Recently, the SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and the Police made a gruelling discovery on Modderfontein farm. Animals were found to have been without water and food for a week, possibly two. There were no farm-workers on the property, no electricity, and the water pumps were broken. A number of pigs on the farm had begun cannibalising other dead pigs, and were reportedly drinking their own urine.
The NSPA (National Council of SPCAs) recently released a statement confirming that criminal charges in terms of the Animals Protection Act would be laid against all involved whose actions or negligence led to animals suffering to the point of starvation and resorting to eating one another at the Modderfontein farm in the North West Province. The farm in question is owned by Thandi Modise, the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces. The full statement went on to outline the series of events that resulted in the SPCAs from Parys and Potchefstroom engaging with the “dire situation for the animals on the property”.
The immediate question that this statement raises is under what provisions could Modise be held criminally liable under the Animals Protection Act.
The Animals Protection Act
The Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 (last amended in 1997) is aimed at consolidating and amending the laws relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. The Act gives the term “animal” quite a broad meaning. The term encompasses any equine, bovine, sheep, goat, pig, fowl or ostrich which is in captivity or under the control of any person.
In terms of the Act, an “owner,” in relation to an animal, includes any person having the possession, charge, custody or control of that animal. For present purposes, the relevant section is section 2 which is entitled “[o]ffences in respect of animals”. Under this section, a person is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months if they, amongst other things, unnecessarily starve, under-feed or deny an animal water or food. The owner of the animal is guilty of the same offence if they permit the commission or omission of the above.
Moreover, if the person concerned is the owner of the animal in question then they would be guilty of an offence if they, amongst other things, deliberately or without reasonable cause or excuse, abandon the animal whether permanently or not, in circumstances likely to cause that animal unnecessary suffering. Unfortunately, the Act does not define the term “abandon”.
However, it imposes a presumption under which the owner of any animal is deemed to have permitted or procured the commission or omission of any act in relation to that animal, if by the exercise of reasonable care and supervision in respect of that animal, he or she could have prevented the commission or omission of such act.
Given the lack of facts, it would be futile to speculate on the manner in which this matter would proceed if indeed the NSPA pursues criminal charges in terms of the Act for the unfortunate events that occurred on Modderfontein farm. However, based on the law, Modise would most probably constitute an “owner” in relation to the animals that are and were on her farm.
It appears that if the prosecution could show that an offence had been committed and that Modise, through the exercise of reasonable care and supervision, could have prevented the commission or omission of such act, then she would have to rebut the presumption that she permitted the commission or omission of the act. In any event, it should not be forgotten amongst all the politicking and back and forth arguing, that the most unfortunate creatures in the present circumstances are the animals concerned.
Comments
Share On
