Legal battle erupts over control and conduct of NSPCA

Daily Maverick

17-06-2025

Two local SPCA societies are taking the national body to court with a list of serious allegations. The NSPCA says it's about personal grievances and not animal welfare.
A major legal storm is brewing in South Africa's animal welfare sector as multiple local branches of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) take the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) and its board to court, alleging mismanagement, bullying and a toxic culture of centralised control that is crippling grassroots operations.
Led by Marius Dreyer, chairperson of the Bethlehem SPCA, several applicants have filed an amended notice of motion in the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria under Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
The applicants include directors and management committee members from both the Bethlehem and Tshwane SPCAs. They are asking the court to order sweeping investigations into the conduct of the NSPCA leadership and to suspend several high-profile board members pending the outcome of the probes.
At the heart of the dispute is a deepening rift between local SPCA societies and the national body mandated to support them. According to the applicants, the NSPCA board has been using its constitutional powers to shut down, victimise or take over local branches without proper consultation and has levied serious disciplinary accusations without procedural fairness.
The applicants claim that the NSPCA has strayed from its constitutional mission and is now acting more like a centralised authority, using audits and internal rules to oust dissenting leaders and possibly absorb society assets.
Societies in Tshwane, Highveld Ridge SPCA, Queenstown (Komani) and seven other towns are cited as examples where takeovers or closures occurred under controversial circumstances.
'Instead of supporting societies on the ground, the national body appears more interested in NSPCA building and silencing criticism,' said a legal representative for the applicants. 'The welfare of animals has become secondary to internal power struggles.'
The motion calls for an independent forensic investigation – led by a law firm or senior counsel – into the NSPCA's actions and the role of board members Marcelle Meredith, Annette Rademeyer and Hester Kotze. The applicants also ask the Minister of Agriculture to immediately appoint an interim board to take over NSPCA governance while investigations are under way.
Personal suspensions
In a dramatic move, the applicants are also requesting the provisional suspension of key NSPCA board members from all management and committee roles across the country. They seek a court order to bar these individuals from accessing NSPCA offices, contacting staff or using organisational resources until the investigation concludes.
This includes demands that laptops, vehicles and email access be returned or revoked.
'It's a highly unusual step, but one we believe necessary given the extent of the alleged misconduct,' said a source close to the applicants. 'There is a pattern of retaliation against whistle-blowers and local directors who resist NSPCA overreach.'
The dispute is also deeply personal. One of the central grievances stems from a series of findings issued by the NSPCA against the Bethlehem SPCA and its leadership, including statements that animals 'suffered under their watch'. These findings have had reputational consequences for local SPCA chairperson Corlene van der Merwe, who was removed from her post by the NSPCA following a disciplinary outcome letter in October 2024.
The applicants are challenging those decisions in court, saying they were based on incomplete investigations, lacked procedural fairness and were used as a pretext to remove uncooperative local leaders. They want all such findings reviewed and set aside.
'The damage to our reputations and to community trust has been immense,' said Van der Merwe 'We have dedicated our lives to this cause, and now we are being painted as villains without a fair hearing.'
Financial transparency under scrutiny
The motion also highlights serious financial concerns. One of the key demands is for the NSPCA to refund close to R900,000 in compulsory levies, paid by the Tshwane SPCA to the national council. The applicants allege that the NSPCA is hoarding funds meant for local animal welfare work.
They also seek a declaration that the NSPCA was responsible for the financial administration and management of the Tshwane SPCA between June 2024 and January 2025 – including records of medicine movement, property management and accounting.
'Funds meant for animals in Tshwane and other societies are sitting in national accounts, inaccessible,' said Jeanine Niemann, a co-applicant. 'We are calling this what it is – financial control dressed up as governance.'
In what could have far-reaching implications, the case also challenges several sections of the NSPCA constitution, the standard SPCA society constitution, and even aspects of the SPCA Act itself. The applicants argue that parts of these frameworks are unconstitutional or invalid, particularly clauses relating to member societies' voting rights, governance authority, transfer of societies' assets to the NSPCA and internal disciplinary processes.
They specifically target the definition of 'good standing' in the NSPCA constitution, as well as procedural rules that have allegedly been used to sideline local leadership.
Legal observers note that this opens the door to a broader conversation about the governance framework relating to the SPCA movement.
NSPCA responds
The NSPCA challenged allegations that it misuses audits or constitutional rules to oust dissenters or absorb local assets, calling them false.
'Our operations, including financial governance, are transparent, accountable and publicly reported every single year. Assertions that the NSPCA hoards funds or owes local societies levies are factually incorrect. Membership levies are prescribed by law and relate to specific legacy funds held for animal welfare.
'The Tshwane SPCA's legacy contribution (in terms of the Act) was paid over voluntarily by the Tshwane SPCA on 1 September 2023 after they received a R9-million legacy – way before the Board took action for failing to provide financial statements. These fees are similar to any statutory body with members.
'The current legal challenge is not about advancing animal welfare. Among the applicants are individuals whose conduct contradicts the values of the NSPCA, including a Society which has not had financial statements (as required by the Act) for TWO years and going on three, and another who was removed from leadership following findings of serious neglect resulting in animal suffering.
'This is a dispute driven by personal opinions and grievances of those who did wrong, not the welfare of animals.
Crisis of confidence
While the NSPCA has not yet filed answering papers, the case threatens to expose fractures within South Africa's animal welfare community – fractures that could have long-term consequences for how the sector is regulated and funded.
At stake is more than just leadership of one organisation: it appears to be a battle over governance, transparency and the future of collaborative animal protection in South Africa.
The applicants are pushing for accountability, but also for structural reform. If successful, their case could trigger similar claims by other SPCAs and could reshape how local and national animal welfare bodies coexist – and who holds ultimate power over the country's network of SPCAs.
The hearing date has not yet been set. For now, the country's most recognised animal protection body faces one of the most serious challenges in its recent history – not from outside forces, but from its own. DM