We write with great concern and in the strongest terms condemn the recent killing of approximately 70 cattle in Kalomo, Southern Province, following a court order made under the Animal Health Act No. 27 of 2010. This decision, based on the alleged movement of animals without proper permits, is morally unjustifiable, legally excessive, and economically destructive.

1. A Bad Law for Humans is Equally Bad for Animals

A legal system that permits the execution of animals for administrative violations—especially where no clear, immediate threat to public or animal health is confirmed—reflects a primitive and outdated approach to justice. The treatment of these animals and their owners under this Act stands in stark contrast to how human beings were treated under similar biosecurity threats.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments across the globe, including Zambia, issued decrees restricting movement. Many individuals violated these orders. Yet, the response was not to execute violators, but to quarantine, treat, and educate them. No reasonable person would suggest that those who breached movement regulations during a health crisis should be executed. Why then should animals, which are voiceless and whose movements are controlled by humans, be slaughtered without recourse or rehabilitation?

2. Violation of the Farmer's Right to Property and Livelihood

By killing 70 animals—often a farmer's only source of livelihood, wealth, and food security—the law has effectively stripped these individuals of their right to own property, without offering a fair, proportional remedy such as fines, quarantine, or proper legal recourse. This form of enforcement does not just kill animals; it destroys families, impoverishes communities, and crushes livelihoods.

Such actions are reminiscent of colonial-style punishment, where the goal was not rehabilitation but submission through destruction. These actions are not aligned with a modern, democratic, and humane legal system.

3. Alternatives Were Available and Ignored

If the concern was genuine—that the cattle posed a risk to animal health due to illegal movement—then the appropriate and humane response would have been to:

• Quarantine the animals
• Test them for diseases and treat them
• Impose fines or administrative penalties on the responsible individuals and release healthy animals back to their rightful owners. This approach would have served justice without unnecessary cruelty or economic devastation.

4. Urgent Call for Legislative Review and Amendment

We urge your office to urgently amend Section 78 of the Animal Health Act No. 27 of 2010 to:

Eliminate or strictly limit the power to order the destruction of animals in non-health-threatening circumstances,
Require independent veterinary verification before any destruction,
Promote alternative penalties (fines, quarantine, seizure without slaughter),
Uphold the constitutional rights to property, fair hearing, and proportionate justice.
Conclusion

The killing of 70 cattle in Kalomo is not just a legal tragedy—it is a moral failure and an economic disaster. The law applied is not only unfit for a humane society, but also unjust and unsustainable in a country where millions depend on livestock for survival. Raising your stock up to 70 cattle is not child’s play. 

We urge you, Hon. Minister, to act swiftly by:

• Initiating a review of the law,
• Halting such destructive enforcement,
• Restoring dignity to our farmers and humanity to our animal welfare policies.
• We stand ready to support your Ministry in working toward a more just and modern legal framework.