Animal welfare groups demand justice for Chacma baboon slaughter in Cape Town
Image: Armand Hough / Independent Newspapers
A R5,000 reward has been offered for any information that could lead to the arrest and conviction of individuals involved in the brutal killing of an adult Chacma baboon, which was allegedly butchered for human consumption in Ocean View.
Disturbing footage of the incident has surfaced on social media, showing the horrific slaughter of the protected species.
The video, which began circulating on Monday, was brought to the attention of both the Animal Welfare Society of South Africa (AWS SA) and the Cape of Good Hope SPCA, sparking urgent investigations by both animal welfare organisations.
'This horrific act is not only inhumane but also illegal,' said AWS SA spokesperson Alan Perrins. 'Chacma baboons are a vulnerable and protected species in South Africa. These intelligent, sentient beings are already under immense pressure from habitat loss, urban encroachment, and human-wildlife conflict. Now, they face yet another threat: barbaric killings for bushmeat.'
Perrins confirmed that AWS SA had immediately alerted CapeNature and its counterparts at the SPCA, with early indications pointing to members of the Ocean View community.
'We are combining resources to ensure the swift identification and prosecution of those responsible. Killing or consuming protected wildlife is a criminal offence, and we will pursue this case with the full weight of the law.'
Cape of Good Hope SPCA spokesperson Belinda Abraham confirmed that wildlife inspectors visited Ocean View on Monday as part of a joint operation with the City of Cape Town's Law Enforcement and Safety and Security Investigation Unit (SSIU).
'Our team immediately jumped into action after receiving the footage,' Abraham said.
'We are working closely with the relevant authorities, and our investigation is ongoing. The video is graphic and distressing, and we are determined to ensure that those responsible are held accountable.'
The SPCA is offering a R5,000 reward for any information that leads to a successful conviction. Their 24/7 Inspectorate Control Room can be contacted at 021 700 4158 or via confidential WhatsApp at 021 700 4140.
AWS SA Senior Inspector Sivuyile Kilwa can also be reached at 021 692 2626, 082 601 1761, or via email at ([email protected])(mailto:[email protected]).
Animal rights advocacy group Baboon Matters added its voice to the call for justice, condemning the killing in the strongest terms.
'We were utterly appalled at the reprehensible killing of a baboon as detailed in the CGHSPCA post,' said Baboon Matters founder Jenni Trethowan.
'We call on residents who may have witnessed the awful event to please come forward with information – these killers must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Now is the time for the authorities to act cohesively and decisively.'
Authorities have urged the public not to share the video due to its graphic content, and instead to report it directly to enforcement officials as part of the ongoing investigation.
'Let us stand together and say NO to cruelty. NO to wildlife crimes. YES to justice,' said Perrins.
[email protected]
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
42 minutes ago
- IOL News
Court dismisses ex-husband's attempt to retract divorce settlement he signed giving his home to the wife
The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has upheld a divorce settlement agreement that a man sought to retract. Image: Pexels The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has upheld a divorce settlement agreement that a man sought to retract after claiming that he wasn't aware when he signed it, despite signing it twice. After nearly 16 years of marriage, the ex-wife initiated the divorce process. She informed the court that they had agreed on a settlement prior to the hearings, which stated that it was agreed that the ex-husband would transfer half of his share of their Centurion home to her. In her summons, she included the settlement agreement, signed by her and two witnesses. Going through the details of the settlement last signed in April 2022, she testified that the settlement agreement reflects that they agreed that they will both maintain parental rights and responsibilities for their two children, establishing that the children would live with her. It was also agreed that the father would pay a monthly R4,000 for each child, and she would not receive any spousal maintenance. Additionally, she mentioned that her ex-husband not only signed the settlement agreement that he sent to her via courier but also signed another copy after they met at her lawyer's office at a later time. Three months later, the man reneged, he filed a notice of intention to defend the divorce action and challenge the settlement agreement. He testified that he was emotionally affected by the divorce proceedings. According to his explanation, he thought he was acknowledging receipt of the summons when he signed the settlement agreement. He also denied that there was any discussion regarding a settlement. However, during cross-examination, he was drawn to the fact that he not only signed the settlement agreement in March 2022, but that two witnesses cosigned it, and that he also added his email address and cell number to the document. In April 2022, another copy of the settlement agreement was signed by him, and two witnesses again co-signed it. Judge