Harvard legal scholars join battle to free elephants from Johannesburg Zoo
A landmark legal bid to free three elephants from captivity in the Johannesburg Zoo has gained international traction, with heavyweight legal scholars from Harvard Law School stepping forward in support of the case. The application – brought by Animal Law Reform South Africa, the EMS Foundation and Chief Stephen Fritz – is currently before the High Court in Pretoria.
Professor Kristen Stilt, the faculty director of the Brooks McCormick Jr Animal Law and Policy Program, and Dr Macarena Montes Franceschini, a visiting researcher at the Max Planck Institute, have formally applied to join the case as amici curiae (friends of the court), offering their expertise in animal law and public policy. Their participation is intended to help the court understand the broader societal and ethical implications of the case, especially given the elephants' complex cognitive and emotional capacities.
Constitutional rights
The applicants argue that the three elephants – Lammie, Mopane and Ramadiba – are confined in conditions that compromise their mental, emotional and physical well being, amounting to a state of significant distress.
Elephant experts argue that confinement in any urban zoo fails to meet the physical, mental and emotional needs of these highly intelligent and social creatures.
At the heart of the case is the claim that keeping elephants in the zoo violates South Africa's Constitution, particularly the environmental rights provision, as well as existing animal welfare legislation. Section 24 states that everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures.
The measures prevent pollution and ecological degradation, promote conservation and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
In addition, the organisations and Fritz said animals in captivity constitute biodiversity for the purposes of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act.
'The applicants (Animal Law Reform SA, EMS Foundation and Fritz) contend that, on proper interpretation of section 24 of the Constitution, and the legislation enacted to give effect to section 24, the right enjoyed by everyone to have the environment protected requires that the welfare and wellbeing of individual animals be considered and promoted.'
Pushback
The Johannesburg Zoo, however, has pushed back, asserting that the elephants receive adequate care and attention. The zoo claims that the groups behind the legal effort are driven by ideology rather than concern for the animals' actual welfare.
However, public sentiment appears to be turning against the zoo's legal resistance. South Africans have voiced their anger on social media, particularly given the City of Johannesburg's broader financial and infrastructural crises. The Auditor-General recently reported more than R1-billion in wasteful expenditure, raising concerns about the cost of the ongoing litigation.
Critics have pointed to Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo's own Integrated Annual Report (2023/24), which emphasises avoiding prolonged legal battles in favour of settlements that save public funds.
Despite this, the City continues to defend the elephants' captivity in court, a move seen by many as both fiscally irresponsible and ethically indefensible.
The case of Charlie the elephant
Still, pressure continues to build, especially following the recent relocation of Charlie – the last elephant at the National Zoological Gardens in Pretoria – to a sanctuary. That move is being hailed as a progressive step in aligning elephant care with contemporary animal welfare standards.
That historic event was the result of years of negotiation between the zoo, the EMS Foundation and the Pro Elephant Network.
Charlie had witnessed three of his friends die prematurely. He also lost his daughter when she was less than a month old. He was captured in Hwange, Zimbabwe, 44 years ago and was trained in the Boswell Wilkie Circus. When it closed down he was transferred to the Natal Lion Park and then, in 2001, to the Pretoria Zoo where he languished before his eventual release in 2024.
As they did with Charlie (now named Duma), the EMS Foundation has offered the same alternative: relocating the three elephants to the secure, protected sanctuary at Shambala Game Reserve in the Waterberg where they can gradually reintegrate into a natural habitat. The plan, as it has with Charlie, includes a comprehensive rehabilitation process under the guidance of wildlife veterinarians, welfare experts and logistical teams.
The Johannesburg case is being watched closely, since it feeds into a larger and ongoing debate: should elephants be kept in captivity at all, especially in urban zoos? The involvement of respected legal scholars from Harvard is a significant development. Their support underscores the global relevance of the case and the shifting legal and moral paradigm around the rights of non-human animals.
Deputy Judge President Ledwaba will hear arguments on the amicus application on 2 September. His decision could shape the outcome of one of the most significant animal rights cases this country has seen. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
11 hours ago
- eNCA
South African Human Rights Commission investigating McKenzie
JOHANNESBURG - The South African Human Rights Commission is investigating past social media posts by Sports, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie. The posts, dated between 2011 and 2017, resurfaced last week, prompting complaints from political parties and individuals. The Commission says the remarks appear to violate the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. It has written to the minister, and it may take the matter to the Equality Court. The SAHRC says freedom of expression does not protect hate speech, and calls on all South Africans to respect the values of the Constitution.
