Legalising rhino horn is a deadly mistake, and and CITES CoP20 must close the door completely

The record rhino horn seizure in Singapore, the Kimberley High Court ruling in South Africa and the arrest of former breeder John Hume reveal how any legal opening for rhino horn rapidly becomes intertwined with the illegal market. As CITES CoP20 kicks off, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that legalising trade would accelerate, not deter, rhino trafficking.

Singapore’s record seizure and the resilience of the illegal market

On 8 November 2025, Singaporean authorities intercepted the country’s largest haul yet of smuggled rhino horn: 20 pieces weighing 35.7kg and valued at more than R14.5-million. The horns were disguised as “furniture fittings” and had been shipped from South Africa en route to Laos. The relatively smooth, flat-cut surface at the base of the horns in the images provided by authorities at this interception suggests that the horns were obtained from legal dehorning procedures.

This seizure therefore once again illustrates that the illegal trade in rhino horn remains active, well organised and responsive to market opportunities. Even after decades of international prohibition, criminal networks continue to move substantial quantities of horn across continents. The persistence of this trade indicates that the underlying drivers – high demand, entrenched syndicates and extraordinary profit margins – remain fully intact.

Against this backdrop, proposals to legalise rhino horn trade, even in limited forms, must be evaluated not in hypothetical economic models but in relation to the empirical realities of trafficking. The illegal market is resilient. Introducing legal pathways does not exist in a vacuum; it interacts with, and in practice often strengthens, illicit channels.

The Kimberley High Court ruling: an opening with significant consequences

Only days before the Singapore seizure, the Kimberley High Court ruled that horn harvested from captive-bred white rhinos on registered breeding operations may be exported under CITES’s non-commercial exemption.

Although framed narrowly, this ruling could potentially establish a precedent that carries considerable risks. Once a legal export channel exists, enforcement agencies must distinguish legal horn from illegal horn in circulation, a task that has repeatedly proven unmanageable in wildlife trade. Documentation can be forged, permits duplicated and horns substituted or mixed during transport. The existence of a legal avenue gives illicit traders precisely the ambiguity they require.

Co-applicant Derek Lewitton, a US national and Limpopo-based rhino breeder, brings additional controversy to the Kimberley ruling. Lewitton has long positioned himself as a champion of the legal rhino horn trade, arguing that private owners need economic mechanisms to sustain conservation costs. Yet his own record reflects the blurred boundaries that make such markets vulnerable: in December 2023 he was arrested during a major Hawks raid on a reserve once owned by rhino breeder Piet Warren, where officers discovered multiple rhino carcasses, unmarked horns, weapons and ammunition.

Although several charges were later provisionally withdrawn and Lewitton maintains his innocence, the case has not been definitively closed by prosecutors. His involvement in both the legal-trade lobby and an unresolved trafficking investigation underscores how easily legal frameworks can intersect with, and be exploited by, illegal activity – strengthening concerns that any sanctioned trade would inevitably invite laundering.

The ruling also complicates South Africa’s policy position. Until recently, the South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) under Dion George consistently maintained that it did not support reopening international commercial trade in rhino horn, repeatedly affirming a prohibitionist stance ahead of CITES. However, with the appointment of the new environment minister, Willie Aucamp, there are emerging indications that this position may shift. The court’s decision now exists within a political landscape that appears more receptive to revisiting trade debates, creating uncertainty about the country’s future direction. Policy coherence is essential in wildlife governance; mixed signals weaken enforcement and embolden traffickers.

The Hume arrest: A case study in systemic vulnerability

The risks inherent in legal frameworks were further illustrated months earlier when former rhino breeder John Hume, for years the most vocal advocate for a legal rhino horn trade, was arrested in August 2025. Prosecutors allege he was involved in a syndicate responsible for smuggling nearly 1,000 horns valued at R250-million.

Hume’s arrest is significant for two reasons. First, it again demonstrates how easily domestic permitting systems, intended to regulate and document legal horn possession, can be manipulated by actors with knowledge of regulatory processes. Second, it reveals the difficulty of constructing a reliable distinction between legal and illegal markets. If an experienced and well-monitored breeder can allegedly exploit loopholes, there is little evidence that a broader legal market could be policed effectively.

