Sidestepping the Ban
A Perilous Gambit for Global Rhino Horn Trade
Rhino breeders in South Africa are attempting to bend international wildlife trade regulations to their will and undermine decades of South African law to circumvent the ban on international rhino horn trade.
A South African game reserve owner, Hendrick “Wicus” Diedericks, has sued the government in an effort to compel it to authorize the export of at least 502 rhino horns to prospective buyers in eight different locations including Canada, China, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Laos, Mongolia, the USA, and Vietnam.
EIA has reviewed documents containing the names and contact details for the prospective importers of the rhino horn that were submitted to the government by Diedericks. The information supplied for several of the importers appears to be incomplete and/or inaccurate. For others, the reported destination raises suspicions that the horn may be destined for illegal trade.
As of April 2026, the case is making its way through the South African legal system.
If rhino horn is exported from South Africa for commercial and medicinal purposes, it would have devastating consequences for wild rhino populations. Rhino horn trade will increase demand, undermine enforcement, and result in increased poaching and rhino horn trafficking.
Source: Harry Terezakis
Source: Harry Terezakis
International commercial trade in rhino horn has been prohibited by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) since 1977. Rhino horn from all five rhino species is considered a CITES Appendix I specimen, which means that international commercial trade in rhino horn is not allowed. Most countries have also implemented domestic rhino horn trade restrictions to enable effective implementation of the CITES trade ban.
Many private rhino owners in South Africa, where domestic trade in whole horns is legal, have long been frustrated with the CITES ban on international rhino horn trade. Those who support legal trade in rhino horn claim that it would provide revenue to support security and management costs associated with operating a game reserve, but ignore or downplay the negative impacts that would arise: increased demand and poaching, exacerbated illegal trade, and undermined enforcement.
Thankfully, most countries around the world have stood firm and rejected all 10 proposals to overturn the ban on international commercial rhino horn trade that have been submitted to CITES since 1977.
However, there is a problematic exemption to the standard CITES trade rules that allows Parties to avoid the typical permitting requirements for trade if a species was bred in captivity for non-commercial purposes, as defined by CITES. The exemption is found in Article VII, paragraph 5 of the Convention text.
Specimens that qualify for the Article VII(5) exemption can be traded for any purpose with a certificate indicating that they were bred in captivity. Oversight mechanisms incorporated into the standard CITES permitting process, like the non-detriment finding, are bypassed when applying the Article VII(5) exemption.
Diedericks claims that the white rhinos on his Rockwood Game Reserve, which sells commercial rhino trophy hunts, were bred in captivity for non-commercial purposes and that therefore the horn obtained via dehorning can be exported commercially under the Article VII(5) exemption.
The government argues that South Africa does not implement Article VII(5) at all, which is why its CITES implementing legislation contains no mention of it.
In October 2025, the Northern Cape High Court ruled in favor of Diedericks, sending shockwaves through the conservation community. With this ruling, Diedericks became one step closer to legally exporting rhino horn abroad for commercial use and setting a monumental – and dangerous – legal precedent. The government has appealed the case. Whatever the outcome, the ruling will likely again be appealed, sending the case to the Constitutional Court for a final judgement.
A timeline of Diedericks's legal battle to compel the South African government to authorize the export of rhino horn for commercial purposes.
Who are the prospective rhino horn importers Diedericks wants to sell to?
According to export application documents reviewed by EIA, Diedericks is seeking to export at least 502 rhino horns to buyers in eight locations:
John Derek Lewitton
Mississaunga, Canada
479/502 Rhino Horns
Company: N/A
Diedericks is attempting to export a shocking 479 rhino horns to Derek Lewitton in Canada for medicinal purposes. Lewitton is attempting to use a customs brokerage firm, Russel A. Farrow Limited, to facilitate the importation of the horns.
Lewitton is a U.S. citizen and a lawyer by training. He is the owner of a game reserve called Black Rock Rhino Conservation in Limpopo province and is the leader of the Rhino Working Group for Wildlife Ranchers of South Africa.
Lewitton is a fervent supporter for legalizing rhino horn trade, and in 2023 submitted a formal affidavit describing his views on the legality of applying the Article VII(5) exemption in support of Diedericks in his lawsuit against the South African government. He has also provided pro bono CITES legal advice to the Canada-based organization IWMC-World Conservation Trust, an ardent pro-trade NGO headed by the former CITES Secretary-General Eugene Lapointe.
In 2023, the South African authorities raided his game reserve and arrested Lewitton on charges related to unlawful possession of rhino horns, firearms, and ammunition. In August 2025, the NPA provisionally withdrew the charges. Lewitton has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
Tony Lee
Guangzhou, China
3/502 Rhino Horns
Company: GZ Hanchak Import & Export
Tony Lee is the name of the intended recipient of three rhino horns that Diedericks is attempting to export to China for medicinal purposes.