IOL News
12 hours ago
- IOL News
SAHRC launches investigation into Minister Gayton McKenzie over alleged racist and xenophobic utterances
Gayton McKenzie has come under fire for comments made during a recent live and X posts, shared years ago Image: Itumeleng English/ Independent Newspapers The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has initiated an investigation into Minister Gayton McKenzie over offensive posts on his X account and alleged xenophobic utterances. The controversy stems from remarks made in a live video and social media posts dating back as far as 2011. The Commission said it became aware of the resurfaced posts on August 9 2025, and has received multiple complaints from various political parties and individuals, prompting the commission to take action. Following an initial assessment, the SAHRC believes that McKenzie's utterances are "prima facie violations of the provisions of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Equality Act), 2000". An allegation letter has been dispatched to McKenzie. The Commission stated that its next steps might include instituting proceedings in the relevant Equality Court, as per the SAHRC Act of 2013 and the Equality Act. The SAHRC emphasised that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, reminding the public that hate speech is explicitly prohibited by both the Equality Act and the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Act, 2023. The Commission reiterated that McKenzie's conduct is expected to "conform to ethical standards that is becoming of a Minister and a member of Parliament". The SAHRC also called on all citizens to uphold the Constitution's fundamental principles, including human dignity, equality, and non-discrimination. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The outcry against McKenzie, who serves as the Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture, began with his use of a racial slur (the 'K-word') during a live video. This incident occurred as he discussed actions taken by the Patriotic Alliance against the hosts of the "Open Chats Podcast," who had themselves made disparaging and racist remarks about the coloured community. McKenzie had previously urged his party to take legal action against these podcasters, stating that if coloured people had made similar remarks about other races, it would have been front-page news. Following the live video controversy, older social media posts by McKenzie, dating between 2011 and 2017, resurfaced. These tweets reportedly contained "apartheid-era racial slurs directed at black South Africans" and criticised the term 'Black Diamond' using racially charged language deemed "reprehensible". McKenzie has denied being a racist, claiming that the entire controversy is a "politically motivated campaign orchestrated by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and social media influencers". He stated: "This whole campaign to find something racist I ever said is hilarious because you have now gone 13 years back and can't bring out one racist thing I ever said". While denying racist intent, McKenzie has admitted to posting "insensitive, stupid and hurtful" remarks a decade or two ago, acknowledging, "I was a troll [and] stupid. I cringe when seeing them and I am truly sorry for that". He cited his background, stating, "My mother was black and I have children with a black woman. I fought my whole life for the same treatment between black and Coloured people because we fought the same struggle". McKenzie has stated his willingness to subject himself to an investigation, reiterating, "I can never be guilty of racism, try some other take down but never racism". IOL
Daily Maverick
17 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Constitutional Court ruling a victory for farm dwellers' grazing rights
In a unanimous judgment that has been hailed by some as a progressive step for farm dwellers and opposed by others as a threat to commercial agriculture, the Constitutional Court has set a powerful precedent on the interpretation of grazing rights under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The Constitutional Court has handed down a unanimous judgment on an appeal seeking to overturn a ruling on the right to graze cattle under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (Esta). matter, involving three brothers on a farm owned by the Moladora Trust in North West, first landed in the Land Claims Court (LCC) in 2022. It began when the owners of the farm sought to remove siblings Magalone, Topies and Dikhotso Mereki from property once occupied by their late mother, who had been given permission to graze five cows. She died 'sometime before 2017'. Back then, the matter had served before Judge Susannah Cowen in the Land Claims Court. Judge Cowen has since been selected by the Judicial Service Commission to serve as deputy judge president of the newly established superior Land Court, which now oversees the work of the overburdened Land Claims Court. This court is bound to play a significant role in land reform legislation over the next few decades. Ripples Judge Cowen's judgment sent ripples through agricultural sectors as well as groups supporting farm workers' rights. AgriSA backed the Moladora Trust saying the issue posed a threat to commercial agriculture and food security, while activists, including Women on Farms, praised it. On 1 August, the Constitutional Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Owen Rogers, held that the matter indeed did concern the interpretation of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (Esta) as contemplated in that famous and burning section 25(6) of the Constitution. This, said Justice Rogers, 'raises several arguable points of general public importance, especially relating to whether