Elmarie van der Schyff was not impressed by the man's testimony, noting his vague responses when questioned about why he had signed the agreement a second time. She indicated that his claim of thinking he was acknowledging receipt of the summons when signing the hardcopy settlement agreement lacked credibility. Furthermore, the judge said the man's explanation that he was acknowledging receipt of the summons when he signed and returned the hard copy of the settlement agreement did not hold water. She mentioned that although the man may lack formal legal education, he acknowledges that he is not an uninformed or uneducated individual. He works as a consulting engineer, a detail he revealed only when the court asked him. "Mr. S did not merely sign the document and hand it back to the Sheriff of the court; he took his time, had the document co-signed by witnesses, and then returned it to Mrs. O. This conduct is not indicative of an intention to defend a divorce action but leads to the only logical inference that the parties settled the issues between them on the terms contained in the agreement," said the judge. The judge also dismissed his argument that that he signed the document the second time because he was directed to do so. It was said he failed to provide enough evidence for the court to conclude that he was improperly pressured or forced into signing the agreement, nor that it had been obtained through deceit. "Mr. S is an educated person. No evidence indicates that he was misled. The language of the agreement is straightforward and non-technical. The evidence does not indicate that any undue pressure was exerted to force him to sign," added the judge. Ultimately, the divorce was granted and the court also determined that the agreement was binding; the ex-husband would have to abide by it. [email protected] IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
IOL News
42 minutes ago
- IOL News
Tiffany Meek's bail judgment is expected today
The 31-year-old, Tiffany Meek, mother of the 11-year-old Jayden-Lee Meek, is accused of murdering her son. Image: Timothy Bernard / IOL Graphics The much-anticipated bail judgment for Tiffany Meek is expected to be heard in the Roodepoort Magistrate's Court on Tuesday. Meek, 31, from Fleurhof, is charged with the murder of her 11-year-old son Jayden-Lee Meek. She also faces charges of crimen injuria, attempting to defeat or obstruct the course of justice, and defeating or obstructing the administration of justice. Closing arguments were delivered by legal counsel on Monday after five gruelling days of the bail application. 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 ✕ Ad loading The defence lawyer for Meek, Noven Naidoo, has urged the court to grant his client bail. Meek asked the court to grant her R5,000 as it is what she can afford. She further gave her biological father's address in Verulam in Durban, stating she would be willing to abide by any conditions set by the court. Meek has maintained her innocence throughout the proceedings and remains adamant that she is being framed. She has even requested that the investigation be moved to another arm within the South African law enforcement sphere, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (known as Hawks). The State has opposed Meek's release. The State has called out Meek for deliberately shifting the focus of the investigation and the court's opinion with her defence tactics. The State alleges that Meek killed her son, went back to her apartment between 4am and 5am on May 14, 2025, to remove his body and place it anywhere else. It was also submitted that she tried to incriminate the school transport driver. The court further heard that the investigation was directed by the evidence, and the evidence eliminated many but led to one person, Meek. The State urged the court to take note of how the evidence was challenged. 'She's throwing around wild speculative suggestions. The applicant pre-empted the discovery of the school bag, which is why she put it in her affidavit. It is clear she was given this information. But, she omitted her return to Swazi Place. 'She was not aware of the evidence the investigating officer had. She was blindsided by that and by the detail that was recorded that night. She forgot she had already made a statement to the investigating officer. She forgot what she said,' he submitted. The State submitted that Meek was trying to create distance between her presence and the discovery. IOL
Eyewitness News
11 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Court sending wrong message by releasing alleged kidnapper Sameemah Jacobs on bail
CAPE TOWN - The missing persons NGO that helped police track down alleged baby snatcher, Sameemah Jacobs, is lamenting her release from custody. Jacobs, who is charged with kidnapping and defeating the ends of justice, was granted R4,000 bail in the Bellville Magistrate's Court on Monday. ALSO READ: Alleged baby snatcher Sameemah Jacobs placed under house arrest after being granted bail She allegedly pretended to be three different women before she abducted a nine-day-old baby from the Middestad Mall in Bellville in June. Faith and Hope Missing Persons founder, Veronique Williams, said the court was sending the wrong message to the public. "So anyone can kidnap nowadays. Anyone can hijack a child, anyone can steal a child nowadays. So, it's saying to the community out there, just do what you want with the children."
