Statutory body, not a political watchdog — NSPCA's interference in cabinet picks is out of order
Key topics:
NSPCA oversteps mandate, pushing animal-rights agenda over welfare law.
Organization interferes in national policy, threatening democratic governance.
Ideological bias undermines South Africa’s sustainable-use conservation model.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.
If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.
By Trevor Oertel*
The recent public utterances by the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA), in which they presume to question Minister John Steenhuisen’s appointment of Minister Willie Aucamp and, by extension, the prerogative of the President of South Africa, are not only profoundly inappropriate, they represent an astonishing level of institutional arrogance.
Who exactly do the NSPCA think they are?
A statutory body tasked with the prevention of cruelty to animals now not only believes it has the authority to challenge decisions of the Executive but also that the Executive is answerable to it? This overreach is as unacceptable as it is revealing.
A statutory Body Gone Rogue
The NSPCA’s mandate is simple and very clearly defined: preventing cruelty to animals and enforcing existing animal-welfare laws.
Yet, in recent years, the NSPCA has abandoned this mandate in favour of a full-blown animal-rights agenda, one that is fundamentally at odds with:
• South Africa’s sustainable-use conservation model
• Constitutional imperatives
• National legislation
• International conservation frameworks (including CITES and IUCN positions supporting sustainable utilization)
The NSPCA is no longer a welfare organisation grounded in science and lawful mandate. It has morphed into an ideological campaign machine parroting the positions of foreign-funded animal-rights lobbies. Senior management, past and present, have openly aligned themselves with organizations whose stated objective is not animal welfare but the abolition of all forms of legal wildlife utilization, including hunting, regardless of the conservation science, economic realities, or rural livelihoods affected.
This animal rights dogma is not surprising if one considers that the recently-retired CEO of the NSPCA, Marcelle Meredith, served as a board member of the rabid multi-million-pound UK-based animal rights organization World Animal Protection (WAP), representing Africa, for a term of more than 15 years. WAP recently published a study titled, “Attitudes of local communities to wildlife conservation and non-consumptive, alternative income sources, near Kruger National Park, South Africa,” where it not only acknowledges that “Public pressure could end trophy-hunting of wildlife, potentially negatively affecting species conservation and the human communities that depend upon the revenue hunting generates”, but also their role in fuelling this “public pressure” with their anti-hunting campaigns, campaigns that the NSPCA actively supports and promotes, as sustainable use offends the organisation.
Interfering in National Policy and Democratic Governance
The NSPCA’s latest attack on Minister Steenhuisen is not merely inappropriate, it is a direct violation of their statutory role.
Read more:
They have no legal, moral, or institutional authority to dictate:
• who should or should not serve as Minister,
• what the President’s Cabinet portfolios ought to be,
• or what conservation policies South Africa must adopt.
Such behaviour is an affront to democratic governance. It is unprofessional, undemocratic, and deeply unbecoming of a statutory body.
Undermining South Africa’s Conservation Success
In choosing to campaign against:
• legal regulated hunting,
• the sustainable-use model, and
• the rights of landowners and rural communities to benefit from wildlife,
The NSPCA has positioned itself against the very practices that have made South Africa a global conservation leader.
They are now openly advocating for policies:
• that decimate wildlife populations elsewhere,
• that undermine economic incentives for habitat protection,
• and that contradict every major scientific body’s position on sustainable use.
This is activism, not animal welfare.
A Statutory Body Cannot Be Ideologically Captured
Given that the NSPCA is empowered under the SPCA Act to conduct inspections, lay criminal charges, and influence enforcement, the fact that it has embraced an extremist animal-rights ideology is cause for national concern.
The NSPCA has been complicit in trying to shape policy and legislation towards animal rights leanings for many years. Its members have not only interfered in legislation, but have been active in calls for boycotts and embargoes should they not get their way.
Possibly one of the greatest travesties committed by the NSPCA was its interference in the then Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries’ (DAFF) drafting of a new “Animal Welfare Act”, as this Act would have diluted the NSPCA power base by acknowledging other welfare organizations. This and other sabotage campaigns by the NSPCA have been communicated to various Ministers and Parliamentary Portfolio Committees over the years, questioning the suitability of the NSPCA to function as a statutory body.
