Navigating social barriers
Writing this blog post has taken me much longer than anticipated. As someone who is neither a card-carrying academic nor an established journalist, the process of collecting reliable information was fraught with obstacles. Many of the organisations I contacted either did not respond or seemed unwilling to engage, which was discouraging. I began to realise that unless you are an insider in the animal shelter or rescue community, there’s a significant lack of trust.
My position as an interested person – without formal backing – presented barriers I had not anticipated. Despite my clear intent to shed light on non-human animal (NHA) welfare and well-being in South Africa, there was an air of scepticism toward anyone not directly involved with the organisations themselves. This experience made me reflect on the complexities of navigating the NHA (here I mostly mean what we refer to as ‘companion animals’ – dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, for example, although not exclusively) welfare sector as an outsider and underscored the difficulties of accessing reliable, transparent information on NHA welfare and issues of well-being.
A methodology of sorts
When I first set out to research this blog, I assumed that the information would be relatively easy to come by. I thought that I could gather statistics from a national database or, at the very least, from the multitude of shelters, welfare organisations and rescues registered as non-profit organisations (NPOs) in South Africa. However, I quickly discovered that no such central or national database exists.
There is no collective record of NHA abuse cases, their types (eg neglect, battery, bestiality), geolocations, or information about the perpetrators. Nor is there a system tracking the sentences handed down to those found guilty of cruelty (as in the case of the US Federal Investigation Bureau [FBI]).[i] Much of this information is fragmented and exists only within individual organisations, making it inaccessible to the public or anyone outside the inner workings of those organisations.
There is no collective record of NHA abuse case, their types, geolocations, or information about the perpetrators.
For example, while the National Council of SPCAs (NCSPCA) may keep records of the cases they choose to prosecute, these records are not freely shared with the public. More troubling is that there are likely many more unreported or unprosecuted cases of cruelty, and no centralised data is available to quantify the scope of the problem (IOL | News that Connects South Africans).
I contacted several shelters, rescue centres and organisations to gather information directly. Out of the four shelters I reached out to, only two responded, and only one was willing to share information – informally.[ii] This general lack of response left me feeling stonewalled, and I speculated why such organisations – and the people who run them – seemed reluctant to share information, even when doing so could raise awareness of the issues NHAs face across South Africa.
However, I was able to speak to several people who support NHA causes and local shelters, and they shared some of their own concerns relating to transparency and accountability of the rescue organisations in South Africa. These aspects are a critical issue because it has the potential to stymie the only substantial support base for shelters in South Africa.
The false dichotomy: humans vs. Non-Human Animals
As I continued my research, it became clear that the distrust between shelters and outsiders (here read ‘donors and supporters’, too) was not only limited to accessing information. It also mirrored a broader, long-standing belief that human needs must always come first – especially in a country like South Africa, where many people are fighting for survival. This perspective reflects a pervasive and problematic dichotomy: humans versus NHAs.
… humans and NHAs are part of interconnected ecosystems and neglecting NHAs ultimately harms humans.
While it is understandable that people might prioritise human needs, it overlooks a fundamental truth: humans and NHAs are part of interconnected ecosystems and neglecting NHAs ultimately harms humans. For example, zoonotic diseases, such as COVID-19, have demonstrated the dangers of poor NHA welfare practices. Studies have shown that neglectful treatment of NHAs, especially in factory farms and wildlife markets, contributes to the spread of deadly viruses (Humane Society International). Ensuring the well-being of NHAs is essential not only for their survival but also for the protection of human health.
Global institutions are beginning to recognise this interconnectedness. The shift from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is a testament to the evolving understanding of the link between human well-being and ecosystem health. Goal 15 of the SDGs emphasises the protection of biodiversity, acknowledging that the survival of humans is deeply tied to healthy ecosystems (American Bar Association).
Yet, despite this growing awareness, the topic of NHA welfare remains marginalised in South Africa, often viewed as less urgent compared to human concerns. However, this binary approach – placing humans and NHAs at odds – ignores how closely we depend on them for food security, disease control and even economic stability (Humane Society International).
South Africa’s fragmented legal landscape for NHAs
In South Africa, the laws protecting NHAs are inconsistent, incomplete and the government departments responsible for regulating and legislating their roles have changed over the years: researching where the protection laws were was almost like tracking a moving target. The Animal Protection Act 71 of 1962 and the Performing NHAs Protection Act of 1935 (amended in 2016) do provide some protection, but they are far from comprehensive.
