An international botanical rumpus broke out three years ago in Kenya when President William Ruto halted the proposed export of eight African baobab trees to a wealthy private tree collector in Georgia. His name? Bidzina Ivanishvili, a billionaire and former prime minister of Georgia, who made his fortune in banking, metals and tech in the post-Soviet-era Russia.
The row started when Georgian national Georgi Gvasaliya was spotted flying drones while scouting for suitable baobab specimens north of Kenya’s port city of Mombasa.
At least eight massive baobabs were later uprooted from the Kilifi coastline and stacked close to the beach while awaiting export.
Under pressure from environmental groups and residents in areas where several of the ancient trees had been removed, Ruto intervened and ordered an investigation into the legality and circumstances of the planned export.
Then Kenya did a backflip.
Kenya Forest Service chief director Julius Kamau revoked the export ban and authorised their shipment to Georgia.
Off they sailed, bound for the Shekvetili Dendrological Park, a 60ha private tree reserve on the banks of the Black Sea that was established by Ivanishvili around six years ago.
Problematically, however, all eight of the Kenyan trees withered and died in Georgia soon after arrival.
Photographs posted on Google Maps by tree park visitors in early 2024 appear to show the forlorn baobabs clumped together in a circular pattern, devoid of branches and leaves.
In an online review, accompanied by photographs, park visitor Diana Popova enthuses about the baobabs, later amending her review with a sad footnote recording, “Unfortunately, all the baobabs have died out.”
Now it seems that Shekvetili/Ivanishvili may be looking to replace them with fresh South African specimens.
The Durban baobabs
This brings our story back to the port city of Durban, where five large baobabs have been lying on the hot tar for three months in a parking lot at the Africa Global Logistics (AGL) warehouse in Mobeni.
According to the national Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), the five baobabs were “intercepted” on 17 July when the exporter failed to produce a valid licence for their removal, possession, transport or export.
Although baobabs are not an endangered species, they are listed as a specially protected species under the National Forests Act.
Hoping to salvage the situation, the exporter then belatedly submitted an application for a licence, but this was refused at the end of July. The exporter then challenged the refusal, but the DFFE appeals administrator dismissed his appeal on 27 October.
The exporter is Corné Maré, head of the Pretoria-based company Divine Landscapes, which boasts on its website that it’s “Your expert in monster sized baobab export.”
In a Facebook post in 2020, Maré also advertises that his company exports trees to several parts of the world, including Dubai, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Now he is facing several criminal charges for the abortive baobab export after appearing in the Durban Magistrates’ Court in September. The case has been postponed till January pending further investigation.
Maré insists that the baobabs were not poached from the wild, but rather “obtained from private gardens with the full consent of the respective owners”.
Maré declined to talk to Daily Maverick on the record, but in response to questions, his attorneys, Shepstone and Wylie, said, “They were not taken without permission from public land. The owners agreed to the removal of the trees, and the transactions were undertaken openly.
“Our client’s intention was to relocate the trees for a landscaping project, rather than to destroy them. He recognises the importance of complying with applicable legislation. His position is that, once he became aware of concerns regarding the administrative and regulatory requirements, he took the necessary steps to engage with the Department and to seek a resolution through the prescribed processes.”
Significantly, however, Maré refused to reveal to whom and where the baobabs were to be shipped. We asked him specifically whether the trees were being sent to Ivanishvili’s Shekvetili Dendrological Park in Georgia.
His attorney said: “Given that the criminal case remains pending and has not been determined by a court, our client reserves his rights and will not comment publicly on matters that may prejudice the proceedings.”
(See Maré’s full response further below.)
Final destination
According to the DFFE, the trees were “harvested” in the Lephalale local municipality in the Waterberg district of Limpopo, also without a permit from that province.
This week, the DFFE provided an important clue about their final destination, stating that they were “scheduled for export to Georgia, Europe”.
