South Africa’s Constitutional Court (ConCourt) has delivered an important victory for animal protection, but one that is not final.
This ruling leaves legislation intact that requires decision-makers to consider the well-being of wild animals when making decisions about their management, conservation, and ‘(ecologically) sustainable use’.
The judgment was handed down on 9 October. It followed a challenge by the South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association, which sought to have the animal well-being provisions in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) declared invalid.
The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) and the EMS Foundation opposed this challenge. The ConCourt dismissed the application because it had been submitted too late. So, although it did not decide the constitutional challenge on its merits, the existing legal protections remain in place for the moment.
But the battle is not yet over. Why is this worth fighting for?
For a long time, wildlife conservation has largely been measured in terms of populations, species and habitats. How many animals are left? Is a species threatened with extinction? Is its habitat protected?
These remain important questions, but they do not tell the whole story. An animal may belong to a growing population and still experience pain, fear, distress or poor living conditions ill-suited to its needs.
The legislation defines animal well-being broadly, considering the circumstances and conditions that affect an animal’s physical and physiological health, mental health and quality of life, including its ability to cope with its environment. It requires sensitivity regarding animals’ well-being when they are managed, conserved or used.
This represents an important shift in perspective. Wild animals are not simply numbers in a population survey, resources to be harvested or assets to be managed. They are living, sentient beings with their own needs and experiences.
The implications naturally extend beyond hunting. Decisions about wildlife management, captivity, relocation, research and other human activities may raise questions about the well-being of the animals concerned. The law does not mean that every activity affecting an animal is automatically prohibited, nor does it remove the need to balance competing conservation objectives. It establishes that ensuring the animals’ well-being must be part of the decision-making process.
This is particularly significant when human interests and animal welfare conflict. A practice when dealing with animals may be convenient, profitable or traditionally acceptable, but that does not make any animals’ suffering associated with such practices irrelevant. Decisions should be informed by up-to-date evidence and should consider the consequences for the animals themselves.
The ruling also reinforces the close relationship between animal welfare and environmental protection. Section 24 of the Bill of Rights of South Africa’s Constitution recognises everyone’s right to an environment that is not harmful to health or well-being and requires environmental protection for the benefit of present and future generations.
Courts recognise that protecting biodiversity and preventing animal suffering are connected responsibilities.
However, a legal principle is only as effective as its implementation. Following the ConCourt’s ruling, the challenge is to ensure that government policies, regulations, permits and practical decisions incorporate animal well-being. It must be more than a phrase in legislation.
For conservationists, environmental organisations and concerned members of the public, the judgment provides an important foundation to build on. It encourages us to ask not only whether a species survives, but also how individual animals experience the lives we shape for them.
Well-founded conservation practices must protect the natural systems wildlife depends on, as well as the animals living within them. South Africa has taken an important step towards recognising that these responsibilities are interconnected.
Read the very pertinent article by Adam Cruise in the Daily Maverick of 15 October – https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2026-10-15-the-arrogance-of-scientific- certainty-cape-towns-baboons-deserve-ethics-not- imprisonment/
Enjoyed this story? Get the whole paper first
The top stories and the whole edition, in your inbox the moment the new paper is out.
