On 16 November 2018 EnviroServ requested the Minister to amend the conditions applicable to the suspension of its waste management license, to allow it to receive both organic and inorganic waste, and thus more tonnage.

UHA NPC was given an opportunity to make representations which it did, and it also requested the Minister to amend the conditions applicable to the existing suspension conditions of EnviroServ’s license, including the proper capping of Valley 2 if tipping was to continue to take place, in a piggy-back system which could allow tipping on top but render the gas extraction system more efficient.

This solution was implemented by EThekwini in respect of the Bisasar Road Landfill. UHA experts recommended this approach considering EnviroServ’s own experts maintain that the membrane should stay in place and the working face kept to a minimum, which more waste will obviously not achieve.

Aside from EnviroServ not implementing the gas extraction and flare which it said it ought to in 2009 already, both EnviroServ’s expert reports and those of UHA NPC state that major part of the cause of fugitive emissions is high sulphate wastes, including gypsum, coming into contact with moisture and putrescible organic waste.

Despite this, EnviroServ still seeks permission to be allowed to take organic waste.

It has not even sought to exclude putrescible organic waste. From what was communicated at the site meeting on 6 December 2018, it seems that EnviroServ wishes to accept this waste in order to exploit opportunities to take medical waste and so to boost the tonnage currently being received. This has nothing to do with remediation as represented to the Minister.


It is clear from EnviroServ’s application to accept more waste and its accreditation certificate annexed thereto, that it’s Reitfontein Laboratory is not accredited in the respects alleged by it.

UHA experts point out that the actual scope of accreditation is limited and, importantly, EnviroServ is only accredited to assess the accelerated weathering impacts (by leaching) for a limited number of metallic compounds.

There is no reference, for instance, to how EnviroServ would assess wastes containing organic or hydrocarbon materials. This would fall short of the standard requirements for waste classification as contained in South African National Standards (SANS) 10234. This concerns UHA experts because it would appear that EnviroServ is deciding the status of waste it will dispose. Such decisions, will be conducted outside this peer-reviewed and prestigious framework of SANAS accreditation.

This has been raised with the DEA.


EThekwini has still :

(i) failed to provide any of the documents sought in the review, including the alleged 99 000 letters of support EnviroServ solicited and submitted to EThekwini and now also relied on in the request to take more waste, or its own “evidence” relied on in granting the STP;
(ii) failed to determine the UHA NPC’s appeal against the grant of the Scheduled Trade Permit, or to state when it will be decided;
(iii) failed to provide any of the documents necessary to show EnviroServ has complied with the obligation to supply reports in terms of the STP conditions and refuses thus far to produce them to the UHA or other community members even though they are part of the Monitoring committee.

EThekwini also still refuses to disclose why correspondence addressed to authorities by UHA NPC and community members is sent directly to EnviroServ even when not addressed to EnviroServ.


In the meantime, EnviroServ continues to control the Monitoring committee and flout its own irregularly adopted terms of reference to do so.

Tex Collins, a local Councillor, specifically asked the “secretariat” of the Monitoring committee to provide details of who sits on the monitoring committee and how they were elected. No response has been forthcoming.

UHA NPC has also asked for a list of the Monitoring committee members and the constituencies they represent. Nothing has been provided.

The “chairperson’s” term of office expired on EnviroServ’s own terms of reference on 21 September 2018, but EnviroServ continues to allow him to run meetings under the direction and control of Taaka of EnviroServ. No steps have been taken to call for new nominations and elections. Not surprising because EnviroServ needed the Monitoring committee and its mystery members to support continued trading and its application to accept waste.

UHA has discovered that:

1. The Secretariat, appointed by EnviroServ according to the irregular terms of reference for 3 years, is one of two founding members of Ziphelele Environmental Planning and Environmental Consultancy and an erstwhile member of Pravin Amar Development Planners cc. As you all know Pravin Amar irregularly ran the monitoring committee for more than a decade when he had no authority to do so in terms of the binding terms of reference.

2. Mr Mlotshwa, the “chairperson” is apparently employed by Ziphelele Environmental Planning and Environmental Consultancy.

3. The two members of Ziphelele Environmental Planning and Environmental Consultancy were at material times (when Pravin Amar was still irregularly running the Monitoring committee for EnviroServ) also members of Pravin Amar Development Planners.

4. Pravin Amar not only irregularly ran the Monitoring Committee for EnviroServ for in excess of 10 years but did work for EnviroServ in relation to, inter alia, the application for special consent to operate the landfill on the Shongweni site.

5. Ziphelele and Pravin Amar close corporations, have the same auditors, same registered offices and operate from the same principal place of business in Glenwood, also Mr Pravin Amar’s residential address according to the CIPC reports.

6. Ziphelele Environmental Planning and Environmental Consultancy represents to the public at large that the DEA is one of its clients.

7. Mr Mlotshwa, the “Chairperson” who claims to be a member of the Monitoring Committee (but whose constituency is yet to be revealed) is also the sole director and self-proclaimed owner of a Company, Imveloyami Environmental Projects and Consultant, which has both individually and as part of joint a venture, tendered for and publically claims to have rendered services to the EThekwini Municipality for substantial sums of money. This too means he is subject to a conflict of interest on this score and precluded from being a member of the committee or from being appointed as chair.


Despite Esme Gombault and EnviroServ internal IT “expert” OTTO, denying that Mayet emailed UHA with incriminating accusations against EnviroServ, including data manipulation, it appears from affidavits filed by the State in associated litigation, that during the execution of the search warrant at EnviroServ’s premises during which computer devices were seized, Gombault admitted that she knew the identity of the person who had sent UHA and its attorney the emails, and that it was Mohammed Mayet.

Gombault is alleged to have confirmed this after OTTO had shown her entries on the EnviroServ system / computer. In fact, Gombault stated Mayet had used the very same gmail address in relation to what appears to have been an internal disciplinary matter earlier in the year.

Thus, EnviroServ have under oath suggested that UHA and its attorneys could have manufactured the emails and falsely attributed them to Mayet when they knew all along it was Mayet.

An unscrupulous but not surprising act by EnviroServ.

EnviroServ has also publically told their clients that it was not Mayet, when they knew it was.

It is probably also for this reason that EnviroServ refuse to produce the device used by Mayet which has been inspected by Cynare, as this will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was in fact him.


As we have long suspected the odour is not only made up of H2S and UHA are undertaking more tests with your valuable contributions. We will get to the bottom of the pollution and thus the answer to what is necessary to finally end it.

EnviroServ claim odours are completely contained, which parts of Winston Park and Plantations will know from yesterday (10th December 2018) is not true. EnviroServ have sought to blame the recent alleged spills from the waste water treatment works for any odours but then again, we all know the difference in smell between sewage and EnviroServ – although the nature of the beasts in question may easily be confused.

We also continue to use your contributions to fund the independent monitoring station in Winston Park and will do so for as long funds are available or the smell finally stops, whichever comes first.

CRIMINAL MATTER “Green Scorpions vs EnviroServ”

The criminal matter has been adjourned to the 13th of May 2019.

Upper Highway Air