Magistrate cites lax border control for denying Ugandan rape accused bail
The 29-year-old man is facing two counts of rape linked to the violation of an 11-year-old girl from Boksburg.
ALSO READ:
The man has denied the crime and had brought a bail application, telling the court that his family and his business needed him to stay afloat.
But magistrate Sipho Manana said the man failed to provide exceptional circumstances for his release, which was a requirement based on the seriousness of the crime.
The accused tried to convince the court that giving his passport to the investigating officer would keep him in the country pending the outcome of the case.
But the magistrate was not sold.
"I know for sure that borders from South Africa and other African neighbouring countries are not that strict. They are not controlled to the strictest condition that one can say for sure that if you do not have a passport, then you cannot evade the country."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
CBEX Crypto Scam: Africa's AI-Hyped Ponzi Nightmare and the Urgent Call for Real Regulation
Logos of different cryptocurrencies are displayed during the Token2049 conference in Dubai. Beneath the glittering promises of the cryptocurrency world, where AI hype shines brightest, lies a sinister truth: CryptoBridge Exchange (CBEX). This AI-powered Ponzi scheme has shattered and embittered countless African investors. Edwin, a Kenyan government worker, is just one of many victims, having lost $16,000—borrowed money, shattered dreams, and bruised dignity. His isolated story is a symptom of a broader crisis: a digital swindle spreading unchecked across Africa's vulnerable investment landscape. CBEX initially presented an enticing opportunity: an AI trading system guaranteeing monthly returns and attractive referral bonuses. Its appearance of legitimacy was crafted through a complex network of corporate identities and fraudulent certificates. The platform employed "brandjacking," using the acronym of China's Beijing Equity Exchange, a deceptive tactic designed to instill a false sense of security in investors. The unfortunate reality is that these schemes exploit both the lack of technological awareness and the financial aspirations of ordinary Africans seeking to improve their economic standing. The Anatomy of a Modern Ponzi Scheme Africa is no stranger to Ponzi schemes, but CBEX marks a disturbing new phase: the combination of cryptocurrency's lack of transparency with the enticing appeal of artificial intelligence. Crypto scams globally siphoned off an estimated $9.9 billion last year alone, according to blockchain analysis firm Chainalysis—a staggering sum that underscores the profitability and prevalence of these fraudulent activities. CBEX operated a sophisticated, yet classic, Ponzi scheme. Investors observed fabricated "growth" in their accounts, while their actual investments were covertly drained. These funds were funneled through intricate TRON blockchain transactions, distributed across numerous wallets, and converted into various cryptocurrencies to obscure their origin. This digital illusion led investors to believe their capital was expanding, even as it was silently pilfered. Such schemes flourish where financial regulation is lax and populations are financially desperate. CBEX exploited these vulnerabilities in Kenya and Nigeria, its primary operational hubs. Large segments of the populations in these countries are financially underserved, lack financial literacy, and are keen for alternative income. CBEX capitalized on these gaps by inundating messaging apps like Telegram with alluring, yet ultimately unrealistic, promises. Why Africa? Why Now? With a burgeoning youth population, over 60% of whom are under 25 according to a 2023 African Development Bank report, Africa is seeing its young people increasingly embrace cryptocurrency. This adoption is driven by the desire for economic opportunity amidst limited formal employment and unstable local currencies, reflecting a growing demand for digital financial solutions. The rapid adoption of cryptocurrency in Africa has unfortunately outpaced the implementation of adequate safeguards, leading to a precarious situation. Instead of proactive measures, governments have largely reacted after the fact. For instance, Kenya's Capital Markets Authority only issued investor alerts once significant harm had already occurred, and Nigeria's EFCC has been compelled to reactively pursue scammers and recover funds. These isolated responses are insufficient for a crisis that urgently requires a holistic and forward-looking regulatory framework. CBEX's acquisition of an anti-money laundering certificate—even if only for consultancy services—highlights a concerning blend of scammer ingenuity and institutional oversight. This loophole in governmental and institutional diligence emboldens fraudsters, who expertly exploit bureaucratic gaps and insufficient cross-border regulatory collaboration. What Must Be Done? The Imperative for Stronger Regulation and Education African governments need to abandon