The quiet transfer of elephants from the city zoos in Pretoria and Johannesburg has sparked protests, petitions, and a wider debate over how wildlife is managed in urban environments, as well as who is able to access it. In August, Pretoria Zoo’s last elephant bull, Charley, was moved to Shambala Private Game Reserve in Limpopo.
The relocation, approved by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), followed a public call for proposals to provide the elephant with a “retirement home.” The successful bid was submitted by the EMS Foundation in partnership with the Steyn family, owned reserve. While the decision was framed as a welfare measure, many residents expressed frustration, noting that public zoos had long provided affordable access to iconic animals for families and schools unable to travel to national parks or private reserves. Charley’s removal was therefore experienced not only as a management decision but as the loss of a civic amenity, particularly for working-class communities who now may only encounter elephants in books or on screens.
Critics of the relocation argued that transferring elephants to high-end private reserves effectively shifted a public heritage resource into an elite domain that is financially and geographically inaccessible. What SANBI described as a welfare-driven reform was thus interpreted by some as another form of exclusion, reinforcing existing inequities in access to nature-based experiences. Questions were also raised within Pretoria Zoo about whether prestige and tourism considerations had shaped the outcome. Shambala’s status as a luxury destination fueled concerns that Charley’s presence would become a drawcard, meaning that the elephant’s story and longevity might now generate private rather than public benefit.
Attention has since turned to Johannesburg Zoo, where three elephants remain the subject of a legal campaign for removal. The EMS Foundation, supported by amicus input from Harvard Law School, has been backing litigation expected to be heard in September. Zoo officials warn that if the elephants are removed, the institution’s educational mission will be severely undermined, especially for non-fee-paying schools and children encountering wildlife for the first time. Advocates for removal, however, argue that urban enclosures cannot meet elephants’ social and spatial needs, framing the issue squarely as one of animal welfare. Opponents emphasize the importance of access, equity, and the civic function of zoos, and the unresolved tension between these positions is likely to shape future policy and practice well beyond Johannesburg.
The controversy has prompted petitions, demonstrations, and community meetings, with many fearing that elephants are only the first of several flagship species, such as giraffes and hippos, that could be removed. This has raised deeper questions about the future role of urban zoos. Skepticism has also grown around international involvement, as some South Africans expressed discomfort with decisions appearing to be driven or influenced by foreign NGOs and institutions.
At the heart of the dispute is a policy gap at the intersection of animal welfare, public education, and social equity. Welfare standards are increasingly being interpreted to favor removing wide-ranging, highly social species from zoos. Public access, however, particularly for lower-income families and schools, has not been given explicit protection in decision-making frameworks, leaving these considerations vulnerable to neglect. Governance is further challenged when formal procedures are experienced as top-down and lacking legitimacy, while the uneven distribution of conservation and tourism benefits raises concerns that public assets are being privatized.
Read also: Verra and S&P Global launch next-gen carbon registry with big implications for Africa
What is ultimately at stake is not only where elephants should live but how the goals of conservation are to be balanced with social inclusion in rapidly urbanizing African contexts. If welfare is prioritized without ensuring accessible opportunities for people to experience wildlife, public support for conservation could erode. On the other hand, if access is prioritized without attention to welfare, ethical commitments to animal care may be compromised.
The forthcoming litigation in Johannesburg will test how courts weigh animal welfare against public-interest considerations in urban settings. Depending on the outcome, more relocations may follow and policy governing large mammals in city zoos could be revised. Meanwhile, community mobilization is expected to continue, with growing demands for meaningful consultation, transparent relocation criteria, and mitigation measures such as improved exhibits, replacement species, or subsidized access to reserves if removals are carried out.
Charley’s relocation has become a flashpoint in a much larger conversation: who benefits from South Africa’s biodiversity, how public heritage is defined and preserved, and how global welfare norms can be adapted to local realities in which access and affordability remain pressing concerns.
The Story of Charley
Charley, the last elephant to leave Pretoria Zoo, has long been a familiar figure for residents of the capital. Originally brought to the zoo in the early 2000s as a young bull, he spent nearly two decades as one of the institution’s star attractions. For schoolchildren on excursions and families unable to travel to remote game reserves, Charley offered a rare opportunity to see an elephant up close. His presence was woven into the memories of generations who associated the zoo with their first direct encounter with South Africa’s largest land mammal.
Over the years, concerns were raised about whether the limited space and urban environment could meet the needs of such a wide-ranging, highly social animal. Following the death of his long-time companion, Landa, in 2019, those concerns intensified, as elephants are known to be deeply social creatures that suffer when isolated. Animal welfare groups argued that Charley’s quality of life would improve in a larger reserve with other elephants, eventually leading SANBI to approve his transfer to Shambala Private Game Reserve. His departure marked not only the end of an era for Pretoria Zoo but also a symbolic turning point in South Africa’s debate over how best to balance conservation priorities with public access.
Read also: EY study shows rising global EHS investment, but Africa’s industries face a strategy gap
