The matter, heard on 28 April by Judge CJ van der Westhuizen, stems from an urgent application by a group of agricultural organisations seeking clarity on whether farmers may legally procure and administer FMD vaccines privately.
At the centre of the dispute is a growing gap between what regulations appear to allow and what happens in practice. Farmers argue that, despite no explicit legal prohibition, they are effectively prevented from vaccinating their herds.
The group, comprised of the Southern African Agri Initiative (Saai), Sakeliga, and Free State Agriculture, approached the court on 24 March after months of unanswered questions to Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen over legal or international barriers to private vaccination.
The applicants maintain that farmers and private veterinarians are willing and able to comply with reporting requirements and argue that international standards do not prohibit private sector involvement.
The court subsequently ordered Steenhuisen to publish a draft animal health scheme for FMD under Section 10 of the Animal Diseases Act (No. 35 of 1984) by 17 April, ahead of the 28 April hearing.
State seeks more time
At the 28 April hearing, Steenhuisen and officials from his department requested a postponement until 2 June 2026, arguing that additional time was needed to comply fully with the court order.
Counsel for the state said challenges had arisen during the drafting process and that additional time was needed to finalise the scheme, which could potentially address the applicants’ concerns.
The request drew sharp criticism from Van der Westhuizen, who questioned why the finalised scheme had not been published by 24 April, as Steenhuisen previously indicated in a public statement. He also expressed concern that the respondents appeared to be delaying a matter of clear urgency.
Applicants push back
Advocate Johan Hamman, representing the applicants, opposed the postponement, arguing that the state had already been given sufficient time, including a prior stand-down and mediation process.
He added that even if the final scheme were published, it would not resolve the central issue: current regulations already allow private vaccination, yet farmers remain unable to access vaccines in practice.
Farmers, he said, are suffering economic losses as livestock die while regulatory uncertainty persists.
In a ruling aimed at balancing urgency with fairness, the court granted a limited postponement but imposed strict conditions.
The court ordered that the scheme be published by 5 May 2026, with the matter set down for argument on 11 May 2026.
It also ordered Steenhuisen and officials to pay the wasted costs of the hearing on an attorney-and-client scale, including the costs of two counsel, an indication of the court’s dissatisfaction with the delays.
Industry reaction
In a strongly worded media statement, Saai criticised Steenhuisen for failing to meet court-imposed deadlines and warned that the continued spread of FMD could devastate farming businesses.
“The weekly spread of the disease is so severe that dozens of farmers’ businesses could collapse,” the organisation said, adding that many producers have already been pushed to the brink while waiting for the state to import and distribute vaccines.
The group also argued that the situation reflects systemic failures within government and questioned whether authorities have the capacity to manage a complex disease response if they cannot comply with court orders.
The case now depends on whether the state meets the court’s deadline. If the scheme is published, it will form part of the arguments when the matter returns to court on 11 May. If not, the court is expected to proceed on the existing record.
