Primary briefing · Gazette
high impact 54291 · 7210 · 9 March 2026
CITES non-detriment findings impose immediate export quotas, DNA mandates, and trade bans under NEMBA
Effective from
Invalid Date
Government Notice 7210 publishes binding non-detriment findings by the Scientific Authority under section 62(1) of NEMBA for numerous CITES-listed species. Cheetah exports are capped at 30 males and 15 females per annum from the metapopulation, with a zero quota for free-ranging wild cheetah; all captive-bred cheetah require DNA parentage verification and breeding facilities must be registered under TOPS and CITES Regulations. Endangered cycad (Encephalartos spp.) seedlings may only be exported from CITES-registered nurseries audited per the Scientific Authority's decision tree, with TOPS permits and parental-plant affidavits. Sungazer lizard exports are prohibited outright until evidence of successful captive breeding is provided. Blue duiker exports must cease except from the Kowie-Kariega Conservancy under an approved adaptive harvest protocol. Grey-headed and Cape parrot exports are restricted to DNA-verified captive-bred specimens, and the Scientific Authority must develop an inspection decision tree within three months of publication. Non-compliance risks criminal prosecution under NEMBA.
Who is affected
Wildlife breeders and exportersGame ranch owners and hunting outfittersCycad and succulent nurseriesCaptive breeding facilitiesProvincial conservation authoritiesEnvironmental compliance consultants What this means for practitioners
Wildlife exporters must verify that species-specific export quotas are not exceeded and ensure DNA parentage analyses are completed before any cheetah or parrot export
Cycad nurseries must confirm CITES registration, audit compliance per the Scientific Authority decision tree, and obtain TOPS permits and parental-plant affidavits before export
Breeding facilities must register with the provincial Management Authority under TOPS and CITES Regulations if not already registered
Monitor the Scientific Authority's development of the parrot inspection decision tree, due within 3 months of 9 March 2026 (by approximately 9 June 2026)
Cease all sungazer lizard exports immediately; cease blue duiker exports except from the Kowie-Kariega Conservancy under an approved protocol
Primary briefing · Judgment
high impact High Court (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) · 9 March 2026
Pityana v ABSA Group Limited and Others
A former non-executive director of ABSA was removed by the board under section 71(3) of the Companies Act on the basis that he had created a material conflict of interest by litigating against the Prudential Authority, joining ABSA as a respondent, and conducting a public media campaign. He applied to court under section 71(5) to review and set aside the removal resolution.
The court held: The court held that a section 71(5) review is a special statutory review — neither narrow, wide, nor sui generis — and that its scope is determined by the statutory provision itself. The applicable standard is rationality: the court asks whether the board's decision was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have arrived at it. The court must not usurp the board's function. On the merits, the board's determination that the applicant had created a material conflict of interest was rational and not reviewable. The application was dismissed.
Legal impact: Resolves conflicting High Court authority on the characterisation of s 71(5) review, establishing a rationality test that significantly limits judicial intervention in board removal decisions. Boards of listed and public companies can proceed with greater confidence that a properly reasoned removal for conflict of interest will withstand review, provided the decision is not perverse or utterly irrational. Removed directors face a high threshold to overturn a removal. The judgment reinforces judicial deference to the board's value judgment on what constitutes the company's best interest.
Who is affected
Boards of directors of listed and public companiesNon-executive directors facing removal proceedingsCorporate governance advisors and in-house counselBanking and financial services sectorShareholders What this means for practitioners
Boards considering director removal under s 71(3) should ensure the resolution is supported by a rational basis and that procedural requirements (notice, specificity, opportunity to respond) under s 71(4) are met
Directors facing removal should assess review prospects against the rationality standard — not correctness on the merits — when deciding whether to apply under s 71(5)
Corporate governance advisors should update board removal protocols to reflect the rationality test and the court's rejection of the narrow/wide/sui generis labels
Monitor for any appeal — the judgment is at High Court level and conflicting authority exists