Court supports activist’s slamming of EC farmer’s ‘barbaric’ animal trapping methods

An internationally renowned SA wildlife conservationist’s naming and shaming on social media of an Alicedale farmer’s barbaric but legal trapping and killing of a porcupine and baboon has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Wildlife activist Dr Bool Smuts outed Alicedale farmer and insurance broker Herman Botha’s “barbaric, vile, unethical and cruel” animal trapping practices on social media in 2019.

Not only did he post pictures of the dead baboon and porcupine curled up in cages in the blazing sun, but he named Botha and gave the address of his farm, Varsfontein, in the Alicedale district.

The photos were taken by a cyclist who was outraged by the way the animals had been treated and who sent the photos to Smuts.

The social media post elicited sharply critical responses from the public, including what the high court termed “slanderous and insulting comments”.

These included veiled threats that Botha himself “should be in that cage” and that he should be “paid a visit”.

Botha successfully resorted to the high court in Gqeberha for an interdict prohibiting Smuts and his organisation, the Landmark Leopard & Predator Project, from naming Botha or giving the location of his farm.

The court ruled this was personal information protected by his right to privacy.

But, the SCA found otherwise.

SCA judge Rammaka Mathopo, with four other judges concurring, found that at the centre of the appeal was whether the publication of the social media posts by Smuts was protected by the right to freedom of expression.

“In essence, what is implicated in this appeal is the tension between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression.”

Mathopo found the high court’s approach had far-reaching implications on activists like Smuts because it “stifles the debate and censors the activists’ rights to disseminate information to the public”.

Botha could not rely on the right to privacy when he himself had placed his own identity and that of his farm in the public domain.

He had also placed his own trapping practices in the public domain.

The trapping might have been lawful, but the matter also related to “ethics, cruelty and vile treatment of animals”.

Mathopo said Smuts had been “rightly impelled to action when he noticed the condition of the dead animals” and the public had a right to be informed of inhumane treatment of animals at the farm.

“Members of the public have the freedom to decide which commercial enterprise they support and which they do not.

“That freedom of choice can only be exercised if activities happening at Mr Botha’s farm are laid bare for the public.”

Smuts welcomed the judgment as “massively consequential for our work” as well as for activists in other areas, including political, social and economic activists.

“Had they been able to persist with the orders granted in the high court it would have been the death knell for activists.”

He said one of his organisation’s central focuses was its advocacy work in terms of wildlife conservation and “ethical interaction with wildlife”.

“The court has spoken loudly in our favour in this regard.”

He said he would continue to fight the matter all the way to the Constitutional Court if necessary.

DispatchLIVE