Since then, however, the department has clammed up on providing any further information on the identity of both the exporter and importer, claiming that revealing such information might contravene the Protection of Personal Information Act (Popia) or prejudice legal proceedings.
Daily Maverick has made several efforts to contact Ivanishvili through his lawyer in Tbilisi, the Georgian embassy in Pretoria, his Georgian Dream party and members of the Georgian Parliament.
While embassy staff acknowledged receipt of our request for comment and clarity on 29 October, none responded. So, the documented identity of the importer remains a mystery.
However, given the remarkable coincidences between the listed export nation of Georgia, Ivanishvili’s singular passion for tree-collecting, the death of his Kenyan baobabs and the official silence from Ivanishvili and senior officials in both Georgia and South Africa, this raises the question of whether there is a second wealthy resident of Georgia who has similar means and similar passions and is now trying to acquire five large African baobab trees to adorn their property...
It also raises questions why the official custodians of South Africa’s natural heritage have clammed up and invoked Popia laws to avoid questions on a matter of public interest.
Why such secrecy and evasion over an issue that involves the export of trees, not secret trade deals, nuclear fuel, arms or strategic mineral procurements?
‘Park of Tree Giants’
Back in Georgia, Ivanishvili’s “Park of Tree Giants” (known officially as Shekvetili Dendrological Park) was established next to the Black Sea near one of his homes and later opened to the public.
To establish the park, numerous trees from all over the world were transported by ships, barges and trucks – along with exotic birds and animals, including lemurs, flamingoes, cranes and parrots.
Ivanishvili has also sparked controversy both internationally and domestically and was “sanctioned” by the US State Department under the Biden administration for allegedly “having directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in the United States or abroad, for or on behalf of .... the Government of the Russian Federation.”
In Georgia, the filmmaker Salomé Jashi produced a documentary entitled “Taming the Garden”, which won awards abroad, but was less well-received by the ruling Georgian Dream party.
It was described as “an ode to the rivalry between men and nature … the story of how a powerful man indulges in an unusual hobby by having century-old trees uprooted in communities along the Georgian coast and transplanted to his private garden”.
In a Mongabay article, Georgian journalist Misha Sesiashvili reported that Ivanishvili has an “addiction” to gigantic trees.
Canadian academics Paul Manning and Anne Menely describe how visitors to the park are assailed by loudspeaker messages such as: “Woman in the red jacket, step off the grass” or “Children, slow down, don’t run”. Touching the trees or smoking is also banned.
What about the dying baobabs in Durban?
After lying on a hot paved area in Durban for nearly three months, the future of these five specimens remains uncertain while the legal issues play out.
In response to queries from Daily Maverick, the DFFE indicated this week that it “is in the process of relocating and rescuing the trees in collaboration with the South African National Biodiversity Institute”.
Former Durban Botanic Gardens curator Christopher Dalzell says it is essential to get the trees back in the ground as soon as possible if they are to survive.
Dalzell, now a specialist plant consultant with experience in tree transport and relocation, has also offered his services at no charge to assist in the rescue efforts.
“They have to go somewhere else very quickly. They will die unless they get to a botanical garden or specialist nursery.”
He also notes that moving trees over long distances is a “huge” undertaking, estimating that shipping five large trees from Durban to Europe would probably cost more than R750,000 if they do not fit into a standard-size shipping container (excluding truck transport costs from Limpopo to Durban).
Statement from landscaper Corné Maré
In a statement issued through attorneys Shepstone and Wylie, Divine Landscapes and Maré insisted that all five baobabs were sourced from private gardens rather than the wild. Below is the full statement:
“Our client has requested that all further enquiries concerning the pending criminal proceedings, previous transactions and related regulatory issues be directed through to us as his legal representatives. Given that the criminal case remains pending and has not been determined by a court, our client reserves his rights and will not comment publicly on matters that may prejudice the proceedings.
Nevertheless, we provide the following general response to clarify certain important aspects of the matter.