The Animal Protection Act criminalises cruelty toward NHAs, but its limitations are evident. For example, the law categorises NHAs based on their use – whether they are farm NHAs, game, or companion NHAs. This results in unequal protections depending on the context in which the animal is found. Fish, reptiles and invertebrates, for instance, are entirely excluded from the Act, leaving them without any legal safeguard (Bizcommunity).
The Animal Protection Act criminalised cruelty toward NHAs, but its limitations are evident.
The Performing NHAs Protection Act requires permits for training and exhibiting NHAs, but enforcement remains a challenge (American Bar Association). The reality is that many forms of animal exploitation, particularly in entertainment, continue unchecked, with minimal oversight.
However, significant changes may be on the horizon. A draft Animal Welfare Bill, discussed in 2024, aims to modernise, and deal with the gaps in NHA protection laws, including banning cosmetic testing. NHA rights organisations are advocating for its adoption (IOL | News that Connects South Africans; Bizcommunity). This could be a major shift in legislation, aligning South Africa’s laws with the broader recognition of NHA sentience following the 2016 Constitutional Court ruling (Humane Society International).
Animal sentience and constitutional recognition
In a landmark ruling in 2016, South Africa’s Constitutional Court recognised NHA sentience, marking a major turning point in the country’s legal landscape. This ruling acknowledged that NHAs are not merely objects but beings with intrinsic value, fundamentally altering the way they are viewed under the law (American Bar Association). This has opened the door for more progressive legislation, shifting from an anthropocentric approach to one that recognises their intrinsic worth.
Animal Law Reform South Africa (ALRSA) and other organisations are pushing for further legal changes that align with this ruling. Recent strategic litigation cases, such as one challenging the confinement of elephants in Johannesburg Zoo, seek to expand the recognition of NHA rights (American Bar Association).
NHAs in scientific testing: a legal gap
South Africa also lags behind other nations in banning the use of NHAs in cosmetic testing. In contrast to regions like the EU, there are no specific laws preventing the use of NHAs for testing in cosmetics. This has raised concern among NHA rights advocates, who argue that the absence of regulation enables cruel practices in laboratories (Humane Society International; American Bar Association).
Although the Animal Protection Act offers some general protections, it does not adequately cover the treatment of NHAs in research environments. This legal gap highlights a significant area where South Africa’s laws fall short.
Punishment and enforcement
The disparities in the way offences against NHAs are punished highlight another weakness in South Africa’s legal framework: under Section 2 of the Animal Protection Act, a person convicted of cruelty may face up to a year in prison or a fine (Bizcommunity). However, violations with economic consequences, such as those under the Nature Conservation Ordinance, carry much harsher penalties, including up to ten years in prison (Bizcommunity). This sends a clear message that NHAs are more protected when their abuse affects financial interests.
Moreover, enforcement of existing laws is problematic. The responsibility falls between the SPCA and the South African Police Service (SAPS), but there is no single dedicated funding for enforcing these laws. As a result, many cases go uninvestigated, and penalties are often too weak to act as a real deterrent (IOL | News that Connects South Africans; American Bar Association).
One particularly striking case that illustrates this challenge is the Thandi Modise cruelty case. Modise, a prominent political figure at the time,[iii] was charged after 200 NHAs died of starvation and thirst on her farm in 2014. Despite the severity of the situation, Modise was acquitted in 2022, with the court ruling that the farmworkers were responsible for the neglect, not Modise herself (Briefly, Humane Society International). This case highlights deeper concerns about the intersections between political influence and justice in South Africa.
Modise’s acquittal has led to public debate about the role of political power in shaping legal outcomes. Critics[iv] argue that her political standing may have shielded her from full accountability, as similar cases involving ordinary citizens might not have resulted in such leniency.
[The Modise] case highlights deeper concerns about the intersections between political influence and justice in South Africa.
Civil society organisations, such as AfriForum, have played a key role in challenging these outcomes. Indeed, AfriForum took up the case in a private prosecution and, after Modise’s acquittal, appealed the decision, continuing to push for accountability (Briefly).
While commendable – and demonstrating the importance of independent watchdog groups in monitoring government and ensuring that political leaders are held to the same standards as ordinary citizens – AfriForum is primarily associated with its right-wing political roots (The Conversation; ThoughtLeader). Its association with NHA rights in these cases, therefore, could be exploited by other political parties willing to exacerbate socio-political divisions. NHA rights, as a result, could be worse off for it.
