Hippos in Court, Are We Taking Justice Too Far or Not Far Enough?

🔊 Listen to Post

A Legal Debate on Animal Personhood and the Strange Case of Pablo Escobar’s Hippos

It sounds like a satirical headline from a late-night comedy show:
“Pablo Escobar’s hippos recognised as legal persons in U.S. court.”

But this is no joke.

A real court case in Colombia, involving the country’s now-wild population of hippos, has unexpectedly taken a turn through the U.S. legal system, where the hippos have been recognised, at least procedurally, as “interested persons.”

This has triggered a fierce debate:
🟢 Is this a powerful move for animal rights and environmental protection?
🔴 Or is it a ridiculous distortion of the law that undermines its integrity?

Let’s unpack both sides.

The Backstory: Hippos as Plaintiffs

These hippos are descendants of animals once owned by drug lord Pablo Escobar, who illegally imported them to his private zoo. After his death, the animals were left to roam, and the hippos have since become an invasive species in Colombia, damaging local ecosystems and posing public safety concerns.

To control their population, the Colombian government proposed sterilising or euthanising them. In response, animal rights lawyer Luis Domingo Gómez Maldonado filed a lawsuit on the hippos’ behalf, arguing that mass sterilisation would be inhumane.

To support the Colombian court case, a request was made to a U.S. federal court in Ohio under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which allows “interested persons” to obtain evidence for foreign legal proceedings. The U.S. court accepted the request, thus recognising the hippos as “interested persons.”

A New Era for Animal Welfare and Legal Evolution

Supporters of the case argue that this is a necessary and groundbreaking development in legal history. Here’s why:

1. Legal Personhood Doesn’t Mean Human Rights

Just as corporations are treated as “persons” under the law, animals can be recognised in limited ways to have their interests protected, often through a human advocate.

2. Amplifying the Voiceless

Animals cannot represent themselves, but this legal strategy gives them a platform for protection. It’s not about hippos filing lawsuits; it’s about acknowledging that they have intrinsic value and deserve humane treatment.

3. Environmental Ethics

This case fits within a broader global trend of recognising legal rights for rivers, forests, and ecosystems. Examples include:

• The Atrato River in Colombia
• The Whanganui River in New Zealand
• Efforts to grant rights to elephants, apes, and even bees in various jurisdictions

These are tools to enforce environmental accountability and shift thinking from exploitation to stewardship.

Against It: Absurdity, Legal Stretching, and Slippery Slopes

Critics argue that this kind of legal action is unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst. Their concerns include:

1. Animals Can’t Speak or Consent

Recognising hippos as “persons” when they can’t speak, understand, or engage in the legal system is misleading. It confuses symbolic gestures with legal clarity.

2. It Distracts From Real Reforms

By bending existing legal frameworks in symbolic ways, we risk undermining credibility. Shouldn’t we focus on improving animal protection laws directly rather than stretching unrelated laws to accommodate philosophical ideas?

3. Where Does It End?

If hippos can be “persons,” what’s next? Will rivers vote? Will trees testify? Opponents argue that this blurs the line between moral activism and practical governance.

Middle Ground: A Symbolic but Powerful Message

Even if this doesn’t mark a radical change in legal norms, it’s a symbolic win for animal welfare. The hippos were not granted human rights. They were simply recognised, through a legal loophole, as having interests worth protecting, an acknowledgment that could open doors to more robust animal laws in the future.

Final Thought

Whether you see it as a strategic win for justice or a legal circus, this case has sparked essential conversations:

• Who deserves legal protection?
• Should animals have legal standing in court?
• Can we balance legal tradition with moral evolution?

Justice, after all, isn’t just for humans. But whether or not courts should be the battleground for animal rights remains an open and passionately contested question.

In my view, the idea of granting legal personhood to animals in a courtroom setting is nothing short of absurd and risks opening a Pandora’s box of complications. If the UK ever adopted such a precedent, we might well see queues of dogs, cats, and even exotic pets lining up for their day in court, a scene more fitting for satire than serious law. While it may sound laughable, the reality is that this case is genuine. That said, the principle of protecting animals and ensuring justice for them is important. The more practical approach would be to appoint a legal guardian or representative, similar to a power of attorney, to act on their behalf. Animals cannot, and should not, be left to stand trial without proper human representation. Otherwise, we’ll be debating whether a parrot can take the witness stand or if a goldfish needs a translator. (Paragraph edited 10/08/25)

Further Reading & Rescources:

• https://www.businessinsider.com/pablo-escobars-cocaine-hippos-recognised-as-people-in-legal-first-2021
• Court Rules Pablo Escobar’s Cocaine Hippos Are Legally People | HuffPost UK News
• Animals Recognized as Legal Persons for the First Time in U.S. Court – Animal Legal Defense Fund
• US court recognises Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar’s hippos as legal people
• Pablo Escobar’s Colombian Hippos Are Legally People: Court Ruling – Newsweek
• A Unanimous Supreme Court Sits Down A Hippo | Drug & Device Law
• Pablo Escobar’s Hippos Become First Animals in U.S. Considered ‘Persons’