Harvard legal scholars join battle to free elephants from Johannesburg Zoo

At the heart of the case is the claim that keeping elephants in the zoo violates South Africa's Constitution, particularly the environmental rights provision, as well as existing animal welfare legislation.
A landmark legal bid to free three elephants from captivity in the Johannesburg Zoo has gained international traction, with heavyweight legal scholars from Harvard Law School stepping forward in support of the case. The application – brought by Animal Law Reform South Africa, the EMS Foundation and Chief Stephen Fritz – is currently before the High Court in Pretoria.
Professor Kristen Stilt, the faculty director of the Brooks McCormick Jr Animal Law and Policy Program, and Dr Macarena Montes Franceschini, a visiting researcher at the Max Planck Institute, have formally applied to join the case as amici curiae (friends of the court), offering their expertise in animal law and public policy. Their participation is intended to help the court understand the broader societal and ethical implications of the case, especially given the elephants' complex cognitive and emotional capacities.
Constitutional rights
The applicants argue that the three elephants – Lammie, Mopane and Ramadiba – are confined in conditions that compromise their mental, emotional and physical well being, amounting to a state of significant distress.
Elephant experts argue that confinement in any urban zoo fails to meet the physical, mental and emotional needs of these highly intelligent and social creatures.
At the heart of the case is the claim that keeping elephants in the zoo violates South Africa's Constitution, particularly the environmental rights provision, as well as existing animal welfare legislation. Section 24 states that everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures.
The measures prevent pollution and ecological degradation, promote conservation and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
In addition, the organisations and Fritz said animals in captivity constitute biodiversity for the purposes of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act.
'The applicants (Animal Law Reform SA, EMS Foundation and Fritz) contend that, on proper interpretation of section 24 of the Constitution, and the legislation enacted to give effect to section 24, the right enjoyed by everyone to have the environment protected requires that the welfare and wellbeing of individual animals be considered and promoted.'
Pushback
The Johannesburg Zoo, however, has pushed back, asserting that the elephants receive adequate care and attention. The zoo claims that the groups behind the legal effort are driven by ideology rather than concern for the animals' actual welfare.
However, public sentiment appears to be turning against the zoo's legal resistance. South Africans have voiced their anger on social media, particularly given the City of Johannesburg's broader financial and infrastructural crises. The Auditor-General recently reported more than R1-billion in wasteful expenditure, raising concerns about the cost of the ongoing litigation.
Critics have pointed to Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo's own Integrated Annual Report (2023/24), which emphasises avoiding prolonged legal battles in favour of settlements that save public funds.
Despite this, the City continues to defend the elephants' captivity in court, a move seen by many as both fiscally irresponsible and ethically indefensible.
The case of Charlie the elephant
Still, pressure continues to build, especially following the recent relocation of Charlie – the last elephant at the National Zoological Gardens in Pretoria – to a sanctuary. That move is being hailed as a progressive step in aligning elephant care with contemporary animal welfare standards.
That historic event was the result of years of negotiation between the zoo, the EMS Foundation and the Pro Elephant Network.
Charlie had witnessed three of his friends die prematurely. He also lost his daughter when she was less than a month old. He was captured in Hwange, Zimbabwe, 44 years ago and was trained in the Boswell Wilkie Circus. When it closed down he was transferred to the Natal Lion Park and then, in 2001, to the Pretoria Zoo where he languished before his eventual release in 2024.
As they did with Charlie (now named Duma), the EMS Foundation has offered the same alternative: relocating the three elephants to the secure, protected sanctuary at Shambala Game Reserve in the Waterberg where they can gradually reintegrate into a natural habitat. The plan, as it has with Charlie, includes a comprehensive rehabilitation process under the guidance of wildlife veterinarians, welfare experts and logistical teams.
The Johannesburg case is being watched closely, since it feeds into a larger and ongoing debate: should elephants be kept in captivity at all, especially in urban zoos? The involvement of respected legal scholars from Harvard is a significant development. Their support underscores the global relevance of the case and the shifting legal and moral paradigm around the rights of non-human animals.
Deputy Judge President Ledwaba will hear arguments on the amicus application on 2 September. His decision could shape the outcome of one of the most significant animal rights cases this country has seen. DM

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Eyewitness News

11 hours ago

• Eyewitness News

Changes to MK Party's parliamentary caucus excludes former SG Floyd Shivambu

CAPE TOWN - The uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party has announced changes to its parliamentary caucus, which doesn't include its former secretary general, Floyd Shivambu. The party announced recently that Shivambu would be heading to Parliament following his removal as secretary general for visiting a wanted fugitive, Pastor Shepherd Bushiri, in Malawi earlier in 2025. ALSO READ: - 'I will never resign from the MK Party,' says Shivambu - Floyd Shivambu: 'I don't beg for membership of political organisations' - Shivambu: The president of the MK Party is surrounded by political scoundrels The MK Party has now added nine new members to its caucus after the window for parties to make changes to their lists started in June. It announced on Saturday that nine new members would be sworn in as members of Parliament (MPs) on Wednesday. The party said the new members will fill nine vacant seats in accordance with Section 47 of the Constitution. The MK Party's new caucus members include Khanyisile Litchfield, who was a member of the African National Congress (ANC) before joining the Economic Freed Fighters (EFF) when the red berets first arrived in Parliament in 2014, before losing her seat in 2015. Litchfield later joined the United Democratic Movement (UDM), serving as its deputy president, before leaving the organisation. Another new addition to the MK Party list is Noma Buthelezi, who served as the spokesperson of the MK Party Youth League in KwaZulu-Natal. The list also includes Lungisani Graduate Shangase, Jeffrey Bhekumndeni Mtolo, Zibuse Cele, Siphetho Mkhize, Philisande Mkhize, Gift Motaung, and Ntandoyenkosi Shezi. With Shivambu no longer heading to Parliament, the party also distanced itself from Shivambu's briefing on Thursday, where he discussed matters facing the country and also criticised his MK Party colleagues. While Shivambu hinted at starting a new party, he said he remains a member of the MK Party.

The South African

12 hours ago

• The South African

Democrats demand Donald Trump's impeachment over Iran strikes

Progressive Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and several fellow Democrats have demanded the impeachment of US President Donald Trump. This follows his decision to bomb Iran's top nuclear facilities. They condemned the strike as 'unconstitutional' and a serious breach of Congressional war powers. Ocasio-Cortez stated firmly, 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorisation is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers.' She warned that Trump 'has impulsively risked launching a war that may entangle us for generations. It is grounds for impeachment.' The airstrike has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers across party lines. Many expressed outrage over the unilateral military action, according to the New York Post. The strike targeted key nuclear sites in Iran, escalating tensions in an already volatile region. The situation highlights the dangers of unchecked executive power in international conflicts. The risk of prolonged warfare affects global stability and economic markets, including those linked to South Africa. The Rand could face volatility amid rising geopolitical tensions. A South African political analyst commented, 'This move by Donald Trump echoes the importance of constitutional checks and balances. It reminds us why parliamentary oversight is crucial in decisions of war and peace.' The call for impeachment reflects deep concern over the potential consequences of the strike. It underscores the need for democratic accountability in foreign policy decisions that can impact global security. Trump's Iran strike has ignited fierce debate in the US political arena. Progressive voices like Ocasio-Cortez lead the charge, demanding that such unilateral actions face constitutional scrutiny. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.

IOL News

19 hours ago

• IOL News

The Constitutional Court at 30: Time for a critical reflection

Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu The Constitutional Court is an apex court in the land. Its responsibility is to uphold the country's constitution and to protect human rights. Over the years, significant changes have occurred within this institution. The court has been led by different judges, passed different judgements, and interacted with various high-ranking individuals and political parties. This has earned the court accolades and criticisms from different people. Having existed since the dawn of democracy, it is the opportune moment to reflect on how the court has performed. In so doing, it is fair to consider both its highs and lows. In 1993 as the country drew closer to turning a new page by moving from a racial era to the current political dispensation, an interim constitution was passed. It was this interim constitution which guided the first democratic election in 1994. The motivating factor was that at the time the judiciary was predominantly white male. As such, it lacked legitimacy since it did not represent the multiracial South African community. It was necessary, therefore, to establish a court that would protect the Constitution against anyone. The Constitutional Court formerly opened its doors on 15 February 1995. It then facilitated the adoption of the 1996 constitution which is currently in place. As was expected, the new constitution confirmed the existence of the Constitutional Court which has 11 judges. These include the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and 9 other judges. It used interim offices before moving to the Constitution Hill in Braamfontein where it currently sits. The signature case for the court was the case between the state and Makwanyane in 1995 on the death penalty. At the centre of this case was whether it was constitutional or not to use the death penalty under the new political dispensation. Delivering its judgement on 6 June 1995, the court unanimously agreed that indeed the death penalty was against the country's constitution, especially Sections 10 on human dignity, 11 on the right to life, and 12 on freedom and security of the person. This was a landmark case which saw South Africa ending the death penalty which led to the loss of life of many liberation fighters at the hands of the apartheid operatives and their racist government. Since then, the court has passed judgements on various cases including equality, violence, socio-economic rights, and political cases. There have also been cases on privacy and religion. But while it is true that the court has tried its level best to uphold the constitution, and to interpret the constitution as part of its contribution to democratic consolidation, there have been instances where the court has been on the receiving end of the South African public. The question is why has the public been critical of this court? Importantly, what should the court do to redeem its public image? The first concern about this court is that it spends more time dealing with political cases. Even parliament runs to this court about issues which should be resolved by parliament. In this regard, the concern is that the court is too accessible to politicians. Political parties like the DA have frequented the court about issues which should have been addressed by parliament. This has tarnished the image of the court. Another accusation against the Constitutional Court is its weaponisation by the political elite. Some judges are accused of being too sympathetic to certain politicians while being excessively harsh against others. The removal of Adv. Busisiwe Mkhwebane from her position as Public Protector and the impeachment of Judge Hlophe were interpreted by the public as evidence of the politicisation of the court. The argument was that the court was used to fight political battles. Whether these accusations are true or not is not the main issue. What is concerning is that the court has lost credibility in the public eye. The Zondo Commission had many instances which painted the court in a bad light. Firstly, the public was concerned about the appointment of Chief Justice Raymond Zondo to head the Commission. Part of the reason was that Zondo was not the best candidate that was recommended by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to President Ramaphosa. Justice Mandisa Maya received the nod. However, Ramaphosa used his constitutional prerogative and appointed Zondo to be the Chief Justice. As the Commission carried out its work, the Constitutional Court was drawn in. Firstly, Zondo was seen to be lacking objectivity. He was accused of being too harsh against Former President Zuma but too soft on President Ramaphosa. This resulted in Zuma refusing to return to the Commission. Zondo approached the Constitutional Court directly. Not only did he lay a charge against Zuma, but he also prescribed a sentence of two years. This raised eyebrows because the litigant also assumed the position of a judge. In its judgement, the court forced Zuma to return to the Commission. It also removed his right to remain silent – the same right which had been given to other witnesses like the late Dudu Myeni. Once again, the court was accused of being biased. When Justice Sisi Khampepe was appointed Acting Chief Justice, she read her judgement against Zuma in an angry tone. She sentenced Zuma in absentia to 15 months in prison. This resulted in the loss of many lives, loss of jobs, and the destruction of the infrastructure. Many businesses which closed in 2021 never recovered. This tainted the image of the court. Given these instances, the second question about the future of this court becomes relevant. Going forward, the court should take these criticisms seriously, identify those that are factual and act on them, but also consider the rest that have not been substantiated and investigate them to confirm their authenticity. The two main issues that the court should take seriously include too much accessibility to it by politicians and the weaponization of the court by politicians. Failure to address these would further tarnish the court's public image. * Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu is Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.