in environmental reports.

In contrast to the lack of public transparency by Eapasa on disciplinary matters, the Legal Practice Council (LPC) currently has a list of nearly 50 attorneys who were either suspended or struck from the roll during 2026.

According to the council, a total of 314 legal practitioners were struck off and another 421 suspended from practice between 2019 and 2025.

When it comes to the regulation of environmental practitioners, however, Eapasa appears to be unwilling to disclose what actions it has taken to hold practitioners to account for breaches of its malpractice policy.

Penalties

In terms of its 2021 malpractice policy, EAPs can be fined R20,000 for each breach of the code of conduct (for a first or second offence).

They only become liable for temporary suspension from Eapasa (and further fines) if they are convicted of a third offence.

They would only become liable for expulsion if found guilty for a fourth time, and are then blacklisted for up to five years before becoming eligible to reapply for Eapasa registration.

The 2021 policy states: âAll the charged EAPs and their contraventions and penalties will be advertised on the Eapasa website for a period not exceeding 5 years.â

But this procedure appears to have changed in May 2026, with a revised malpractice policy now allowing for the expulsion of practitioners for a first offence (depending on the seriousness of the offence) as well as other lesser penalties, such as a warning, performing a public service, mentorship, work audits, monetary fines or even âyearly mandatory contributions to Eapasa conferences over a period of timeâ.

The 2026 policy states that the severe sanction of expulsion for five years will be reserved for ârepeated or severe violations of the malpractice policyâ.

Oddly, the wording of the new blacklist policy appears to have changed to give the Eapasa board more discretion on whether to publish details of convicted practitioners.

Whereas the 2021 sanctions policy explicitly requires publication of all contraventions and penalties for convicted EAPs on the Eapasa website, the new policy states that the details of disciplinary hearing outcomes and appeals âmayâ be published, at the discretion of the disciplinary committee âin accordance with a procedure as may be approved by the Boardâ.

Naming and shaming

In a separate annexure in red, titled âPublishing Sanctioned EAPsâ, the association says that the decision to publish the names of sanctioned practitioners is not âmerely administrativeâ.

It then sets out both the âprosâ and âconsâ of publishing such information.

Under âprosâ, it is argued that publishing details on the Eapasa website demonstrates that the association âhas teethâ and shows the public and stakeholders that Eapasa is actively monitoring and enforcing standards.

âThe tangible risk of public shaming and professional ruin is a strong deterrent against cutting corners, bias, or unethical behaviour. The potential damage to reputation outweighs the short-term gain from malpractice.â

Another benefit of public exposure is that developers, clients and consultants can make informed decisions by not hiring practitioners with a history of malpractice.

âThe market can self-correct, directing work towards practitioners with clean records. This creates a direct business incentive for ethical conduct and promotes reliability and credibility for both the EAP and the profession.â

On the other hand, shaming practitioners also creates a variety of consequences and risks.

The annexure suggests that a public listing could become a âscarlet letterâ that effectively ends a career, even for a single, relatively minor offence.

âIt may preclude any chance of rehabilitation or meaningful return to the profession, which could be seen as unduly punitive,â it is argued.

Publication could also expose Eapasa to defamation claims from sanctioned practitioners. To avoid such risks, Eapasaâs professional conduct committee might opt for an overly risk-averse approach by issuing private reprimands instead of stricter sanctions.

The Eapasa document also suggests that publication of âa simple list of names and offences may lack crucial context. Was it a minor procedural breach or a major ethical violation? Was it an individualâs act or a systemic failure of their company? The public may misinterpret the severity.â

It suggests that this could lead to âunfair blanket condemnation where nuanced understanding is neededâ.

Finally, it suggests that publishing such a list creates âan operational burdenâ on Eapasa because âmaintaining and updating a legally defensible public list requires robust administrative and legal resources.

âEvery case must be documented for public consumption ... [so a] significant portion of registration fees may be spent on legal and administrative oversight of the disciplinary process rather than on professional development or standards improvement.â

Eapasa concludes that publishing such a list is a âhigh-reward, high-risk transparency measure. The strongest argument for it is that it transforms the licensing system from a symbolic club into an accountable regulator, using market forces and public scrutiny as powerful enforcement tools.

âThe strongest argument against is the potential for disproportionate, career-ending damage from errors or lack of context, which could create a defensive, non-transparent culture.

âBest practice tends to favour publication, but within a framework that emphasises procedural fairness, clarity of violations, and proportionality, often differentiating between private reprimands and public sanctions for serious malpractice.â

In a press statement on 17 June, Eapasa announced the names of its new 11-member board, with both Sithole and Nkosi reaffirming their commitment to âprofessional excellence and ethical practiceâ.

Yet both seem to have opted for silence, ignoring long-standing and legitimate questions about the associationâs apparent failure to publish any information about the outcome of its disciplinary hearings. DM

Reporting originally appeared via Daily Maverick. Read the full source for additional context.