Agricultural groups are taking legal action against South Africa’s Minister of Agriculture, John Steenhuisen, over his decision to prohibit private Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) vaccinations. The coalition, comprised of Sakeliga, the Southern African Agri Institute (SAAI), and Free State Agriculture, alleges the ban is unlawful and unjustified.
Legal Challenge Filed
On January 26th, the groups formally requested Steenhuisen provide legal justification for the prohibition, setting a deadline of January 30th. When no response was received, Sakeliga announced the initiation of court proceedings to review and set aside the “unlawful prohibition.”
Sakeliga contends that Steenhuisen’s failure to respond contradicts his earlier statements indicating a desire to avoid litigation. The groups argue that the Animal Diseases Act, specifically Section 11, actually *requires* landowners to take reasonable steps to prevent infection, and that prohibiting private vaccination hinders this obligation.
Conflicting Arguments
Steenhuisen maintains that a centralized, state-controlled vaccination program is essential to regain “FMD-free status with vaccination” as recognized by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). He argues that strict surveillance and systematic coverage – impossible without centralized monitoring – are required to achieve this status. He also accused the lobby groups of using the crisis to boost membership and solicit donations, a claim denied by SAAI’s Francois Rossouw.
The agricultural groups assert the current outbreak is “severely out of control” and that the Department of Agriculture’s vaccination efforts have been ineffective. They believe allowing private sector involvement would alleviate the burden on the state and enable a faster, more decentralized response. They claim sufficient vaccine supplies are available for immediate import.
According to reports, Steenhuisen’s position is creating internal divisions within the Democratic Alliance (DA), with concerns that his stance may alienate key supporters.
What Happens Next?
The case will now proceed through the South African court system. It is possible the court will rule in favor of the agricultural groups, allowing private vaccinations to proceed. Alternatively, the court could uphold Steenhuisen’s ban, reinforcing the state’s centralized control. A prolonged legal battle could further delay vaccination efforts and exacerbate the crisis. Depending on the court’s decision, further appeals are also possible.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Foot and Mouth Disease?
FMD is a highly contagious viral disease affecting cloven-hoofed animals, characterized by fever and blisters on the mouth, tongue, teats, and hooves, leading to lameness and reduced productivity. While it doesn’t affect humans, it is devastating to agriculture.
What is Sakeliga’s role in this dispute?
Sakeliga is a lobby group leading the legal challenge against Minister Steenhuisen, arguing that the ban on private FMD vaccinations is unlawful and lacks justification.
Why does the Minister believe state control is necessary?
Steenhuisen argues that strict state control over the vaccination process is essential to regain “FMD-free status with vaccination” from the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), requiring verifiable surveillance and systematic coverage.
Given the escalating crisis and the legal challenges ahead, how might a more collaborative approach between the government and private sector benefit South Africa’s livestock farmers?