A cursory view of the NSPCA’s 9-page “Statement of Policy” document, its 103-page “Position Statement” document and social media will leave one in no doubt of the NSPCA’s animal rights bona fides, where everything from pigeon racing, fishing, hunting, to eating meat “is opposed”. How far does “opposed” stretch? Overzealous inspectors have demanded the withdrawal of all legal permits from law-abiding citizens because, in the NSPCA’s view, they are in contravention of the Animals Protection Act No 71 of 1962, and attempted prosecutions that the National Prosecution Authority withdrew as they have no basis in law.
The NSPCA no longer acts on objective cruelty or real animal welfare, but on subjective, ideological definitions of “harm” that have no grounding in science, no basis in law, and no place in a statutory institution. This warrants investigation.
The NSPCA likes to play the poor relative while aligning itself with not only international animal rights groups but also local organizations. These are all coming out and objecting to the appointment of Minister Aucamp, such as the EMS Foundation run by animal rightist Michele Pickover who seems to have carte blanche with the Steyn billions, money made off the backs of hard-working farmers, hunters, pigeon fanciers and many other ‘undesirables’.
A statutory body cannot be allowed to drift into ideological activism while retaining legal enforcement powers.
In general, an organization with a strong, inherent bias based on an animal-rights position would face significant legal and ethical challenges. The core principle of a regulatory body is to be impartial and apply the established law as written, free from actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
Core Conflict
Animal Welfare seeks to minimize animal suffering and ensure humane treatment within the existing framework of human use, be it agriculture, research, entertainment, breeding, pet ownership, etc.
Animal Rights fundamentally opposes the use of animals for human gain, advocating for an end to their status as property and the cessation of all such activities.
A statutory regulatory role requires the enforcement of the existing laws, which are predominantly based on animal welfare frameworks and legally permit the use of animals for specific purposes under defined conditions. An organization whose mission is to end all such use would be in direct conflict with the very laws it is tasked to regulate and enforce.
Legal and Ethical Impediments
Requirement for impartiality: Regulatory bodies and their members must be impartial and have an open mind when making decisions. A strong, avowed bias (e.g. the belief that animal use is inherently wrong) would violate this principle.
Conflict of interest: A conflict of interest, actual or perceived, arises when an organization’s foundational mission could influence its regulatory decisions. An animal-rights group regulating a lion captive-breeding farm, for example, would have a perceived conflict because its goal is to stop the activities the farm is legally permitted to conduct.
Due process: The regulated entities have a right to procedural fairness and due process. Decisions made by a biased body would be open to legal challenge and potential reversal on the grounds of unfairness.
Rule of law: The state has an obligation to enforce the law as passed by the legislature. An organization that actively works to undermine or effectively nullify the intent of that legislation would be working against the rule of law.
Read more:
Again, in light of this, does the NSPCA itself acknowledge its bias and inappropriateness to function as a statutory body and explain why it opposes any reference to it being an animal rights organization so fervently? This too warrants investigation.
Stay Within Your Mandate
The NSPCA must be reminded, firmly, that:
• it is not a political movement,
• it is not a policy-making entity,
• it claims it’s not an animal-rights organisation,
• and it certainly is not the moral compass of South Africa.
The prevention of cruelty to animals is a noble and essential mandate.
But attempting to dictate national conservation policy, undermine sustainable use, and challenge the authority of Cabinet appointments is a gross violation of that mandate.
The NSPCA must be held accountable for its mission drift, and its suitability as a statutory body must be urgently reviewed.
If it wishes to behave like an animal-rights NGO, let it relinquish their statutory powers and operate as one, without the privilege and authority granted to it by the South African state.
*Trevor Oertel is a South African businessman, conservationist and wildlife enthusiast. His passion is falconry, a pursuit he has followed since childhood, specifically hunting ducks and partridges under peregrine falcons. Oertel has served various ministers of environmental affairs as a member of the Minister's Wildlife Forum. He is an executive committee member of the Sustainable Use Coalition of Southern Africa (SUCo-SA) and has represented SUCo-SA at CITES meetings in Panama and Geneva.
This article was first published by Daily Friend and is republished with permission