their current reactive and fragmented regulatory approach. While Nigeria's new Investments and Securities Act, which criminalises Ponzi schemes, is a welcome development, robust and immediate enforcement, coupled with enhanced cross-border collaboration, is crucial. Warnings and investor alerts from regulators are no longer sufficient. There's a pressing need for dedicated crypto regulatory bodies. These bodies must be equipped to comprehend and supervise digital asset markets, with the authority to vet platforms, enforce transparency, and implement stringent Know-Your-Customer (KYC) protocols. Public education on crypto risks is crucial and should be integrated into financial literacy initiatives. Many are drawn to the allure of "guaranteed returns" from AI-powered trading bots, often unaware of the volatile and speculative nature of digital assets. Governments, NGOs, and community organizations should collaborate to provide clear and accessible information on identifying scams. Telegram and other similar technology platforms need to enhance their scam-detection systems. While Telegram has started to ban problematic users and identify scam groups, CBEX's ongoing activity on the platform underscores the critical need for more proactive surveillance and collaboration with law enforcement. Closing Thoughts: Never Again For victims such as Edwin and Abby, "never again" is more than a personal promise; it's a demand for systemic change. While the CBEX scandal may account for billions lost worldwide and millions domestically, the real price is the erosion of hope and the shattering of trust. This cannot be Africa's crypto epitaph. Rather, it must be the point at which we declare an end to hollow pledges and AI fantasies. The urgent need for responsible regulation, investor education, and institutional responsibility is upon us—before another CBEX rises from the depths, poised to exploit aspirations once more. By Sesona Mdlokovana UAE & African Specialist Associate at the BRICS+ Consulting Group ** MORE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE ** Follow @brics_daily on X/Twitter & @brics_daily on Instagram for daily BRICS+ updates
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Five Truths in Lawfare and the Weaponisation of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal of Judge President Selby Mbenenge
Gillian Schutte unpacks the political, epistemic, and ideological weaponisation of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal of Judge President Selby Mbenenge. Image: IOL At a moment when South Africa finds itself midway through a soft coup engineered by elements within the GNU in alignment with Anglo-American geopolitical interests, and amid an intensified ideological war against Black epistemology and radical thought, Judge President Selby Mbenenge's Judicial Conduct Tribunal must be rigorously interrogated through a decolonial lens rather than through liberal spectacle. Marianne Thamm's characterisation in Daily Maverick - an intellectual title fight between "old patriarchs" and a gender-based violence expert - typifies precisely this liberal sock puppet journalism: sensationalist, reductive, and politically calculated. GroundUp had already set the ideological stage with its headline: "Expert defends sexual harassment finding against Judge President Mbenenge," published prematurely on the Tribunal's second morning. Its intent was clear: to shape public perception through donor-aligned feminist frameworks, implicitly dismissing African jurisprudence as regressive patriarchal relic. Critical analysis reveals deeper political dynamics hidden beneath this liberal narrative, which deliberately obscured why Lisa Vetten's partial, selectively translated testimony was nonetheless elevated as authoritative. Rather than examining the substantial influence of Western-aligned donors – USAID, Global Fund, NACOSA, Open Society, Ford Foundation, and the EU – in shaping Vetten's frameworks, GroundUp presented her findings as objectively neutral. Yet these donor bodies consistently privilege gender analyses neatly aligned with Western liberal policy prescriptions, marginalising radical feminist critiques that connect gender violence to structural inequality, capitalist extraction, and historical colonial violence. GroundUp's premature pronouncement was neither neutral nor coincidental. It aimed to attack African epistemic sovereignty, prevent critical inquiry, and consolidate ideological alignment with donor interests. This is exactly why we need to look beneath this carefully managed media spectacle – because it is there that lie five distinct truths, each deserving rigorous engagement without collapsing one into the other. Truth One: Andiswa Mengo's Testimony Court secretary Andiswa Mengo's testimony described a progression in communication from professional engagement to increasingly personal and late-night messages from Judge Mbenenge, culminating in the receipt of a photograph she experienced as invasive and inappropriate. Her account of discomfort, vulnerability, and disrupted professional