CAPE TOWN – The Cape of Good Hope SPCA is taking legal action following a social-media post alleging its staff had mistreated a critically-ill puppy at one of its mobile clinics last week.
Social media backlash
According to the association’s website, the post on the Table View Facebook group, on Thursday 12 March, was made by grooming parlour employee Izelle van Deventer, and quickly gained traction, attracting more than 1 000 comments, many criticising the organisation and threatening to withdraw support.
However, SPCA said the post was based entirely on third-hand information and that the person who made the allegation was not present when the incident occurred, said SPCA spokesperson, Belinda Abraham.
Defamation claims escalate
“No-one from the SPCA was contacted. No attempt was made to verify the facts. No opportunity was given to the SPCA to explain what actually happened. Yet the post has portrayed our staff as heartless and uncaring, damaging the reputation of an organisation that has spent decades protecting animals and serving the community.”
The association said it “does not object to criticism” but took what was tantamount to defamation very seriously.
“When someone publicly accuses an organisation of wrongdoing based on hearsay, without verifying the facts, that is not criticism,” Abraham pointed out. “That is defamation. And defamation has consequences.”
The post has since been removed by Facebook.
Investigation reveals facts
However, Abraham said the SPCA would still take legal action, adding that “the organisation, our staff, and our mission deserve the protection of the law.”
“When the post was brought to our attention, we immediately appointed two senior staff members to conduct a full investigation. The animal-welfare assistant (AWA) who attended to the puppy was interviewed and given the opportunity to explain exactly what happened. His version of events was materially different from the claims made on Facebook.”
The SPCA said it had reviewed the admission form completed when the puppy was brought to the mobile clinic, but noted the information provided by the finder was not accurate.
The accuser’s cellphone number and address were false, which meant we were unable to contact the original finder to obtain further details.
The organisation also contacted Van Deventer directly and, in a recorded phone conversation, she had confirmed she had not witnessed the incident herself and that the information she had posted on Facebook had come from someone else.
“She also confirmed something very important,” Abraham said, “the puppy was extremely sick, very weak and could not walk.”
Puppy’s condition
She said the puppy had been brought to the SPCA’s mobile clinic as a stray and had already been in a critical state.
“The puppy was not forcibly taken from the finder as claimed by the post. The finder voluntarily handed the puppy over to our animal-welfare assistant as a stray animal requiring assistance.”
The SPCA said the Facebook post also claimed the finder was “told she had to pay money before the puppy could be helped. This is completely false. Why would the SPCA demand money from someone for a stray puppy that does not belong to them? Our staff accepted the puppy immediately and arranged for veterinary care.” According to the organisation the puppy was extremely weak, unable to walk, unwilling to eat and attempting to vomit when it arrived.”
Staff immediately suspected infection with canine parvovirus, a serious and highly contagious illness that affects puppies.
To protect other animals at the clinic, the puppy was placed in a cage with water and bedding, and isolated from other pets waiting to be treated.
The SPCA said this was necessary to prevent the possible spread of the virus.
The puppy was later transported to the SPCA hospital where veterinary staff conducted further tests. The parvovirus test returned positive.
Veterinarians found the puppy was critically ill and unable to stand.
Given the severity of its illness and poor condition, the veterinary team made the decision to euthanise the animal humanely to prevent further suffering.
Legal action pending
The SPCA also interviewed independent witnesses who were waiting in a queue at the clinic and said their accounts supported the version given by staff.
The organisation stressed it does not object to criticism, but allegations made without verification can be damaging and amount to defamation.
“False allegations harm more than just our reputation,” Abraham pointed out. “They undermine public trust and ultimately harm the very animals we are trying to protect. We will therefore pursue the appropriate legal remedies available to us.”
ALSO READ Cyclists pedal with a purpose, raise over R700k for animal welfare at Cycle Tour
