Photo: X | National Department of Agriculture
Questions about transparency and candidate eligibility have led Steenhuisen to initiate a review of the election process to enable appropriate legislative oversight. A comprehensive investigation is now under way, and it’s possible the election will be rerun to ensure proper governance procedures are followed.
Veterinary professionals and other stakeholders have raised issues regarding inconsistent communication about voting timelines, which may have excluded some eligible voters. Questions are also being asked about the eligibility criteria for candidates, the impartiality of the vetting process, and the neutrality of the election administrators.
Critics argue that the overall process was confusing and lacked accessibility, potentially undermining confidence in the fairness and representativeness of the newly elected council.
According to Steenhuisen, the onus was on Menye to ensure compliance with the SAVC election regulations when it came to candidate nominations. Considering the irregularities highlighted, the minister has called for further scrutiny of the Menye’s role, saying the matter warranted consideration of whether an inquiry into his conduct should be instituted.
“Good governance is not optional; it’s foundational. Public confidence in statutory regulatory bodies such as the SAVC rests on transparent, credible, and procedurally fair processes. My actions are intended to ensure that these standards are upheld without compromise,” Steenhuisen said.
The call for nominations for the election of SAVC council members for the term of office 1 August 2025 to 31 July 2028 was gazetted on 7 February. Completed nomination forms were to be lodged by 7 March 2025. Communication in this regard was signed by Menye as registrar.
In follow-up communication, Menye said “the candidate list was updated to ensure full alignment with eligibility requirements in terms of Section 6(1) of the Veterinary and Para-Veterinary Professions Act, 1982, as three candidates on the ballot paper for veterinarians [did not] fully comply with the […] requirements”.
The voting process was then cancelled and recommenced on 23 April, with a new closing date of 23 May 2025.
In the same communication, Menye added that the SAVC contracted an independent service provider, namely EasyVote, to electronically conduct the elections on its behalf. He indicated that the council “has no access to the EasyVote electronic system. The SAVC will only receive a list of the results once the election closes from EasyVote”.
Speaking to Farmer’s Weekly, Dr Paul van der Merwe, acting managing director of the South African Veterinary Association (SAVA), said that while it recognised the possibility of individual oversight, it was imperative that the council addressed and took accountability for any institutional failures that may have contributed to the perceived oversights.
While all veterinarians must be registered with the SAVC to legally work in South Africa, as the council is a statutory body setting the standards and enforcing ethical conduct, SAVA is a professional association that looks after the interests of vets, providing them with support, networking opportunities, education, and advocacy.
“SAVA is deeply concerned about the current vacuum in statutory veterinary governance. The absence of a duly constituted council poses a significant and immediate risk to the regulation of the profession, the continuity of critical council functions, and, most importantly, to public and animal health.
“The lack of a governing body creates operational and legal uncertainty for veterinarians, para-veterinary professionals, and the broader public who depend on the SAVC’s regulatory oversight,” Van der Merwe said.
“The veterinary profession requires and deserves a regulatory authority that is effective and trusted. These perceived election irregularities have, regrettably, compromised that trust. SAVA appeals for the restoration of the credibility of the SAVC. SAVA is committed to [Steenhuisen’s] efforts to address the impasse and will support [them] where possible,” he added.
Despite repeated requests for comments from the SAVC, the council had not responded to Farmer’s Weekly by the time of publication.