Modise’s case also reflects a broader pattern where political patronage and perceived immunity from consequences are seen as part of South Africa’s political landscape (Phenomenal World; ISS). Such cases undermine public confidence in the legal system and suggest that power dynamics continue to interfere with the pursuit of justice. They also underscore the need for stronger, impartial legal reforms that ensure accountability, regardless of one’s political status.
Reporting animal abuse: SAPS and systemic challenges
Although the SAPS is officially responsible for handling cases of NHA cruelty in areas where the SPCA has no presence, the reality of reporting abuse is often frustrating and ineffective. While legislation such as the Animal Protection Act and Performing Animal Protection Act empower authorities to act, in practise, the enforcement is inconsistent and frequently inadequate (Lopes Attorneys Inc.).
It has been reported that SAPS do not always take NHA abuse cases seriously, reflecting a broader societal attitude where they are still seen as secondary to humans and as entities that can be used and abused without severe consequences (Dotsure, IER). This view perpetuates a lack of urgency when dealing with cases of cruelty. While the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) manages the majority of welfare cases, when citizens report directly to the police, especially in rural areas, their complaints may be deprioritised or dismissed (Dotsure, NSPCA).
In many instances … initial reports may not receive prompt action.
In many instances, individuals attempting to report NHA abuse find themselves needing to escalate the issue through multiple channels, as initial reports to local police may not receive prompt action. Public frustration is compounded by the fact that many SAPS officers seem unaware of the relevant protection laws or do not prioritise them as they would human-related crimes (Dotsure).
For example, reports show that while the police are equipped to intervene in cruelty cases, they may not do so unless the public pushes the issue or seeks higher authority intervention (Stop Abuse). This systemic neglect reflects broader social attitudes, where NHAs are seen as having fewer rights and protections. The law is, therefore, applied inconsistently as a result, further perpetuating the mistreatment of NHAs and undermining the legal protections in place.
The SPCA and the rescue community: a fractured relationship
The rescue community is not only made up of those who officially rescue through NPO or NGO structures, but those who support them, their donors. However, the SPCA does play a leading role in NHA welfare, but its relationship with the broader rescue community is complicated. Accusations that the SPCA acts as a ‘kill shelter’ have led to a fractured relationship with other rescue organisations, even though the SPCA often handles a heavy caseload under resource constraints (SPCA).
Euthanasia, while controversial, is sometimes a necessity due to the sheer number of stray NHAs and limited space in shelters. Every year, thousands of dogs and cats are euthanised, not because of choice, but because there are not enough resources to care for them (Humane Society International). Still, the perception of the SPCA as quick to euthanise rather than promote adoptions has created tensions.
This tension is further compounded by the way endowments and donations are distributed within the SPCA network. The NSPCA is the umbrella body for various local SPCA branches across South Africa. However, when donors leave bequests or make donations without specifying a particular branch, the funds default to the NSPCA. While this ensures the money is used for national welfare efforts, it can lead to frustration for smaller, underfunded local branches that may be struggling to stay operational (NSPCA; The Mail & Guardian).
Smaller branches, which often face severe financial challenges, feel overshadowed when these funds go to the national body, leaving local shelters without much-needed resources (Smallholder; NSPCA).
These dynamics – ranging from the use of euthanasia to funding structures – have created divisions within the welfare community. Smaller shelters and independent rescue organisations often feel that the national body does not fully represent or support their specific challenges, contributing to a competitive, rather than cooperative, atmosphere in the sector.
Competition for donations and public support further complicates collaboration between the SPCA and independent shelters. This fragmented approach weakens the NHA welfare movement overall and reduces the capacity to protect them on a larger scale.
In conversation with rescue donors and supporters, it was hinted that certain shelters may exploit the plight of NHAs to gain sympathy and solicit more donations. In some cases, it was suggested that the more NHAs a shelter could report, the more financial support they could attract. In addition, some shelters were reportedly more interested in the money they could receive by keeping NHAs in their care rather than actively placing them for adoption. Even more concerning were hints that, in more remote areas, shelters might resort to maiming their wards to garner additional sympathy and support which are subsequently shared through social media.
In some cases, it was suggested that the more NHAs a shelter could report, the more financial support they could attract.
When the pandemic struck, some shelters were felt to have heavily leveraged the crisis to boost donations. The donors I spoke to expressed concerns about a lack of transparency in the way these shelters operate. (Whether this perception is linked to the broader distrust of institutions in South Africa, given its history of corruption, remains to be seen.)
