Legal action looms as SPCA disputes viral social media claims
A viral social media post about a sick puppy has sparked backlash and legal action.
Image: AI Generated
A dispute between the Cape of Good Hope SPCA and the author of a viral Facebook post about a sick puppy has escalated, with the woman confirming she did not witness the full incident and the organisation standing by its findings and legal stance.
Earlier this week, the SPCA said it would pursue legal action after a post shared in the Table View community Facebook group on March 12 accused its staff of mistreating a critically ill puppy. The post drew widespread attention, attracting more than 1 000 comments, many of them critical of the organisation.
The viral post described an emotional scene in which a woman brought a severely ill puppy to the SPCA after finding it wandering near a road.
“This broke my heart today… and I can’t stay silent,” the post read.
It alleged that the puppy, described as weak and struggling to walk, was placed in a cage without comfort, and that payment of between R700 and R900 was requested before assistance could be provided.
“Every animal that suffers deserves gentleness, compassion, and help, especially in their weakest moment,” the post stated.
In response to a media enquiry, Izelle van Deventer said she had not observed all aspects of the incident firsthand.
“I did not see everything that happened. I saw that they took the puppy, but I could only go out now and then because I also had to look after the parlour,” she said.
Van Deventer said her account was based on information provided by the woman who brought the puppy to the SPCA, as well as the woman’s mother.
“The woman who rescued the puppy told me everything that happened, with tears in her eyes. The woman and her mother gave me the information, and everything was the truth,” she said.
She added that a colleague could corroborate parts of what she witnessed.
Van Deventer said she had since received a letter of demand from the SPCA, giving her until March 18 to publish a public statement retracting the allegations.
“I have now also received a letter of demand… to make a public post stating it was false defamation,” she said.
She further alleged that her workplace had been drawn into the dispute.
“They have now also brought my workplace… into the matter, even though they have nothing to do with the puppy,” she said.
Van Deventer said her intention was not to harm the organisation.
“We did not post it to make the SPCA look bad, we only wanted to know the truth,” she said.
Responding to these claims, SPCA spokesperson Belinda Abraham said the organisation’s investigation does not support the version of events shared on social media.
“The individual has confirmed that she did not witness the incident firsthand, yet proceeded to publish serious allegations based on unverified third-party information,” Abraham said.
“Our investigation does not support the version circulated on social media. What is not disputed is that the puppy was critically ill and suffering from Parvovirus, and our veterinary team acted appropriately and in the best interests of the animal.”
The SPCA maintains that its internal investigation included interviews with staff and members of the public who were present at the clinic, as well as a review of admission records. It said its Animal Welfare Assistant’s account differed materially from the claims made on social media and was supported by independent witnesses.
The organisation confirmed that the puppy was presented as a stray and voluntarily handed over for assistance. Staff immediately suspected canine parvovirus, a highly contagious and often fatal disease, and isolated the puppy from other animals as a precaution.
It rejected claims that the puppy was treated without care, saying it was placed in a cage with water and bedding as part of necessary infection control measures, and denied that payment was required before treatment.
According to the SPCA, the puppy was transported to its hospital where it was found to be extremely weak, unable to stand and critically ill. A parvovirus test returned positive.
Given the severity of the illness and poor prognosis, a veterinarian made the decision to humanely euthanise the puppy to prevent further suffering and reduce the risk of infection to other animals.
Abraham confirmed that a letter of demand had been issued.
“The basis for this is the publication of defamatory statements that caused significant harm to the reputation of the SPCA. The post gained substantial traction online, resulting in widespread negative commentary and statements from members of the public indicating that they would withdraw their support and donations,” she said.
“The publication of unverified and inaccurate allegations has serious consequences, not only for the organisation but ultimately for the animals in our care.”
Addressing claims that the individual’s workplace had been drawn into the matter, Abraham said this formed part of the legal considerations.
“The SPCA’s position is that the information relied upon by the individual appears to have originated from interactions that took place at her place of employment… This is a matter that will be addressed through the appropriate legal channels,” she said.
The SPCA said it would continue to pursue appropriate legal remedies to protect its staff and reputation.