Quote of the week

Mr Zuma is no ordinary litigant. He is the former President of the Republic, who remains a public figure and continues to wield significant political influence, while acting as an example to his supporters… He has a great deal of power to incite others to similarly defy court orders because his actions and any consequences, or lack thereof, are being closely observed by the public. If his conduct is met with impunity, he will do significant damage to the rule of law. As this Court noted in Mamabolo, “[n]o one familiar with our history can be unaware of the very special need to preserve the integrity of the rule of law”. Mr Zuma is subject to the laws of the Republic. No person enjoys exclusion or exemption from the sovereignty of our laws… It would be antithetical to the value of accountability if those who once held high office are not bound by the law.

Khampepe j
Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 18
23 January 2007

Holy Bull!

Here is a question for the next South African edition of Trivial Pursuit: When can one “infuriate” or “goad” an animal without exposing oneself to criminal sanction and a one year jail term?

No, THIS time the answer is not that one can do so as long as one happens to be an ex chief whip of the ruling party or some other high up in the ANC hierarchy. It so happens that all of us can infuriate or goad (or neglect or torture or terrify) animals as we wish – as long as the said animals are not living in captivity.

This, in any case, is what the Animal Protection Act 71 of 1962 says. The Act states that anyone who, amongst others, “overloads, overdrives, overrides, ill-treats, neglects, infuriates [I kid you not!], tortures or maims or cruelly beats, kicks, goads or terrifies any animal is guilty of a criminal offence”.

An animal is defined as:

any equine, bovine, sheep, goat, pig, fowl, ostrich, dog, cat, or other domestic animal or bird, or any wild animal, wild animal, wild bird or reptile which is in captivity or under control of any person.

Now the SPCA wants to use this act to have Mr Tony Yengeni prosecuted for cruelty towards the bull for the ritual stabbing of the bull before it was slaughtered and presumably eaten as part of a cleansing ceremony (although I would hope that, like lady Macbeth, Mr Yengeni is never going to feel completely cleansed again).

The poor bull must indeed have been quite infuriated after being stabbed by Mr Yengeni – of all people. Being stabbed by Mr Yengeni must almost have been as infuriating as being killed with your brothers and sisters at an abattoir and then put in little plastic packets and sold at the Checkers.

To my mind the SPCA’s move against Mr Yengeni is both laughable and culturally arrogant.

It is laughable because the relevant legislation is anachronistic in the extreme and reminds us all of the hypocritical way in which our society deals with animals. Just think:

  • The law allows us to kill and eat some (but not other) animals as long as the killing is done far away from prying eyes in abattoirs – all to keep in tact the fiction of humane slaughtering;
  • We can eat and kill animals but we cannot have sex with animals – ever;
  • We can torture and kill any animal – mice, say – as long as we do not keep the animals as pets; and
  • Many of us are horrified by the killing of seals, say, or furry little monkeys, but would not think twice before exterminating mosquitos or cockroaches.

As a matter of personal virtue one might say that it is better not kill an animal unless its absolutely necessary because the animal is infuriating you by, say, being as ugly as a cockroach. But to criminalise bad behaviour towards all animals in captivity while sanctioning the wholesale commercial slaughter of the same animals, seem very weird.

It is also culturally arrogant because the law encompasses a certain uptight, Calvinist view of how so called “civilized” people have to behave towards animals. It does not take into account the cultural attitudes of the vast majority of South Africans who may not be able to afford to have such sentimental and confusing views of (certain) animals.

Cleansing ceremonies involving the slaughter of cattle is a deeply rooted cultural practice – up there with the twirling of koeksisters and drinking oneself stupid and aggressive at a braai.

This law was adopted in 1962 by the apartheid Parliament as a attempt to impose certain so called Western standards on people living in cities. To now use such a law against individuals who are merely practicing their cultural traditions seem perverse.

Some regulation of the slaughtering of animals or even the treatment of animals held in captivity by humans, may be acceptable or even required, although given our warped attitudes towards different kinds of animals such regulation will always be anachronistic in some way or another.

Of course, one can also ask why this law has not been amended or repealed, more than 12 years after the advent of democracy? Some ANC types may well holler about the racists who are trying to use the law against fraudster Yengeni, acting as if the Parliament does not have the power to amend the law. But that is a story for another day.

2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest