Latest news with #UniformRulesofCourt
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Legal battle erupts over control and conduct of NSPCA
Two local SPCA societies are taking the national body to court with a list of serious allegations. The NSPCA says it's about personal grievances and not animal welfare. A major legal storm is brewing in South Africa's animal welfare sector as multiple local branches of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) take the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) and its board to court, alleging mismanagement, bullying and a toxic culture of centralised control that is crippling grassroots operations. Led by Marius Dreyer, chairperson of the Bethlehem SPCA, several applicants have filed an amended notice of motion in the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria under Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The applicants include directors and management committee members from both the Bethlehem and Tshwane SPCAs. They are asking the court to order sweeping investigations into the conduct of the NSPCA leadership and to suspend several high-profile board members pending the outcome of the probes. At the heart of the dispute is a deepening rift between local SPCA societies and the national body mandated to support them. According to the applicants, the NSPCA board has been using its constitutional powers to shut down, victimise or take over local branches without proper consultation and has levied serious disciplinary accusations without procedural fairness. The applicants claim that the NSPCA has strayed from its constitutional mission and is now acting more like a centralised authority, using audits and internal rules to oust dissenting leaders and possibly absorb society assets. Societies in Tshwane, Highveld Ridge SPCA, Queenstown (Komani) and seven other towns are cited as examples where takeovers or closures occurred under controversial circumstances. 'Instead of supporting societies on the ground, the national body appears more interested in NSPCA building and silencing criticism,' said a legal representative for the applicants. 'The welfare of animals has become secondary to internal power struggles.' The motion calls for an independent forensic investigation – led by a law firm or senior counsel – into the NSPCA's actions and the role of board members Marcelle Meredith, Annette Rademeyer and Hester Kotze. The applicants also ask the Minister of Agriculture to immediately appoint an interim board to take over NSPCA governance while investigations are under way. Personal suspensions In a dramatic move, the applicants are also requesting the provisional suspension of key NSPCA board members from all management and committee roles across the country. They seek a court order to bar these individuals from accessing NSPCA offices, contacting staff or using organisational resources until the investigation concludes. This includes demands that laptops, vehicles and email access be returned or revoked. 'It's a highly unusual step, but one we believe necessary given the extent of the alleged misconduct,' said a source close to the applicants. 'There is a pattern of retaliation against whistle-blowers and local directors who resist NSPCA overreach.' The dispute is also deeply personal. One of the central grievances stems from a series of findings issued by the NSPCA against the Bethlehem SPCA and its leadership, including statements that animals 'suffered under their watch'. These findings have had reputational consequences for local SPCA chairperson Corlene van der Merwe, who was removed from her post by the NSPCA following a disciplinary outcome letter in October 2024. The applicants are challenging those decisions in court, saying they were based on incomplete investigations, lacked procedural fairness and were used as a pretext to remove uncooperative local leaders. They want all such findings reviewed and set aside. 'The damage to our reputations and to community trust has been immense,' said Van der Merwe 'We have dedicated our lives to this cause, and now we are being painted as villains without a fair hearing.' Financial transparency under scrutiny The motion also highlights serious financial concerns. One of the key demands is for the NSPCA to refund close to R900,000 in compulsory levies, paid by the Tshwane SPCA to the national council. The applicants allege that the NSPCA is hoarding funds meant for local animal welfare work. They also seek a declaration that the NSPCA was responsible for the financial administration and management of the Tshwane SPCA between June 2024 and January 2025 – including records of medicine movement, property management and accounting. 'Funds meant for animals in Tshwane and other societies are sitting in national accounts, inaccessible,' said Jeanine Niemann, a co-applicant. 'We are calling this what it is – financial control dressed up as governance.' In what could have far-reaching implications, the case also challenges several sections of the NSPCA constitution, the standard SPCA society constitution, and even aspects of the SPCA Act itself. The applicants argue that parts of these frameworks are unconstitutional or invalid, particularly clauses relating to member societies' voting rights, governance authority, transfer of societies' assets to the NSPCA and internal disciplinary processes. They specifically target the definition of 'good standing' in the NSPCA constitution, as well as procedural rules that have allegedly been used to sideline local leadership. Legal observers note that this opens the door to a broader conversation about the governance framework relating to the SPCA movement. NSPCA responds The NSPCA challenged allegations that it misuses audits or constitutional rules to oust dissenters or absorb local assets, calling them false. 'Our operations, including financial governance, are transparent, accountable and publicly reported every single year. Assertions that the NSPCA hoards funds or owes local societies levies are factually incorrect. Membership levies are prescribed by law and relate to specific legacy funds held for animal welfare. 'The Tshwane SPCA's legacy contribution (in terms of the Act) was paid over voluntarily by the Tshwane SPCA on 1 September 2023 after they received a R9-million legacy – way before the Board took action for failing to provide financial statements. These fees are similar to any statutory body with members. 'The current legal challenge is not about advancing animal welfare. Among the applicants are individuals whose conduct contradicts the values of the NSPCA, including a Society which has not had financial statements (as required by the Act) for TWO years and going on three, and another who was removed from leadership following findings of serious neglect resulting in animal suffering. 'This is a dispute driven by personal opinions and grievances of those who did wrong, not the welfare of animals. Crisis of confidence While the NSPCA has not yet filed answering papers, the case threatens to expose fractures within South Africa's animal welfare community – fractures that could have long-term consequences for how the sector is regulated and funded. At stake is more than just leadership of one organisation: it appears to be a battle over governance, transparency and the future of collaborative animal protection in South Africa. The applicants are pushing for accountability, but also for structural reform. If successful, their case could trigger similar claims by other SPCAs and could reshape how local and national animal welfare bodies coexist – and who holds ultimate power over the country's network of SPCAs. The hearing date has not yet been set. For now, the country's most recognised animal protection body faces one of the most serious challenges in its recent history – not from outside forces, but from its own. DM
Daily Maverick
01-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
EFF vs fuel levy increase — court challenge tests legality of fiscal decisions
The EFF has filed an urgent court bid to block Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana's fuel levy hike, arguing it is irrational, economically harmful and unlawfully implemented. This is not just the EFF showing commitment to its stance against the increase, but a relatively novel legal precedent that could have far-reaching implications. A last-minute legal bid On Thursday, 29 May, the EFF filed papers in the Western Cape Division of the High Court to block a fuel levy increase announced eight days earlier during the Minister of Finance's Budget 3.0 tabling. The case makes an unusual use of Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court — a procedural mechanism regularly used to challenge administrative decisions — to challenge a fiscal measure introduced by the Treasury in Budget 3.0. 'We took this action after repeated efforts to caution the minister and appeal to his conscience failed,' said the party in a statement issued on the same day, stating that an increase without a Money Bill 'risks the entire national Budget being declared invalid by the courts'. Though it hasn't sparked the same political uproar as the aborted VAT hike, the fuel levy increase is just as important, as a fuel increase touches aspects of almost all supply chains, increasing costs across every facet of life. As economist Dawie Roodt told Daily Maverick, '… in terms of the effect on the poor, that is pretty much the same as the VAT increase'. The fuel levy increase — 16c per litre for petrol and 15c for diesel — is scheduled to come into effect on 4 June. The EFF is seeking urgent relief before this happens. The EFF Treasurer-General, Omphile Maotwe, told Newzroom Afrika the Treasury intended to gazette the increase on 3 June, 'to allow us no window or opportunity to interdict', hence the urgent application. The EFF's legal logic The application has two parts: Part A seeks an urgent interdict halting the increase and Part B calls for a full review and potential nullification of the decision, with the EFF arguing the increase must be reviewed in light of worsening inflation, stagnant wages and the fallout from the abandoned VAT hike. While it's true that the fuel levy is a regressive tax, Roodt argues that the Treasury's hands are largely tied regarding other measures to generate revenue. 'South Africa's tax burden is already dramatically redistributive. You can't make it more so,' he said. In its founding affidavit, the EFF argues that the fuel levy hike is procedurally flawed and substantively irrational. There was no consultation with Parliament, no socioeconomic impact assessment and no engagement with affected sectors. The party says the decision punishes low- and middle-income households already buckling under cost-of-living pressures. While the minister has statutory power to adjust the levy, the EFF argues that using this mechanism — without oversight or legislative process — amounts to executive overreach. The party called the increase 'yet another demonstration of the anti-black, anti-poor, neoliberal Budget the ANC government continues to impose on the people of South Africa'. No word yet from Treasury By the time of publication, the National Treasury had not responded to detailed questions from Daily Maverick about whether a socioeconomic impact study had been carried out, whether consultations with industry had occurred, and what the Treasury would do if an interdict were granted. This article will be updated once a response is received. Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni did not discuss the fuel levy, but defended the broader Budget at a briefing to the media on Friday, 30 May. 'This pro-poor Budget means [that] on every rand, 61 cents of consolidated, non-interest expenditure funds will be spent on free basic services … social grants for those in need.' A silent tax indeed The fuel levy is often called a 'silent tax' — embedded in pump prices and not itemised like VAT. Its revenue flows into the National Revenue Fund and is not earmarked for roads or transport. Between 2012 and 2022, the general fuel levy rose from R1.77 to R3.93. It now accounts for about 6-7% of pump prices. The 2025 increase is expected to raise R2.9-billion. Filling a 50-litre tank will cost about R8 more — a cost that ripples through logistics, transport and food prices. Unlike some OECD countries, South Africa lacks fuel subsidies or robust public transport, making the levy a heavier burden for poor households. Can fiscal decisions be challenged in court? Yes, as the EFF and DA's challenge of the VAT hike showed clearly — but this time the mechanism is different. That case primarily rested on constitutional and procedural grounds. In this matter, the EFF is invoking Rule 53, seeking a review of the minister's decision. The rule requires the state to produce the full record of decision-making, allowing the applicant to supplement their case. Rule 53 is usually applied to administrative actions — permits, suspensions, authorisations — and not budgetary policy. The stakes next week The urgent interdict will be heard on Tuesday, 3 June. If granted, the levy will be paused pending the main review. If refused, it may take effect as scheduled, making a later review moot. Should the court ultimately side with the EFF, it could invalidate the hike retrospectively, forcing the Treasury to re-table it through proper legislative channels. The ruling could also set a legal precedent, inviting future litigation over fiscal instruments previously seen as untouchable. Who really pays? Much of South Africa's fiscal debate is cloaked in specialised language: 'consolidation paths', 'debt stabilisation', 'medium-term frameworks', but the impact is direct: it's on you and I. Fuel taxes inflate the cost of moving people and goods, from taxis to tractors. The EFF's challenge isn't likely to unravel the Treasury's broader strategy, but it could set a strong precedent for how fiscal policy can be challenged; at its core, the case asks who gets to hold the pen when new taxes are imposed, and if the courts should step in if Parliament does not. DM