The address provided on the export application is linked to a Chinese company called Guangzhou Hanze Import Export Trading Co., Ltd. It appears that “Tony Lee” is a pseudonym for the company’s legal representative, Li Feng. The company primarily focuses on importing oysters, geoducks, and prawns from countries including Canada, France, New Zealand, and South Africa.
The company and Feng do not appear to have any overt links to rhino farming, hunting, or trade.
Yohei Motohashi
Tokyo, Japan
XX/502 Rhino Horns
Company: Japan Federation of Ivory Arts and Crafts Association
The prospective Japanese importer of Diederick’s rhino horns is a member of the Japan Federation of Ivory Arts and Crafts Association (JFIACA), the leading industry group in Japan focused on maintaining the country’s legal ivory trade.
It is concerning to see the JFIACA expanding its scope to engage in efforts to restart international rhino horn trade to Japan. Rhino horn trade has all but ceased in Japan, and creating a new consumer market for rhino horn here would have devastating impacts on wild rhino populations.
The JFIACA regularly attends CITES meetings to support the Japanese government push back against calls to close its domestic ivory market. Motohashi attended CITES SC65, CoP17, and CoP18 on the JFIACA delegation.
Yohei’s father, Tsuneo Motohashi, is the legal representative for Motohashi Ivory, which primarily produces ivory hanko (name seals) from raw ivory and sells them to wholesalers.
King Yu
Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR
5/502 Rhino Horns
Company: Myawaddy Global Investment Co., LLC
Little information could be obtained about the prospective importer in Hong Kong SAR. The company name - Myawaddy Global Investment Co., LLC - is not listed in Hong Kong’s business registry, and the address is incomplete.
The company name implies a connection to Myanmar, a known wildlife trafficking hotspot and transit hub for rhino horn smuggling into China. Myawaddy is a town in southeastern Myanmar and located on the border with Thailand. The Mae Sot-Myawaddy border crossing is one of the major commercial border posts between Myanmar and Thailand.
The name King Yu is likely a pseudonym. A company called Kingyu Co. Ltd. is listed in Hong Kong’s business registry, however it is unclear whether it is affiliated with the prospective importer.
Khammanh Lasavong
Vientiane, Laos
3/502 Rhino Horns
Company: N/A
No information could be obtained on the Laotian rhino horn importer.
The inclusion of Laos on the list of importers is especially alarming given the country’s known role as a wildlife trafficking hotspot, especially rhino horn, and considering that in 2023 CITES Parties issued Laos with trade suspensions due to persistent non-compliance with the Convention.
At SC79 in November 2025, the CITES Standing Committee voted to retain the trade suspensions for Laos due to insufficient progress made to rectify its outstanding compliance issues. While under the trade suspensions, Laos is not allowed to import or export any CITES-listed species for commercial purposes.
Unknown
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
6/502 Rhino Horns
Company: Sojitoyob Trade LLC
As with Laos, little information could be obtained on the Mongolian rhino horn importer. No name was provided in the application documents, and EIA could not locate the company name - Sojitoyo Trade LLC - in Mongolia’s business registry.
Historically, Mongolia has not been known to be a destination or transit country for rhino horn. However, there have been several notable seizures in recent years, and TRAFFIC and the IUCN African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups cautioned in their report to CITES CoP20 that Mongolia may be emerging as a new illegal rhino horn trade link with South Africa.
Gameel Byron Hodge
Lakeland, USA
3/502 Rhino Horns
Company: N/A
The address for the American importer is for a private residence in Grasslands Golf and Country Club that belongs to Gameel Byron Hodge, a Florida urologist. Multiple businesses are also registered to this address including Game Trackers Africa Rockwood Foundation, Inc., Legendary African Adventures LLC, and Ndlovu Partners LLC.
Hodge is listed as a Director for Game Trackers Africa Rockwood Foundation and a manager for both Legendary African Adventures and Ndlovu Partners. The Principal Director for Game Trackers Africa Rockwood Foundation is Jaco Oosthuizen. Oosthuizen is a Namibian national, professional hunter, and founder of the Namibian trophy hunting company Game Trackers Africa.
According to its website, Game Trackers Africa is the marketing agent for three other trophy hunting companies owned by Oosthuizen: Pori Trackers of Africa Ltd., Ondjamba Safaris LLC, and African Legacy Safaris LLC. Diedericks is also listed on the Game Trackers Africa website as a member of the company’s team of professional hunters. Game Trackers Africa, Rockwood (the game reserve owned by Diedericks), and Hodge all appear in an advertisement for a Tanzanian leopard hunt in Dallas Safari Club’s 2026 hunting catalogue.
