Foot-and-mouth vaccine row escalates, Sakeliga seeks urgent response from Steenhuisen

The legal confrontation over South Africa’s foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccination strategy escalated, with business lobby group Sakeliga giving Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen until today, January 30, to respond formally to a legal demand challenging the state’s control over vaccine procurement and administration.

The dispute follows a media statement issued on Tuesday by Steenhuisen, in which he warned that threatened litigation by Sakeliga, SAAI, and Free State Agriculture could derail the national FMD vaccination rollout and divert critical veterinary and financial resources away from outbreak control.

At the heart of the dispute is whether farmers and other role players may lawfully procure and administer FMD vaccines privately.

In his statement, the minister argued that FMD is a state-controlled disease governed by the Animal Diseases Act and that a strictly centralised vaccination programme is required to regain South Africa’s “FMD-free status with vaccination” from the World Organisation for Animal Health. He also cautioned against what he described as reckless calls for unrestricted access to vaccines.

Sakeliga has now rejected that response as inadequate.

In response, the organisation said the minister’s public response to their letter of demand “falls short of complying with our requirements” and warned that failure to provide a proper legal explanation could result in urgent court action.

According to Sakeliga, “Minister John Steenhuisen’s uncharacteristically fast response time points to the merits of credible legal proceedings as a means to greater accountability from otherwise unresponsive state officials.” 

However, the organisation said the content of the response was insufficient. “Due to vagueness and other shortcomings, the Minister’s media statement cannot be considered an appropriate response,” it said.

Sakeliga said its attorneys, acting on behalf of Sakeliga, SAAI, and Free State Agriculture, could find “no statutory impediment” to private procurement and administration of the FMD vaccine.

The business organisation said the minister has been given until today to state in writing whether he agrees or disagrees with that position and, if he disagrees, to explain his stance “with full reference to the legal documents on which he relies.”

Sakeliga said the response is necessary to determine whether a formal legal dispute exists. “It remains crucial for the Minister to provide a forthright response to our questions, since that response would make clear whether an actual dispute between the Minister and Sakeliga, SAAI, and Free State Agriculture exists,”the statement said.

The organisation warned that should it conclude that the minister or his associates are unlawfully obstructing private vaccine procurement or administration, “it would be incumbent upon us to urgently rectify that through litigation.”

Sakeliga also challenged Steenhuisen’s claim that litigation could delay the state’s FMD response. While welcoming his stated desire to avoid court action, the organisation accused the minister of misrepresenting the legal effect of any potential case.

“What is not welcome is the Minister’s misrepresentation that the potential litigation would require suspending any lawful conduct by him or his associates, or that it would delay the state’s response to FMD,” Sakeliga said, describing this as “a misrepresentation in both fact and law.”

It added that any litigation would be carefully structured not to interfere with lawful state action. “The litigation that would follow … would neither require the Minister to suspend any lawful measure nor exempt him or other officials of their obligations arising from their classification of the disease as ‘state-controlled’,” the statement said.

For more stories from The Mercury, click the link THE MERCURY