dignity must be taken seriously. To dismiss her truth would be to re-enact the very violence that silences complainants across patriarchal institutions. However, belief in survivors must not be conflated with the abandonment of procedural integrity. Belief is not a substitute for evidence; it is a starting point for serious inquiry. Her version must be examined within a context that resists voyeuristic credulity or ideological utility. It must be subject to the same rigour expected of any legal process – through full context, linguistic nuance, and evidentiary completeness – not partial snippets or selective framing that serve to confirm media narratives or topple a judge without due process. In a case saturated with political and ideological stakes, it is all the more necessary to hold the space where belief and scrutiny coexist without collapsing one into the other. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Truth Two: Lisa Vetten's Donor-Aligned Authority Lisa Vetten's authority must be situated within the geopolitical architecture that funds and frames it. Her career has unfolded through institutions tethered to Washington's ideological and strategic interests – from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, to Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre, and into policy-shaping roles within USAID and Global Fund programmes. Her expertise, while academically rigorous, operates within frameworks designed by and for liberal feminism's global administrators. These frameworks privilege technocratic solutions, de-link gendered violence from histories of racial capitalism and imperial dispossession, and systematically displace radical or decolonial feminist theory. The result is an epistemic narrowing in which donor-approved metrics define legitimacy, while anti-imperial perspectives are dismissed as ideological excess. Vetten's position in the Tribunal was not one of detached expertise, but of ideological utility. Her testimony aligned seamlessly with the narrative preferences of the liberal media ecosystem. She is not an impartial observer; she is a functionary of a wider donor apparatus that has, historically and presently, advanced regime change under the cover of gender justice. In this context, she does not simply speak – she is deployed. Truth Three: Judge Mbenenge's Autonomy as Symbolic Threat Judge Selby Mbenenge, should allegations against him be substantiated, must indeed be held accountable through rigorous and impartial processes. Yet critically analysed, his autonomy as a senior Black jurist operating beyond the influence of donor-funded civil society circuits represents a clear ideological threat to liberal hegemony. At a moment when the GNU, aligned closely with Western geopolitical interests, is methodically purging judicial and institutional spaces of voices that resist neoliberal conformity, Mbenenge's independent authority marks him as a strategic target for regime-change actors intent on reshaping South Africa's judiciary into compliance with Western standards and expectations. None of which pleads for his innocence or his guilt – it is just an undeniable truth. Truth Four: Muzi Sikhakhane's Decolonial Marginalisation Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane's systematic marginalisation is rooted directly in his explicit critique of South Africa's constitutional order as structurally colonial and protective of entrenched economic and racial interests. Through his legal advocacy for former President Jacob Zuma – most notably at the Zondo Commission (August 2018, July 2019) and the Constitutional Court contempt proceedings (March 2021) – Sikhakhane consistently invoked Fanonian/Bikoian analysis, exposing liberal constitutionalism as a guardian of white capital and colonial continuity. Following these interventions, he became the target of sustained vilification in liberal media, deliberately cast as reactionary, chauvinistic, and intellectually irrelevant. This orchestrated character assassination by donor-aligned media and NGOs seeks to erase Sikhakhane precisely because he embodies a formidable ideological threat: an articulate and influential African intellectual whose arguments resonate widely with younger generations and independent African thinkers. His attempted erasure thus represents a strategic manoeuvre within the broader regime-change machinery, designed to silence inconvenient native voices that openly challenge neoliberal hegemony and advocate for authentic African jurisprudential sovereignty. Truth Five: The Donor-Media Ecosystem's Geopolitical Agenda GroundUp, Daily Maverick, News24, and amaBhungane operate within an interconnected media ecosystem sustained by powerful donor networks including Open Society Foundations, Luminate (Pierre Omidyar's so-called democracy franchise), the Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust, and USAID-linked programmes. These institutions have long histories of advancing soft-power agendas under the guise of civil society strengthening. Between 2016 and 2018, this ecosystem mobilised a highly