consent to graze cattle is a right protected by Esta'. The matter was referred to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which overturned Judge Cowen's ruling rejecting the Land Claims Court's legal approach to the matter and its order. However the ConCourt has ruled that it was 'in the interest of justice' to grant the appeal. Personal rights What exactly was being appealed, you may ask? In 2022 Judge Cowen found that grazing rights were 'personal rights' that arose from the landowner's consent rather than from the act. However, once consent had been granted, this became part of an occupier's tenure rights. There are, as is evident, deep nuances to each case and this was held in mind in the unanimous judgment by a coram of judges consisting of Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, acting justices Glen Goosen, Jody Kollapen and Ingrid Opperman and justices Steven Majiedt, Owen Rogers, Leona Theron and Zukisa Tshiqi. The Mereki brothers had applied to the ConCourt seeking to appeal against the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling, with the Moladora Trust and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Land Reform as respondents in the matter. Judge Cowen's 2022 judgment about the grazing rights of the brothers and the application of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act was viewed as highly progressive by some, and as unworkable by others. Besides, Judge Cowen had also tossed a reminder of 'colonial dispossession' into her ruling and added that 'a generous construction of Esta was to be preferred over a purely textual or legalistic one in this specific instance'. That the Mereki's mother had occupied the North West property prior to her death and had obtained permission to graze five cattle on the land was not in dispute. There are at present nine head of cattle. The trust had argued that this matter did not raise constitutional issues but rather was 'based on a dispute as to whether grazing rights had ever been granted to the brothers'. It noted that 'cattle' had since expanded to include goats, horses and sheep and stated that the siblings had not demonstrated any breach of their constitutional entitlements. It argued that grazing rights fell outside the act and that extending these would 'unjustifiably deprive landowners of their property'. Following legal steps The ConCourt noted that 'the matter had far-reaching implications for the rights of both owners and Esta occupiers and the Land Claims Court, as a specialist forum, was best placed to determine it at first instance'. The court had considered the historical background of dispossession and noted that section 25(6) of the Constitution had been enacted 'with the intention of securing tenure and guaranteeing rights associated with the use of land for cultivation or grazing'. Section 39(1) of the Constitution required that tenure under Esta be given 'a broad and generous interpretation, rather than a narrow one' noted Justice Rogers. The nuance of 'tacit consent' With regard to whether the Merekis had consent to keep cattle on the farm, Judge Cowen had assumed in the Trust's favour in 2022 that the siblings were not occupiers 'in their own right at the time of their mother's death and had derived their right of residence from their parents' status as employees'. She concurred with the trust that the consent which Mrs Mereki had to graze cattle was specific to her but found, however, 'that tacit consent in favour of the Mereki siblings could be inferred from the lengthy period which passed before the first removal notices were given in January 2018 and from the further lengthy period which passed before the second removal notices were given in May 2020'. A 'tacit consent finding' could also be based, noted Judge Cowen, on the presumption in section 3(4), that 'a person who has continuously and openly resided on land for a period of one year shall be presumed to have consent unless the contrary is proved'. The Land Claims Court had concluded that the trust had not been entitled to rely on common law to terminate the Merekis' right to graze cattle. With regard to this the ConCourt ruled that on the facts of the matter tacit consent had to be presumed, unless the trust adduced evidence to rebut this. 'The mere say-so of the owner did not suffice'. Since the trust had not claimed to have terminated the Merekis' consent in accordance with section 8, the application had to be dismissed. However, the Land Claims Court had granted the trust leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which found in its favour. Interpreting Esta In its judgment the ConCourt highlighted provisions that not only referred to residence but also to 'the use of land' in Esta. It held that law makers had not been consistent in their inclusion of 'use of land' when referring to the right to 'reside on land'. This inconsistency, the court held, had to be resolved in favour of an interpretation that broadened rather than diminished the security of tenure afforded to occupiers. It held that the farm owners 'experienced no injustice when required to comply with section 8 in instances where they sought to terminate consent to graze cattle granted to persons residing on the farm with consent'. On the question of whether the Merekis had consent to keep cattle, the court found that there had been no express consent, but that there had indeed been tacit consent. The Land Claims Court had also been entitled to make its findings, and there had been no procedural unfairness in the manner in which Judge Cowen had arrived at her conclusions. The order of the Supreme Court of Appeal was set aside and replaced with one dismissing the trust's appeal in that court against the Land Claims Court's order. The order was made with costs. DM
