Robust debate in ConCourt

CAMEL ALLEGEDLY TORTURED

The right for juristic persons to pursue private prosecutions was the subject of intense debate in the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) in Johannesburg yesterday.

The case was the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) fighting for the right to go after people the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) refused to prosecute.

The ConCourt application is the NSPCA’s last attempt to try and have people prosecuted for allegedly torturing a camel so badly during a religious ceremony that “in an act of compassion, the inspector shot the camel to relieve it of its misery” the NSPCA claimed at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) hearing. At the time, the NPA declined to prosecute.

The NSPCA has failed in its appeals to the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria and the SCA, and the NPA has refused to issue a nolle prosequi (decline to prosecute) certificate because the NSPCA is not a private person.

Justice Johan Froneman wanted to know what offences would then be open for private prosecution. Advocate Kevin Hopkins for the NSPCA responded. “... this raises a difficult question which, I’m afraid, I haven’t considered and that is whether or not the powers under section 8 [of the Criminal Procedure Act] to become a private prosecutor is then restricted only to the offences enumerated in the statute itself.”

The sections deal specifically with cruelty to animals. Amicus curiae Corruption Watch said in its submission “allowing juristic persons to engage in private prosecutions where the NPA has declined to prosecute is a critical issue in combating corruption and will serve the public interest”.

Judgment was reserved.

This raises a difficult question which, I’m afraid, I haven’t considered. Kevin Hopkins Advocate for NSPCA

–