selective anti-corruption narrative to delegitimise the Zuma administration, executing what increasingly appears to have been a donor-orchestrated regime-change operation. The strategic use of corruption discourse under the banner of constitutional defence allowed donor media and NGO actors to entrench liberal hegemony while masking deeper geopolitical interests. This apparatus has always focused on gender discourse, deploying feminist rhetoric selectively to neutralise radical Black intellectuals and disrupt decolonial mobilisation. This pattern was evident during the Rhodes Must Fall and Fees Must Fall uprisings, where the sudden infiltration of US-backed think tanks and NGO intermediaries – in quiet collaboration with elements of Luthuli House – corresponded with a wave of allegations targeting radical Black male leaders. The frequency with which sexual misconduct and rape claims were deployed against prominent and outspoken figures during these movements, often without full due process, raises serious questions about the weaponisation of gender justice as a tool of ideological warfare. While the reality of gender-based violence must never be denied or trivialised, the strategic pattern of deploying such allegations to fragment movements and remove influential dissenters cannot be ignored. Historically, such tactics echo well-worn counterinsurgency strategies refined by institutions like the CIA, where sexual deviance is projected onto Black men to discredit liberation politics and fracture collective organising. This weaponisation relies on the deeply embedded colonial mythos of Black male hypersexuality and danger, allowing liberal institutions to claim moral high ground while engaging in epistemic violence. What appears on the surface as progressive gender advocacy functions as a disciplinary apparatus – punishing those who openly articulate a radical African vision beyond the bounds of donor-sanctioned politics. These five truths stand simultaneously. They are not sequential. They are not hierarchical. They coexist in tension, contradiction, and convergence – as all living truths must. Each exposes a facet of the political, epistemic, and affective dimensions of the case, and none can be collapsed into the other without enacting a form of violence. Yet collapsing truths is precisely the logic of liberal hegemony and the strategic machinery behind donor-aligned think tank discourse. It is their habit to invoke whataboutism when challenged, to flatten complexity into binary moral frames, and to present their narrative as the only legitimate one – thereby rendering all competing epistemes illegible or deviant. This is the logic of control. It is precisely in this context that the five truths around the Mbenenge Tribunal must be held in open dialectic. Mengo's experience is hers and must be addressed with seriousness. Vetten's donor-aligned authority cannot be excused from critical scrutiny. Mbenenge's symbolic threat to donor-managed Black representation is undeniable. Sikhakhane's erasure as a decolonial jurist is politically motivated. And the liberal media's choreography in service of soft regime-change agendas is a historical pattern. To ignore any one of these truths is to enable the ideological capture of justice under the pretence of neutrality. Procedurally, the Tribunal exposed the fragility of the expert testimony used to publicly frame the case. Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane's cross-examination of Lisa Vetten revealed that her analysis rested on partial evidence, translated and summarised through a legal filter that omitted linguistic and cultural context. Crucial annexures were absent. Vetten had not consulted the Tribunal's cultural-linguistics assessor, despite the case hinging on meaning and tone communicated in isiXhosa. Her findings were presented as conclusive without the primary data being fully explored. Chairperson Judge President Bernard Ngoepe's order to admit the full isiXhosa WhatsApp exchanges into the record was a tacit acknowledgment of these procedural gaps – gaps that GroundUp and its media allies had already sealed shut with a premature headline designed to foreclose complexity and manufacture consent. This moment, then, is not only about what happened between two individuals. It is about whose frameworks we are allowed to believe, whose voices are authorised, and whose truths are strategically denied. It is about how knowledge is managed, contained, and weaponised. And it is about whether South Africa can withstand the growing grip of liberal epistemic capture disguised as gender justice, or whether it will open a path toward decolonial clarity, where multiple truths can breathe without one being used to suffocate the rest. As for Thamm's increasingly degenerate journalism, in which she has cast the Tribunal as an 'intellectual heavyweight title fight between the Old Patriarchs and the Gender-Based Violence Expert,' – is not worthy of anything more than the derision we reserve for mercenaries fighting in service of empire. Her reductionism flattens a complex