16/10/2026
Over the months since four juvenile Barn Owls were killed by an inspector of the Randfontein Westonaria SPCA on 27 June 2026, many people have contacted us asking for answers. Some have asked why we turned away from these owls.
We never turned away.
From the very beginning, we wanted answers. We wanted to understand how four young owls, who could have been rescued and raised to live a full life in the wild, ended up being euthanised when help was available.
After we released the voice recording of the discussion between our volunteer and Randfontein SPCA inspector Stephan Maila, the NSPCA responded on 16 July.
Their statement condemned people for jumping to conclusions without knowing the full story and asked the public for patience while they investigated. They also confirmed that the four owls had been sent for histopathological examinations to establish what their condition were, before they were euthanised. These tests would help determine whether the owls had been suffering and whether there was any medical justification for ending their lives.
So we waited. We respected the process and gave them the opportunity to investigate properly.
Then, on 27 July, during an interview with Esté Gross on Pretoria FM, NSPCA spokesperson Jacques Peacock was pressed on the findings. He confirmed that the tests showed all four owls had been in good health, with no underlying illness or condition to justify them being euthanased.
We waited for the NSPCA to release its findings publicly. People continued asking us what had happened, and we had hoped the organisation responsible for investigating this matter would provide the answers. But there was nothing.
On 13 August, the NSPCA's candidate attorney, Jaco Pieterse, contacted Brendan and again asked that we refrain from making public statements. We were told that the disciplinary process needed time to run its course. He also requested Brendan's affidavit, even though Brendan's full account of the incident had already been submitted to the NSPCA's CEO, COO, and Wildlife Unit on 30 June.
Once again, we respected their request.
We wanted to give the process a fair chance. We wanted to see whether there would be genuine accountability and, more importantly, whether anything would change as a result of what happened.
We were particularly interested in whether the Randfontein SPCA and the NSPCA would make it clear that euthanasia is not an acceptable solution simply because an animal is inconvenient to accommodate or not immediately accepted by a rehabilitation facility.
Euthanasia has a place in animal welfare. It is intended to prevent further suffering when an animal's condition cannot reasonably be treated or its suffering cannot otherwise be relieved. It should never become a convenient alternative to finding help for an animal whose life can still be saved.
After being told to wait, we finally heard back from the NSPCA this week—after three-and-a-half months.
We were told that disciplinary proceedings involve confidential employment-related and personal information protected under labour law and POPIA, and that the NSPCA could not disclose the details or outcome to us.
Most critically, after asking everyone not to jump to conclusions until the histopathological analysis was completed, they failed to publish the findings of that analysis. If Jacques Peacock had not been pressed on radio for the findings, we would never have known the outcome.
The NSPCA then directed us to the Randfontein SPCA's public statement.
The Randfontein SPCA's statement feels like an attempt to sweep an uncomfortable issue under the rug, rather than an honest account of what will be done differently. Their statement serves as an attempt to justify the decision made to kill four juvenile owls.
The inspector now describes one owl as having already died and the others as dying. This is a direct contradiction to the histopathological findings of the specialist vets at Onderstepoort that showed all four owls were in good health. In the original call that the inspector made to us, he confirmed the owlets were healthy and acknowledged that it would take us a few hours to pick them up. Both the inspector and their chairperson at the time confirmed that all their phone calls are recorded.
It is difficult to maintain faith in the integrity of this society when such a misleading public statement is presented as a final conclusion.
The inspector remains the General Manager and a Senior Inspector at the society. If we were talking about four young human lives, would anyone accept this response? Or do we still live in a world that refuses to place equal value on all living beings?
We haven't seen any public commitments regarding additional wildlife training from experts or addressing the level of judgment and compassion this work requires.
If a society does not have the facilities, knowledge, or experience to care for a wild animal that they've taken in, then they shouldn't be allowed to take in wildlife at all. Every day, we guide members of the public and everyday volunteers who, with simple instruction, keep wild animals safe, warm, and stable until expert help arrives. It does not require vast resources, it requires compassion, patience, and a willingness to preserve life.
We are extremely disappointed in both the Randfontein SPCA and the NSPCA. We waited because we wanted to believe that this would lead to something meaningful. We wanted to see accountability, a willingness to acknowledge what went wrong, and a commitment to protect the lives of animals in the future.
Instead, we are left with four dead owls, a disciplinary process whose outcome we cannot meaningfully assess, and no public assurance that the same thing will not happen again.
And that is the saddest part of all.
Those four lives are gone. They cannot be brought back. But their deaths should at least have meant something. They should have prompted an honest examination of how wildlife is treated, how decisions about euthanasia are made, and whether the people entrusted with protecting animals have the knowledge and compassion to do so.
We believe all life deserves compassion. And we believe that when an organisation is entrusted with protecting animals, it has a responsibility to protect them even when doing so is difficult, inconvenient, or requires reaching out for help.
We did not turn away from those owls.
We waited. We asked questions. We gave the process time.
And we are speaking now because we believe their lives deserved more than this.
