03/09/2025
SHOULD ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS?
Have you considered which of the Animal Protection Act 71 of 1962 provisions would be directly overturned or rewritten if animals had rights?
If animals in South Africa were legally recognized as rights holders rather than property, several key provisions of the Animals Protection Act (APA) 71 of 1962 would need to be directly overturned or substantially rewritten.
This is because many of these provisions are based on the premise that animals are "property" with protections limited to preventing cruelty, rather than them being recognised as sentient beings with intrinsic value and rights, deserving of legal "personhood" - even if in diminished capacity only.
If animal rights were to be recognised in South Africa, the APA 71 of 1962 provisions likely to be overturned or rewritten would be everything relating to:
• Property Status of Animals: The Act’s implicit and explicit classification of animals as property would be overturned to recognize animals as "legal persons" or rights holders, granting them legal standing beyond ownership notions.
• Definition and Scope of Cruelty: (e.g., Sections mentioning “unnecessary suffering”)
The narrow and subjective definition of cruelty in terms of “unnecessary suffering” would have to be expanded or replaced to include the recognition of animals' intrinsic interests, their sentience, autonomy, and rights, going beyond preventing physical pain to protecting psychological well-being and natural behaviours.
• Enforcement and Penalty Provisions: Sections prescribing penalties based on property damage or owner responsibility would be rewritten to accommodate direct legal claims by animals (or their representatives) and introduce stronger, rights-based protections and remedies.
• Use and Exploitation of Animals: Provisions implicitly allowing activities like commercial use, transport, farming, and testing (as long as not “cruel”) would be repealed or amended to prohibit exploitation that violates animal rights as sentient beings entitled to freedom from such practices.
• Destruction and Killing of Animals: Clauses allowing destruction or euthanasia at owner or official discretion would be heavily restricted to comply with rights to life and well-being, unless absolutely necessary and humane, shifting the burden of justification toward protecting animal rights.
In conclusion:
Recognizing animal rights would necessitate a transformative overhaul of the APA’s legal framework, replacing its welfare-based, property-focused provisions with laws affirming animals’ inherent rights to life, liberty, bodily integrity, and freedom from exploitation. This would entail the repeal or at least a major revision of fundamental APA sections that currently govern ownership, treatment, cruelty standards, use, and destruction of animals
Is South Africa ready to recognise animal rights?
How do we balance the rights of domestic pets and food production animals?
How can we improve the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 and simultaneously ensure that animals are protected as sentient beings?
Let us know what you think in the comments below.