and politically charged legal encounter into a tired has-been morality play. Far from being a helpless woman pitted against patriarchal power, the expert witness in this case is ideologically armed and institutionally weaponised. The case cannot be read through the paternalism of liberal gender tropes. It demands to be read through the fresh lens of decolonial thought and praxis. And this case is not simply about personal conduct. It is about ideological warfare. It is about who gets to speak, who is erased, and what forms of knowing are cast as either legitimate or deviant. More than ever we are witnessing an all-out assault on radical Black thought, African jurisprudence, and decolonial critique under the sanitised banner of human rights and democracy. The interest shown in this case by donor-funded media and NGO actors must be interrogated. It bears the familiar markings of regime-change politics: rooting out those who threaten liberal orthodoxy, targeting those whose authority emerges beyond the limits of civil society funding pipelines. The soft coup unfolding within the GNU has ideological foot soldiers in law, media and academia. Their project is to purge the judiciary, academia, and political thought of any element that does not conform to Western standards of civility and containment. What we are witnessing, then, is not justice – but ideological capture. Whether South Africa can resist this and re-centre African epistemology remains the question. What is clear is that the machinery of liberal capture is always in motion – and it speaks with one voice. * You can read Gillian's academic analysis here: The Erotics of Power, the Semantics of Guilt: A Decolonial Disruption of South African Legal Discourse * Gillian Schutte is a South African writer, filmmaker and social critic. She writes on decoloniality, media and political resistance across the Global South. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Ten years after Cecil the Lion's death, let's mourn human victims of wildlife attacks
Many people in the West know Cecil the Lion, but who can name an African killed by a lion or another species of dangerous megafauna in the decade since Cecil's demise? Our guess is not many, and that speaks volumes to the chasm that divides Africa and the affluent West on polarising wildlife issues such as trophy hunting that were unleashed by the Cecil saga. In the eyes of many Africans, affluent folk in the North often seem to have more empathy for the continent's wildlife than they do for its people, especially the rural poor who have to live in the terrifying shadow of large animal attack – a precarious existence that no middle-class resident of London, New York or Toronto would wish on their kith and kin. These cultural fault lines were brutally exposed when Cecil was felled by an American trophy hunter on 2 July 2015 outside Zimbabwe's Hwange National Park. Cecil's biography was well known to a handful of dedicated researchers, as he was the subject of a study by the University of Oxford's Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU). Cecil had a satellite tracking collar that would emit signals every two hours, providing his GPS coordinates. According to WildCRU, Cecil was one of 65 lions killed by trophy hunters in the area from 1999 to 2015, 45 of which were equipped with radio collars. Two other satellite-collared lions with human nicknames were also killed by hunters in the same area in 2015. But Cecil was popular with visitors to Hwange and park officials, and Zimbabwe launched a probe into the hunt. This, in turn, launched the affair, aided and abetted by social media, into orbit. As the uproar in the West spread, US dentist Walter Palmer was eventually named as Cecil's killer, and that placed him in the crosshairs of public indignation. Jimmy Kimmel American talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, on 28 July 2015, made an impassioned commentary about the incident, choking back tears as he assured Africans that 'not all Americans are like this jack hole' — the jack hole in question being Palmer, whose dental practice was already being besieged by protesters. But in Africa, the response was pointedly different, and Kimmel's tears – over a lion – provoked incredulity. Asked by reporters for comment on the unfolding drama, Zimbabwe's acting information minister at the time, Prisca Mupfumira, snapped: 'What lion?' A few days after Kimmel's emotional outburst, Goodwell Nzou, a Zimbabwean doctoral student studying molecular medicine in the United States, had an opinion piece published in The New York Times titled, In Zimbabwe, We Don't Cry for Lions. American outrage over the incident, he wrote, had provoked '… the starkest cultural contradiction I'd experienced during my five years' studying in the United States'. 'Did all those Americans signing petitions understand that lions actually kill people? That all the talk about Cecil being 'beloved' or a 'local favourite' was media hype? Did Jimmy Kimmel choke up because Cecil was murdered or because he confused him with Simba from The Lion King?' Nzou asked. 