Far from supporting a regulated trade, the Hume and Lewitton cases highlight the unresolvable vulnerabilities of such a system. Enforcement agencies would be required to manage parallel markets, one legal, one illegal, while criminal networks exploit the gaps between them.

Why legal trade cannot suppress illegal trafficking

A substantial body of research on wildlife markets demonstrates that legal trade rarely suppresses illegal trade and often stimulates it. Several structural factors explain this.

First, legal markets generate documentation that can be forged or misused. The existence of legal horn creates plausible deniability for traffickers. A permit attached to a horn is difficult for underresourced enforcement agents to challenge, particularly in transit hubs or consumer states.

Second, legalisation signals social acceptability. In consumer markets, where rhino horn functions both as a medicinal product and a status object, legal trade would normalise consumption and likely expand demand. Historical comparisons with the ivory trade offer a clear warning: the CITES-approved ivory sales in 1999 and 2008 coincided with increased poaching, rising demand and intensified criminal laundering.

Third, legalisation imposes an administrative and financial burden on enforcement agencies. Traceability systems require DNA profiling, microchip verification, secure stockpile audits and cross-border information sharing. These systems are costly and rarely implemented uniformly, even in well-resourced states. Expecting them to operate flawlessly in environments where corruption and resource shortages persist is unrealistic.

Finally, legal trade diverts political attention and financial resources away from core anti-poaching strategies such as intelligence-driven enforcement, community engagement and demand-reduction campaigns. Proponents often argue that legal trade will raise revenue for conservation. Yet this assumes that legal markets will remain insulated from illegal ones – a claim for which there is no supporting empirical evidence.

Former minister George has also just warned that South Africa’s wildlife crisis – particularly the trafficking of rhino horn – must be recognised as a national security threat rather than a narrow conservation issue. As he argues in a defiant article against his recent dismissal, the same transnational criminal syndicates that smuggle rhino horn are deeply embedded in parallel illicit economies, including narcotics, weapons, human trafficking and financial crime. These networks exploit environmental vulnerabilities as part of broader criminal operations that destabilise governance, corrupt public institutions and erode state capacity.

George emphasises that the state’s previous refusal to reopen international trade in rhino horn was a strategic security decision, aimed at preventing criminal syndicates from entrenching themselves further within South Africa’s political and economic systems. In the current climate – where legal pathways are again being contemplated – this national security lens is essential: weakening the trade ban risks strengthening the very syndicates already driving violence, corruption and cross-border organised crime.

CoP20: Decisions with global consequences

The 20th Conference of the Parties to CITES, taking place from 24 November to 5 December 2025 in Samarkand, will consider proposals by Namibia and potentially other states to downlist certain rhino populations and enable international trade.

These proposals come at a time when illegal trade persists, demand remains strong in consumer states and enforcement systems are stretched. Approving any form of legal trade under such conditions would repeat the policy errors seen in the ivory trade, where controlled sales inadvertently revitalised criminal networks rather than suppressing them.

The evidence from Singapore, the Kimberley ruling and the Hume and Lewitton cases shows that enforcement systems are not ready for any form of legal rhino horn trade – restricted or otherwise. Under current conditions, legalisation would increase opportunities for laundering and undermine decades of efforts to reduce demand.

A clear and unambiguous prohibition is essential

The combined lessons of recent enforcement actions, judicial rulings and criminal investigations point to a decisive conclusion: legalising rhino horn, in any form, under any circumstances, will strengthen illegal markets rather than weaken them. The risks of laundering, rising demand and enforcement overload far outweigh the speculative benefits promoted by pro-trade advocates.

As CoP20 begins, the international community must reaffirm a complete and unequivocal prohibition on rhino horn trade. Policy clarity is essential. Ambiguity will be exploited. Rhinos cannot survive another experiment in market-based conservation. DM

Dr Adam Cruise is an investigative environmental journalist, travel writer and academic. He has contributed to a number of international publications, including National Geographic and The Guardian, covering diverse topics from the plight of elephants, rhinos and lions in Africa to coral reef rejuvenation in Indonesia. Cruise is a doctor of philosophy, specialising in animal and environmental ethics, and is the editor of the online Journal of African Elephants.