1. Origin and circumstances of the trees
The five baobabs were obtained from private gardens with the full consent of the respective owners. They were not taken without permission from public land. The owners agreed to the removal of the trees, and the transactions were undertaken openly.
Our client’s intention was to relocate the trees for a landscaping project, rather than to destroy them. He recognises the importance of complying with applicable legislation. His position is that, once he became aware of concerns regarding the administrative and regulatory requirements, he took the necessary steps to engage with the Department and to seek a resolution through the prescribed processes.
The precise legal requirements, the applications made and the circumstances surrounding the transactions form part of matters being addressed with the DFFE and the NPA. Our client does not intend to litigate the merits of the criminal case through the media.
2. Appeal outcome
Our client received the outcome of his appeal against the refusal of the relevant application on 27 October 2026. The appeal was unsuccessful.
Our client is disappointed by this outcome and maintains concerns regarding the handling of the application and appeal. Those concerns will be addressed through the appropriate legal channels, including possible judicial review, as there are several procedural irregularities and irrational conclusions that were identified in the appeal decision. The appeal decision does, however, confirm that the outcome thereof was not a judicial determination of the pending criminal allegations.
3. Current court proceedings
The criminal matter remains pending the state’s investigation, and our client has not been formally charged or convicted. The next court appearance is scheduled for 15 January 2027, subject to confirmation by the relevant court record.
In these circumstances, we request that any reporting clearly distinguishes allegations from established findings and avoids presenting our client as having been found guilty of an offence.
4. Previous baobab transactions and the video footage
Questions concerning previous transactions, including the video footage referred to in your enquiry, require examination of the relevant records before a reliable and complete response can be provided.
Our client will not make speculative statements about the particular shipment, its destination or the permits applicable to it without first verifying the documentary record. Our client does not wish to provide an incomplete or misleading account of earlier transactions, and reserves his position pending that review and the state’s investigation.
5. The welfare and survival of the five trees
From the outset, one of our client’s principal concerns has been the survival of the trees.
The trees have remained in a horizontal position at a Durban facility for an extended period while the regulatory and criminal processes have continued. Our client is deeply concerned about the potential consequences for their health and long-term survival.
He maintains that the relevant authorities should have ensured that an appropriate preservation and care plan was developed and implemented promptly after the shipment was stopped. The continued uncertainty regarding the trees’ care and ultimate destination is a serious concern.
Our client’s concern is not limited to the financial consequences of the detention. He is concerned that the trees may suffer irreversible damage while the proceedings remain unresolved.
We believe the immediate priority should be an appropriate, scientifically informed plan to assess, protect and preserve the trees, independently of the eventual outcome of the criminal case.
6. The National Forests Act and publication requirements
There was a legislative amendment to the Forests Act in 2024. We are currently examining the applicable provisions and the relevant amendments, the protected-tree list applicable at the material time, and the statutory requirements concerning publication of the list and appropriate warnings to members of the public. The Appeal decision confirms that no publications were made as prescribed by the statute.
We do not propose to make a definitive legal assertion on these issues at this stage while that examination is under way. However, our client considers it important that the applicable legal framework and the Department’s compliance with the relevant statutory requirements be properly scrutinised.
7. Request concerning identification
As the criminal matter remains pending and our client has not been formally charged or convicted, we formally request that neither our client’s personal identity nor the identity of his company be published in connection with the allegations at this stage.
We recognise that editorial decisions rest with the relevant media house. Nevertheless, we ask that this request be given serious consideration in light of the pending proceedings and the potential prejudice that public identification may cause before the allegations have been adjudicated.
Our client remains willing to address appropriate factual questions through his legal representatives. However, he will not conduct the defence of the pending criminal case through the media.” DM
Source: Daily Maverick · Tony Carnie
At a glance
- Topic
- World
- Country
- 🇿🇦 ZA
- Publisher language
- EN
- Added to Allnira