'When I was nine years old, a solitary lion prowled villages near my home. After it killed a few chickens, some goats and finally a cow, we were warned to walk to school in groups and stop playing outside … The lion sucked the life out of the village: No one socialised by fires at night; no one dared stroll over to a neighbour's homestead. 'We Zimbabweans are left shaking our heads, wondering why Americans care more about African animals than about African people.' In response, Nzou received death threats, underscoring his point in a chilling and telling manner. The floodgates Jimmy Kimmel's Cecil outburst opened the floodgates. The global media jumped on the story, pushing trophy hunting to the front page. David Macdonald, then head of WildCRU, said that 'in terms of attracting global attention, it [Cecil] was the largest story in the history of wildlife conservation'. In the UK, pre-Cecil, trophy hunting had barely registered in print media. When it was covered, stories frequently highlighted the complexities of the issue. Discussion of the conservation benefits hunter revenue brought was commonplace, albeit often alongside a general sense of disapproval. After Cecil, the tone moved sharply towards condemnation. This coincided with increasing NGO and campaign-led calls for hunting bans, with Cecil as the inevitable focus. Calls to ban trophy hunting from nations like the UK ring hollow for many living in countries such as Namibia, Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe. The hypocrisy is glaring. The UK has a thriving trophy hunting industry focused on deer, the heads of which adorn many a country pub, hotel and stately home. And these trophies can also be exported. Meanwhile, the UK is anything but a conservation success story, in stark contrast to the successes of African nations with trophy hunting as part of their conservation strategy. A 2017 study titled ' Relative efforts of countries to conserve world's megafauna ' should be required reading for those calling for bans on trophy hunting. The top five countries were Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, Bhutan and Zimbabwe. Four of the top five are southern African nations. All four are major trophy hunting destinations. The UK was 123rd. Such facts are usually ignored by domestic politicians. Or, worse, spun to suggest the UK can manage wildlife responsibility while other nations cannot. Understandably, accusations of neocolonialism have become a fixture of public discourse on trophy hunting. Nonetheless, there remains considerable political traction to ban the import of hunting trophies from species that are, regardless of their actual status, 'close to extinction'. Evil trophy hunter, goes the media-friendly and seemingly intuitive story, are driving elephants, lions and other charismatic species to the brink. Just so they put a head on their wall. Trapped within this narrative, the easiest way to save wildlife seems obvious. Condemn the cruel and senseless practice of trophy hunting to the dustbin of history. It is precisely this thinking that has led to proposed bans, in various stages of legislative development, in the UK, numerous countries in Europe, Australia and the US. Such global political will is backed by assumptions of popularity. Misinformation and naivety But what seems like a quick and easy conservation and political win is shot through with misinformation and naivety. In the Second Reading of a failed UK-based Bill to ban trophy imports at the end of 2022, analysis by a team of scientists led by Oxford University indicated that around three-quarters of verifiable statements made by MPs speaking in support of the Bill were demonstrably false. For more than a third of those MPs, every verifiable statement they made was false. What is more, the public is far from overwhelmingly supportive, as is usually claimed. One of the International Union for Conservation of Nature's specialist groups, Sustainable Use and Livelihoods commissioned a survey of the UK public on the topic and found that, if a ban were to increase overall threats to wildlife conservation (as is very likely to be the case), only 42% supported them, and only 39% supported bans if they negatively affected marginalised communities (which they would). The idea that more than 80% of the UK public supports bans is based on a highly leading, flawed survey undertaken by the NGO Ban Trophy Hunting. Politicians would do well to actually read such surveys – they might then realise how they are being played. Ban Trophy Hunting – and several other NGOs – know that Cecil remains a gold mine. Prominent on its site is a red headline – 'REMEMBER CECIL' – clearly displayed as the 10th anniversary of his death looms – and below, there is a tab to donate. Cecil has been dead for a decade, but the vultures are still circling the memory of his carcass. Revealingly, there is no similar site asking people to remember Africans killed by big animals. Trophy hunting vs extinction threat Trophy hunting is a complex aspect of conservation, and nowhere more