High Court Rhino Horn Victory: A Legal Lifeline Unlocks Sustainable Funding for South Africa’s Rhinos

30 November 2025 | Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA)

On 31 October 2025, the Northern Cape High Court in Kimberley delivered a landmark ruling that could reshape rhino conservation in South Africa. Judge Lever held in Hendrick (Wicus) Diedericks (owner of Rockwood Conservation) versus the MEC for Agriculture, Environmental Affairs, Rural Development and Land Reform (Northern Cape) & the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (Case No. 295/2023) that a key exemption under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) - Article VII(5) - is incorporated into South African domestic law. Therefore, the MEC’s refusal to apply this exemption was unlawful.

In practice, what this means is that white rhino horn from captive-bred rhinos (bred for non-commercial conservation purposes) may now be exported under a simpler permit regime, without the standard, more onerous CITES import/export permits. This is a huge win for private rhino breeders and conservationists, because it unlocks potentially millions in revenue that can be reinvested into protection and community development. 

What does Article VII(5) of CITES entail?

Article VII(5) of CITES allows a Management Authority of an exporting country to accept a certificate of captive breeding instead of the standard permits or certificates required by Articles III, IV, or V for certain trade of endangered species. This simplifies the process for specimens that are legally bred in captivity, and this certificate can be used to authorize the export of those specimens. 

Understanding the CITES Context & Why the Ban on the Trade of Rhino Horn Failed to Solve the Problem

To grasp the importance of this ruling, it's helpful to understand how CITES works and where previous assumptions went wrong.

• The CITES Framework: CITES classifies species into different appendices depending on how threatened they are. Appendix I is the strictest (very endangered), Appendix II is less so. White rhinos (Ceratotherium simum simum) are listed in Appendix II, but their horn has historically been treated under Appendix I rules, meaning trade is highly restricted.

• The “Missing” Exemption: Article VII(5) of CITES provides an important distinction: animals bred in captivity for conservation (not for profit) may be exported under more relaxed conditions, using a certificate rather than the usual export/import permits. The High Court confirmed in this ruling that this exemption is valid under South African law.

• Why the ban didn’t work: Despite the global ban on rhino horn trade (part of CITES), poaching soared in South Africa, especially in the 2000s and 2010s. High demand, particularly in parts of Asia, persisted, driven by status, beliefs about medicinal value, and ornamentation. Cutting off all legal supply simply shifted profit to criminal syndicates, rather than reducing demand.

  
  

What the Court Actually Ruled

Here are the key practical findings from the court:

1. Exemption is Law: The court declared that Article VII(5) of CITES is part of South Africa’s domestic legal regime.

2. Streamlined Certificate: If the Management Authority (in South Africa) is satisfied that a horn comes from a captive-bred, conservation-focused white rhino, it must issue a certificate (not a full CITES permit). That certificate replaces the normal Articles III, IV, or V permit process.

3. No Import Permit Needed from the Importing State: Remarkably, the court ruled that no import permit is required from the destination country, once South Africa issues this certificate.

4. Quicker Turnaround Times: The MEC (provincial authority) must make a decision on these applications within seven days of submission.

These steps are meant to make lawful, conservation-based horn exports faster, more predictable, and more financially meaningful across all provinces.

Why This Is a Massive Win for Wildlife Ranching and Conservation

1. Sustainable Use, Not Exploitation

Rhino horn is made of keratin, similar to human fingernails. It can be safely harvested from live rhinos by sedating them, trimming the horn, and letting it regrow. It’s therefore a renewable resource that can meet the inherent demand legally, while also contributing to the safeguarding of livelihoods and the species. 

2. Funding Conservation

For private conservancies, protection is expensive. In the court case, Diedericks testified that his operation costs about R20 million annually to run (for feed, security, breeding, etc.). 

The revenue from selling horn, under legal, regulated conditions, could be ploughed directly back into anti-poaching efforts, infrastructure, and rural development.

3. Private Sector Support

Research shows that many stakeholders in the private wildlife sector support legal horn trade. For example, a survey of 169 wildlife ranchers found that 82% believed legal trade would benefit the species, rhino owners and conservation, and see it as a way to offset the high costs of rhino protection. (Read the study here)

Another study of Eastern Cape private reserves revealed similar sentiments: many believe trade would boost reserves’ capacity to invest in security, monitoring, and rhino breeding. (Read the study here)

Furthermore, research done on the Importance of private and communal lands to sustainable conservation of Africa's rhinoceroses aggregated African rhino population data and highlighted the growing role of private and community rhino custodians, who likely now conserve >50% of Africa's rhinos. The study states that private landowners’ contributions “have been enabled by a supportive policy and economic environment, but this arrangement is becoming more difficult to sustain as costs associated with protecting rhinos skyrocket and revenue-generating options become insufficient.” (Read the study here) 

The Road Ahead

While this ruling is a breakthrough, it does not mean the path forward is free of obstacles.