While I do not have evidence to substantiate these claims, they highlight a broader issue affecting the relationship between shelters and their donors: the growing demand for accountability. I know that from my own experience, once, when I attended a well-known annual exhibition in Johannesburg, the people representing the rescue organisation looked worse off than the dogs and cats they were trying to save. It left me questioning who was really rescuing whom – and why.
These concerns highlight, once again, the apparent indissoluble connection between NHAs and the economic systems we invent. It also calls into question their role in the way we treat NHAs and whether they should be dissolved to change this.
Conclusion: a call for comprehensive animal welfare reform in South Africa
The question of why we should care about NHAs in the face of human struggles is not new, but it is increasingly urgent. The survival and well-being of humans are inextricably linked to the health of ecosystems, of which NHAs are an integral part. The notion that human needs must always come first, while understandable given socio-economic challenges, is a false dichotomy. Both human and NHA welfare are interdependent.
However, no one seems to be willing to pinpoint our economic systems as the foundation of our relationship with NHAs. There is an entire livelihood structure, backed by a strong, layered legal framework and a stronger impetus for survival, framed by a false dependency on NHA servitude and ownership.
There is an entire livelihood structure, backed by a strong, layered legal framework and a stronger impetus for survival ...
In the meantime, South Africa’s current legal framework for NHAs is fragmented and inconsistent, with significant gaps in protections in specific contexts, such as scientific testing and fishing industries. The Animal Protection Act 71 of 1962 and Performing NHAs Protection Act of 1935 are a start, but they are not enough. There is an urgent need for reforms that prioritise the welfare of all NHAs, irrespective of their perceived utility to humans.
With the proposed Animal Welfare Bill and the 2016 Constitutional Court ruling recognising animal sentience, there is a growing opportunity for South Africa to modernise its legal framework (IOL | News that Connects South Africans; American Bar Association). By leveraging these legal shifts, it is possible for animal welfare advocates to push for stronger protections for all NHAs.
The relationship between welfare organisations such as the SPCA and smaller rescue shelters is also fraught with competition and mistrust. These divisions weaken the broader mission of protecting NHAs. Greater collaboration, transparency, and the creation of a centralised database for tracking abuse cases (type and geolocation to highlight potential hotspots or even predict areas of incident) would strengthen the ability of these organisations to advocate for meaningful reform and enforcement. This could be facilitated, for example, through the construction of an official application (app) available to all registered NPOs – not just the NSPCA – involved in NHA welfare and well-being.
Lastly, addressing the gaps in legal enforcement is critical. Stronger penalties, consistent prosecution and better resource allocation for organisations like the SPCA and SAPS are essential to ensuring that the laws meant to protect NHAs are not merely symbolic but enforced with conviction.
As a start, South Africa needs to move beyond the outdated view that human and NHA welfare are separate concerns. By strengthening legal frameworks, fostering greater collaboration among rescue organisations and shifting public attitudes we can begin to build a more compassionate, just society – one where the rights and welfare of all living beings are respected. But more importantly, we also need to look at the way we ‘survive’ and the ways we frame that survival, globally. Our current economic systems need to be revisited. Perhaps then may we be able to create a sustainable future for both humans and the NHAs with whom we share our world.
[i] Since 2016, the FBI in the US have been keeping track of cases of cruelty through its National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). The data gathered helps law enforcement agencies recognise patterns of NHA abuse and its connection to other violent crimes, as studies show that individuals who commit abuse of NHAs are more likely to commit violence against humans (FBI; Legal Archive; NHEducation).
[ii] At a later stage I was able to speak – again, informally – with a further four representatives of South African NHA welfare NPOs. While I gained much insight from their input, I am unable to mention their names here. I am grateful for their kindness and willingness to share their insights.
[iii] At the time of the case in 2014, Modise was the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces. Since then, Modise has held various influential roles, including Minister of Defence and Military Veterans in 2021.
[iv] One such prominent critic in the Thandi Modise case is AfriForum, specifically through their Private Prosecution Unit, which has actively pursued accountability for the cruelty charges. Andrew Leask, its chief investigator, expressed concerns over the acquittal stating that the principles of discharge were incorrectly applied: Modise should have had the opportunity to present her side of the matter in court (SA People). In addition, Marcelle Meredith, CEO of the NSPCA, has been vocal about the case, describing it as a ‘travesty of justice’ and highlighting the ongoing delays in achieving justice for the NHAs that suffered on Modise’s farm (SA People).