A legal battle over South Africa’s captive lion bone trade has deepened in the Pretoria high court after the National Council of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) and the EMS Foundation were granted leave as intervening respondents in a case that could determine whether the state is legally required to set export quotas for lion bones at all.
The dispute stems from an application brought by the South African Predator Association (Sapa) in December 2024, seeking to compel the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment to establish annual export quotas for lion bones and related products derived from captive breeding operations, challenging what it calls the minister’s failure to set quotas for 2024 and 2025.
Sapa stated in its amended notice of motion that it is seeking an order declaring the minister’s failure to set export quotas for 2024 and 2025 “unlawful, invalid, and [to] be reviewed and set aside” and compelling the minister to determine quotas going forward.
It also wants the court to consider “a large stockpile of lion bones… because quotas have not been established for a number of years”, as well as the declining value of those derivatives.
The court, however, framed the relief more narrowly, describing it as “tripartite in nature” – combining a review of the minister’s failure, a mandatory order to act and a requirement to consider factors such as the stockpile. It stressed that “the relief sought by Sapa is aimed at compelling a decision, not a particular decision”.
The court emphasised that the case is about process, not outcome, finding the relief is “procedural and supervisory” and “does not seek to usurp the Minister’s decision-making powers”.
It stressed the order “does not pre-determine a numerical value, nor does it exclude a ‘zero quota’ determination,” and does not oblige the Minister to permit commercial trade.
On stockpiles, the court said that while this factor must be considered, it is not decisive:
“The weight to be afforded to it remains within the Minister’s discretion.”
The minister retains “a broad discretion” to balance this against other considerations, including “scientific input, public consultation, conservation imperatives and prevailing policy frameworks”. Animal welfare is among the factors the minister is legally required to consider.
The non-profit EMS Foundation’s intervention introduces a threshold issue: whether the minister is obliged in law to set export quotas at all.
The court accepted EMS raises a “triable point that is central to the review,” namely whether there is any legal duty under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora or domestic law to determine quotas.
EMS argues the framework is permissive, stating that “there is no legal duty or obligation … to do so,” and that quota-setting only arises where trade is intended.
In a statement, EMS said it had been admitted as a respondent with “full procedural rights” and that the case has shifted from “Why hasn’t the Minister set quotas?” to “Does the Minister even have a duty to set quotas?”
The NSPCA also successfully intervened, with the court finding it has a direct and substantial interest.
It noted the NSPCA was instrumental in the 2019 lion bone case, which led to the setting aside of previous quotas and that “the existence of the current stockpile is directly attributable” to its earlier litigation.
The court found this gave the NSPCA standing to argue over how the stockpile is considered in any quota-setting process.
The 2019 judgment established that animal welfare must factor into decision-making. “That standard is difficult to reconcile with the current treatment of captive lions,” said NSPCA spokesperson Samanta Stiell.
Reinstating quotas would harm captive lions. “There would be no positive outcomes for captive lions if this were to happen,” she said.
If the export quota for lion bones is reinstated, this decision would go against the policy position of the Democratic Alliance, as well as the stance held by two former ministers from the department of forestry, fisheries and the environment (DFFE), the parliamentary portfolio committee, the cabinet and the national council of provinces, she said.
“The welfare of captive lions is already severely compromised … Reinstating an export quota would only serve to encourage the industry and the market.”
The department did not respond to questions, but in a February parliamentary reply Minister Willie Aucamp said the state attorney had been instructed to oppose the application, although “the DFFE has not filed an answering affidavit as yet.”
He added that a 2026 quota process will proceed, with proposals published for public comment, “be it a zero annual export quota or otherwise.”
The NSPCA and EMS Foundation have been admitted as intervening respondents in a High Court case that could determine whether the Minister is legally required to set export quotas for lion bones and related products from captive breeding operations
