Why try to undermine a court order that can benefit baboons and communities?

In their article, Ben Cousins and Peter Willis seek to discredit a perfectly legitimate court order agreed to by the authorities to fulfil their commitments to baboon management by implementing the Baboon Strategic Management Plan (BSMP) and the appointment of a ranger service.

These are the facts:

During May 2024, the applicants finalised their court application and it was served on the authorities, City of Cape Town, SANParks and CapeNature. 

The application was not to interdict the management plan but rather the urgent implementation of the mitigating solutions in the management plan. Furthermore, at the date of service of the court application the authorities had not met one timeframe as reflected in the management plan signed off in September 2023. At that stage there was no indication whatsoever that rangers would be provided for by the authorities, nor mention of a special purpose vehicle or funding of this option. Therefore, any notion in the article that litigation delayed the implementation of the BSMP is not only ill-conceived but has no basis for legal argument.

The mayor of Cape Town indicated in a letter dated 31 May 2024 to civics and individuals that the City of Cape Town will not be providing for rangers as it was not a City of Cape Town mandate and they did not have the budget to do so. This was borne out by the fact that the adopted management plan provided for the communities to employ and fund their own rangers.

Thereafter, the authorities proceeded with their public meetings during June 2024 and the election of the Cape Peninsula Baboon Advisory Group (CPBAG) representatives during November 2024. The CPBAG has not yet held a first meeting, which was originally planned for 1 June 2024. 

During the course of filing affidavits over months it became clear that there was no plan in respect of rangers. This was confirmed under oath by the City of Cape Town who had to reserve its right to file a further affidavit to confirm what would be put in place in the absence of rangers. This affidavit was only filed during October 2024, which is the first time that the continuation of the rangers was addressed, as confirmed by its affidavit. 

During December 2024, an advocate, acting on behalf of the City of Cape Town, approached the counsel of the applicants with a proposal that they will record in a court order their duties and functions, including implementation of the management plan. The other two parties, SANparks and CapeNature, then agreed to the court order. This is very clearly not the applicants withdrawing the case, as stated incorrectly in the article, and in a City of Cape Town media release dated 6 December 2024.  

Based on the agreement reached on 6 December 2024, specifically the recordals incorporated in the court order, the applicants consented to withdrawal of the application. The recordals included an amount of R33-million from the City of Cape Town for a ranger service. This was a significant achievement in light of the stance taken by the mayor in his letter of 31 May 2024 in response to civics and individuals. 

It is also stated in the article that the applicants wanted to keep the order “confidential”. This is incorrect. No benefit will be served for such an order to be kept confidential and the applicants had widely published the terms of the court order and even indicated that they will be enforcing them. We are not aware of an application to court to achieve confidentiality of the court order, neither can these representatives provide such an application. 

It is also stated that there was no public participation with regards to the applicant’s intention to approach the court for relief. However, they proffer no statutory obligation on the applicants to do so. They must have misread the provisions of section 38 of our Constitution. It is also stated that “Eight months later, on 6 December 2024, after no public information about the case from either side, a court order was signed by a high court judge”. This is not correct. The applicants posted updates on social media as the case progressed.

In the past 24 years there have been various task teams with various adopted management plans. However, the mitigating solutions of these plans were never implemented wholly or at all, notwithstanding undertakings to do so.

The court order obtained can be enforced against the authorities for any one of the mitigating solutions not implemented in terms of the management plan.

We have already indicated that we are of the intention to place the authorities to terms in respect of non-enforcement of City of Cape Town bylaws and the CapeNature Ordinance (as amended). 

The factual position is that the authorities will have to discharge their duties, in the absence of which there is an enforceable court order in place. This is a huge win for communities and baboons as it is the first time that authorities can be held liable in terms of the provisions of a court order.

It is clear from the article that, from the outset, the intentions of the coalition or certain representatives was to discredit the applicants, which is borne out by the fact of recordings of meetings as well as correspondence. To what end such representatives of the coalition act in this manner is unknown. It has been of no benefit to baboons or communities.

Since late 2022 to date, civic representatives, individuals and coalition representatives have had various meetings with the authorities and even burdened their supporters with the costs of legal opinions. Notwithstanding the aforementioned actions they have not been able to get anything implemented, not even law enforcement in respect of waste management or a baboon-proof bin, nor education, now 17 months after adoption of the management plan.

The applicants will be enforcing the court order and furthermore will hold representatives of the Cape Peninsula Baboon Advisory Group responsible if the plan that they must oversee is not implemented and communities and baboons continue to suffer damages.

The article begs the question as to why the authorities opposed the applicants if they had every intention of providing funded rangers and implementing the BSMP as stated by Willis and Cousins? Why draw the matter out over six months and bury the applicants in a multitude of court papers and incur their own costly legal fees if their intent was to meet their commitments? What benefit is there to the baboons and communities with the publication of this article by Willis and Cousins? We see it as an endeavour to water down the effect of the court order as if it is legally non-enforceable. DM

Ryno Engelbrecht is an insolvency practitioner and has been involved in animal welfare since 2014. Jenni Trethowan is the founder member of the Baboon Matters Trust and has been advocating for better management of the baboon-human interface for the past 25 years.