Legal Battle Deepens Over South African Lion Bone Export Quotas
The legal dispute regarding South Africa's captive lion bone trade has intensified in the Pretoria High Court. The National Council of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) and the EMS Foundation have been admitted as intervening respondents in a case initiated by the South African Predator Association (Sapa). Sapa seeks to compel the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment to set export quotas for 2024 and 2025, arguing the failure to do so is unlawful. However, the court clarified that the relief sought is procedural, aiming to force a decision rather than dictate a specific quota value, which could theoretically be zero. The EMS Foundation challenges whether any legal duty exists to set quotas at all, while the NSPCA argues that reinstating quotas would harm animal welfare and encourage the captive breeding industry. The court acknowledged the NSPCA's substantial interest due to its role in previous litigation that contributed to current bone stockpiles. This case determines if the state is legally required to regulate these exports under domestic law or international conventions, with significant implications for conservation policy and animal rights in South Africa.
Wire timeline
Legal Battle Deepens Over South African Lion Bone Export Quotas
The legal dispute regarding South Africa's captive lion bone trade has intensified in the Pretoria High Court. The National Council of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) and the EMS Foundation have been admitted as intervening respondents in a case initiated by the South African Predator Association (Sapa). Sapa seeks to compel the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment to set export quotas for 2024 and 2025, arguing the failure to do so is unlawful. However, the court clarified that the relief sought is procedural, aiming to force a decision rather than dictate a specific quota value, which could theoretically be zero. The EMS Foundation challenges whether any legal duty exists to set quotas at all, while the NSPCA argues that reinstating quotas would harm animal welfare and encourage the captive breeding industry. The court acknowledged the NSPCA's substantial interest due to its role in previous litigation that contributed to current bone stockpiles. This case determines if the state is legally required to regulate these exports under domestic law or international conventions, with significant implications for conservation policy and animal rights in South Africa.
The Mail & Guardian