Chet Li
Hanoi, Vietnam
3/502 Rhino Horns
Company: N/A
Little information could be obtained on the prospective Vietnamese importer.
Chet Li is likely a pseudonym, and the address provided belongs to the Silk Path hotel, a four-star hotel in Hanoi’s Old Quarter.
How does the CITES Article VII(5) Exemption Work?
Rhino horn from all five rhino species is considered a CITES Appendix I specimen, which means that international trade in rhino horn for commercial purposes is not allowed.
Typically, commercial trade in CITES-listed specimens is only allowed for species listed on Appendix II. Trade in Appendix II specimens can only occur once a CITES export permit has been issued by the government of the exporting country.
Governments must undertake two actions when determining whether to issue a permit: 1) confirm that the specimen was acquired legally, and 2) make a science-based determination that trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild.
If there is doubt about the legal origin of the specimen and/or if trade is expected to be detrimental, then the government can refuse to issue a permit.
However, there is a problematic exemption to the standard CITES trade rules that allows Parties to avoid the typical permitting requirements for trade if a species was bred in captivity for non-commercial purposes, as defined by CITES.
If these conditions are met, and if the Party elects to implement this exemption, then captive-bred species can be traded without export permits and, when necessary, import permits.
It also means that species listed on Appendix I that qualify for the Article VII(5) exemption can be traded for commercial purposes.
Some private rhino owners like Diedericks see the Article VII(5) exemption as an opportunity to sidestep the international rhino horn trade ban without relying on the drawn out, longshot approach of a government like South Africa submitting a rhino downlisting proposal and convincing world governments to support a radical change in rhino horn trade policy.
If Diedericks is ultimately successful in his bid to export rhino horn from South Africa for commercial purposes, there would be global repercussions for rhino poaching pressure, anti-trafficking enforcement, and rhino conservation policy.
Legal Trade in Rhino Horn Will Increase Poaching Pressure on All Rhino Populations
Allowing legal commercial trade in horn from some rhinos would increase demand and poaching pressure on all rhino populations.
The case for legal rhino horn trade ignores the lessons of history, which show how attempts at legal trade not only in rhino horn but also in other wildlife products from threatened species such as ivory, pangolin scales, and tiger parts resulted in increased demand, poaching and parallel illegal markets.
Most end-use countries like Vietnam have fully endorsed rhino horn demand reduction and behavior change initiatives, and legal trade would undermine all the progress made over past decades.
Rhino Horn Exported Abroad is Likely to Enter Illegal Trade
Diedericks claims that trading rhino horn using the Article VII(5) exemption will generate funds to support rhino conservation. By attempting to sell rhino horn to buyers in countries known to be hotspots for organized wildlife trafficking, the credibility of this justification quickly evaporates.
The inclusion of Laos - under CITES trade suspension since 2023 for persistent non-compliance and with known links to organized criminal networks trafficking in rhino horn - as a prospective importer is the most concerning example.
China and Vietnam, also on the list, are the two main destinations for trafficked rhino horn. Organized wildlife trafficking networks composed of Chinese and Vietnamese nationals continue to control the trade of illegal wildlife products from Africa to Asia.
Rhino horn trade is largely illegal in all of the prospective importing countries, and stricter domestic legal measures in these countries may allow them to refuse to accept the rhino horn.
What exactly constitutes a "wild" rhinoceros?
If South Africa ultimately exports the rhino horn as derived from captive-bred animals, and the horn is accepted as such by the CITES Parties targeted as prospective importers, this would bring a rhino conservation dilemma that has been conveniently ignored for decades to the fore.
Privately-owned rhinos on reserves like Rockwood, which constitute more than 50% of all white rhinos in South Africa today, are considered part of the wild white rhino population by the South African government, CITES, and the IUCN. Reclassifying them as captive could have major consequences for the threat status of white rhinos and associated policymaking.
At the same time, classifying privately-owned rhinos as captive bred and eligible for the Article VII(5) exemption could incentivize private rhino owners to “speed breed” and dehorn their rhinos to obtain as much rhino horn as possible. This would require intensively managing rhinos, which would then be unable to fulfill their natural ecological role in their native grassland ecosystems.
Recommendations
Recommendations
For Diedericks:
Withdraw the lawsuit against the South African government and abandon plans to export rhino horns for commercial purposes
For South Africa:
Amend its CITES implementing legislation to clearly prohibit the application of the Article VII(5)
Oppose commercial trade in rhino horn and work with end-use countries to implement demand reduction and behavior change programs that will complement joint enforcement action
For CITES Standing Committee:
Built with Shorthand