Even though South Africa’s certificate removes the need for an import permit from the destination country, receiving countries still have their own laws. Some major demand countries (e.g., Vietnam, China) may continue to ban imports, block shipments, or confiscate shipments.

Political and public opinion in import states may also push back against accepting horns, regardless of legality.

How This Fits into the Global Conservation Debate

• Revenue Models & Conservation EconomicsSome academic models (e.g., Holden & Lockyer, 2021) suggest that if legal wildlife trade revenue is directed back into law enforcement, it can help drive down poaching and sustain populations, but only under very specific conditions (a significant proportion of the funds must go to protection). (Read the study here)

• Technology, Monitoring & EnforcementLegal trade will likely need to be paired with strong monitoring, transparency, and innovation. Emerging tools, such as AI-driven detection of wildlife products in trade, or digital stewardship systems that reward guardians for protection, could help. For instance, recent studies use machine learning to spot illegal wildlife products online. (Read more here)

• Alternative Protection StrategiesThere is growing evidence for other complementary approaches. A recent seven-year study in South Africa found that dehorning, when done repeatedly, reduced poaching by ~78%. (Read more here) Some conservationists see dehorning as a powerful interim measure for “buying time” while legal frameworks, enforcement, and demand-reduction strategies mature.

Why This Matters for South Africa

This judgment could transform South Africa into a global leader in applying the principle of “sustainable use” - using a renewable wildlife resource in a way that funds its own protection. The majority of SA’s rhinos live on private and community land, not national parks. By giving these stakeholders a legal and economically viable pathway, the ruling strengthens their role in conservation. The legal horn trade could generate millions, creating jobs (ranger, monitoring, security), supporting local communities, and incentivizing habitat expansion.By offering a legal alternative, this ruling could undercut the black-market incentives for poachers. That said, proper regulation and vigilance will be essential.

The High Court’s ruling in favor of Wicus Diedericks is more than just a legal technicality, it could be a game-changer for rhino conservation in South Africa. But legal permits alone are not a silver bullet. To realize the promise of this decision, South Africa will need robust enforcement, transparency, demand-side strategies, and continued investment in ethical conservation practices. Mismanagement or lack of oversight could risk undermining the very goals this ruling is meant to support.

If done well, however, this could mark a turning point: transforming rhino horn into a powerful conservation asset.

Written by: Nicolette van der Merwe

Citations

African Wildlife Economy Institute. (n.d.) Research commentary by Michael ’t Sas-Rolfes on rhino trade and conservation. African Wildlife Economy Institute.

Cambridge University Press. (n.d.a) Rhinoceros ownership and attitudes towards legalization of global horn trade within South Africa’s private wildlife sector. Oryx. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/ (Accessed: [15 November 2025]).

Cambridge University Press. (n.d.b) Stakeholder perceptions of legal trade in rhinoceros horn and implications for private reserve management in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Oryx. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/ (Accessed: [13 November 2025]).

Conservation Action Trust. (n.d.) Debunking the myth that legal trade will solve the rhino horn crisis: A system dynamics model of market demand. Available at: https://www.conservationaction.co.za/ (Accessed: [15 November 2025]).

Daily Maverick. Stoddard, E. (2025) The recent landmark judgment on rhino horn exports and its implications for wildlife conservation, 3 November.

Diedericks, H.L. (2025) Rockwood Press Release: BREAKING: A Victory for Rhinos, Conservation, and Communities! 31 October.

EMS Foundation. (n.d.) Rhino horn trade: Decades of warnings by animal protection organisations proven to be on the money. Available at: https://emsfoundation.org.za/ (Accessed: [12 November 2025]).

Eyewitness News (EWN). (2025) Registered breeders can legally sell rhino horn abroad, rules High Court, 31 October. Available at: https://www.ewn.co.za/ (Accessed: [19 November 2025]).

Guardian. (2025) Dehorning rhinos deters poachers, say rangers, 5 June. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/ (Accessed: [19 November 2025]).

High Court of South Africa, Northern Cape Division (Kimberley). (2025a) Hendrick (Wicus) Diedericks v MEC for Agriculture, Environmental Affairs, Rural Development and Land Reform (Northern Cape) and Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (Case No. 295/2023). Available at: https://www.saflii.org/ (Accessed: [15 November 2025]).

High Court of South Africa, Northern Cape Division (Kimberley). (2025b) Judgment No. ZANCHC 93/2025 (Full Court text). Available at: https://lawlibrary.org.za/ (Accessed: [15 November 2025]).

Holden, M.H. & Lockyer, J.M. (2021) Illegal wildlife trade, enforcement, and the sustainability of legal trade: A systems model. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.11664 (Accessed: [19 November 2025]).

Machine Intelligence Wildlife Monitoring Group. (2025) Detecting illicit wildlife trade online using AI systems. Available at: https://arxiv.org/ (Accessed: [19 November 2025]).

Vorhies, F. (2025) Legalising rhino horn trade for rhino conservation in South Africa, 6 November.