so than in southern Africa, where much of the northern hemisphere's disapproval, and in many cases disgust, is directed. While unregulated or poorly managed hunting can lead to local declines, a recent analysis found that there were no species for which trophy hunting was considered a threat. The same analysis found that for a number of species, including black rhino and lion, regulated hunting provides clear conservation benefits by producing revenue and incentivising communities to live alongside wildlife that may pose a threat to them and their livestock. If you track the spoor of the scientific literature, there are no objective, peer-reviewed articles in any reputable journal that we are aware of that make a direct link between trophy hunting and the threat of extinction. 'Studies' that make this link are usually commissioned by animal rights organisations with a transparent agenda. When science and facts are not on your side, raw emotion works. Conservation without money is just conversation. Lions and elephants are irresistible to photo tourists, but a very different prospect to live alongside. Without providing real incentives to communities and respecting their rights to a sustainable livelihood without reliance on the whims of overseas aid, habitat is lost and wildlife suffers. Safari tourism may be a thriving business post-pandemic, but Africa is vast and the landscape mixed. For every Serengeti migration honeypot, there are thousands of square miles of featureless bush, unsuitable for those on a one-week trip of a lifetime, anxious to tick off the Big Five before sundowners. In many such areas, hunting remains a vital lifeline for people and habitat. In response to calls for bans, more than 130 scientists and conservationists signed a joint letter to the journal Science, outlining why 'trophy hunting bans imperil biodiversity'. Community leaders from across southern Africa have written open letters to UK politicians calling on them to stop legislation that will harm conservation efforts and community livelihoods. The ghost of Cecil, it seems, roars far louder than the stark reality of real-world conservation challenges. The human victims We have been unable to find comprehensive, up-to-date data on the number of humans killed in Africa in attacks by big, dangerous animals in the decade since Cecil died, but it is safe to say that it numbers in the thousands. In Zimbabwe, the national parks organisation Zimparks recently said that in the first quarter (Q1) of 2025, human fatalities from such attacks rose 20% to 18 compared with the same period in the previous year. It also said its data showed that over the past five years, 300 people had been killed in wildlife encounters – an average of 60 a year. And that is just a five-year timeframe restricted to Zimbabwe. These victims are often – unlike Cecil – faceless and nameless outside of their rural communities, where they have friends and family who grieve their loss and live in fear of the next attack. But outside their close circle, it is as if such horrifying incidents are simply the natural order of things in Africa, with Africans themselves simply the extras on the set of some Tarzan movie. The rural Africans who have to live alongside dangerous megafauna rank among the poorest of the poor, and their poverty is both a cause and effect of this precarious existence – a terrifying socioeconomic realm that can be described as living below the faunal poverty line. This state of affairs can also be usefully viewed through the prism of inequality. The rural poor in Africa are expected to share space with potentially menacing megafauna, a scenario that no middle-class suburbanite – including those who see red over trophy hunting – would tolerate. This is one of the many ways in which poverty makes you prey. Among the thousands of human victims in Africa since Cecil was felled, spare a thought for 27-year-old Josephi Kapalamula of Malawi and his family. Josephi was among the first of 10 victims to date killed by elephants in the wake of an ill-conceived translocation of 263 of the animals to Kasungu National Park in Malawi from Liwonde National Park in the country's south in June and July of 2022. This has transformed the landscape around the park in Malawi and neighbouring Zambia into one of fear and loathing for the subsistence farmers who toil there. Josephi's wife, Elphina, was pregnant when he was killed by elephants in July 2022. When Ed spoke to her in June 2024, her 17-month-old son, Success, was strapped to her back, a child who will never meet his father. 'My husband heard that there were elephants, so he went to see them. The elephants charged and trampled him,' she said. Instead of mourning the animals killed by trophy hunters – which in many ways owe their existence, like it or not, to the hunting industry – we would suggest tears should instead be shed for Josephi, his widow Elphina and their son, Success. Perhaps a movement is required to address human/wildlife conflict in all of its complexities – for the greater good of both people and animals. DM
