Why the NSPCA prosecuted Modise privately

After almost seven years of pursuing justice for the animals that were subjected to heinous cruelty on Thandi Modise’s farm, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) is extremely disappointed that she has been acquitted of all charges of animal cruelty brought against her.

On Friday, 30 April, the magistrate, Ben Mtebele, agreed with Modise’s defence team. On account of Article 174, there was not sufficient evidence against Modise to directly connect her to the charges. The defence team blamed the two farm workers and tried to make the case one of racism and politics.

Marcelle Meredith, the executive director of the NSPCA said in a statement: “This is a complete travesty of justice for the animals that suffered and died a horrendous death, but we will not give up.” According to her, the NSPCA is mandated to serve and protect animals and ensure that their welfare and the protection they have under South African law is upheld. That is why it is appealing the case.

“We cannot let people who have committed crimes and caused immense suffering to animals go unpunished. We have every right to stand up and raise our voice as the largest animal welfare organisation in the Southern Hemisphere. We fight for justice for these animals and that is what we will do. We have never backed down before and we are not going to begin now,” says Meredith.

The NSPCA opened a case of animal cruelty against Modise in July 2014 and has followed up on the docket religiously. In 2017, after three years of trying to initiate prosecution, the organisation was informed that the National Prosecuting Authority had declined to prosecute the case. They then had to initiate a private prosecution.

Meredith says, regardless of whether a perpetrator is a minister or one of their very own inspectors if a person has inflicted cruelty/suffering upon an animal, the NSPCA would not hesitate to take action. “To us, it didn’t matter that the person being prosecuted was Ms Modise; what mattered was that her animals suffered horrendously and deserved justice,” she says.

According to her, the law under which Ms Modise is charged is clear. “It is not the legislation that has let us down. Had the law been applied as it states, we strongly believe Ms Modise would have been convicted of animal cruelty years ago already. Quite frankly, the verdict handed down by the Potchefstroom Magistrate’s Court makes it appear as though one could get away with murder, so long as one holds a position of power in the government, which is incredibly disappointing,” she says.

She makes it clear that animal abuse comes in many forms but can be separated into two major categories: abuse as a result of negligence (failure to act properly) or harm that results from deliberate acts. In this case, it was a failure to act properly. “The Animal Protection Act No. 71 of 1962, makes provision for us to hold those who have negligently caused suffering to animals accountable under section 2(1)(q) and 2(1)(r).”

For Meredith, the case is not about how many animals died. It was stated that over 147 pigs, more than 59 sheep, over 11 lambs, and more than 25 chickens and geese had died of starvation and thirst. “We would never compare the suffering of one animal to the suffering of another. It doesn’t matter whether only one animal suffered – whether 120 animals on a farm in Potchefstroom suffered or 56,000 animals on a ship. Cruelty is cruelty and we will take action. If the Animal Protection Act No. 71 of 1962 has been contravened, it means an animal has suffered and the perpetrators should be dealt with accordingly,” she concluded.