Agri Minister triggers litigation by refusing to state legal position on FMD
Steenhuisen's failure to respond undermines his insistence that he wishes to avoid litigation.
Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen has necessitated litigation by failing to disclose his supposed legal grounds for prohibiting private procurement and administering of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines.
On 26 January 2026, attorneys for Sakeliga, SAAI, and Free State Agriculture informed the Minister that we could not find any impediment in law that would prevent farmers and other private parties from procuring and administering FMD vaccines. We insisted that the Minister should state in writing whether he agrees or disagrees with us, and, if the latter, he should disclose the legal basis for his position.
The deadline for a response expired at close of business today, Friday, 30 January 2026.
With the deadline now expired, we have instructed our attorneys to approach the courts to review and set aside Minister Steenhuisen’s apparently unlawful prohibition, and to apply for further or alternative relief as applicable.
Minister’s alleged desire to avoid litigation not credible
The Minister’s failure to respond undermines credence that could otherwise have been lent to his insistence earlier this week that he wishes to avoid litigation.
Had he been confident in the lawfulness of his conduct and position, he could easily have stated so with reference to the alleged legal grounds therefor. That would either have enabled us to conclude that litigation would be inappropriate, or, alternatively, significantly simplified litigation by removing unnecessary areas of dispute and possibly even establishing common ground.
However, rather than co-operating in the interest of legal clarity and industry certainty, the Minister introduced delays and complications into what should have been a straightforward legal process. Regrettable and costly as this is, it is unfortunately common among government officials to prefer drawn-out litigation to swift resolution.
Improper suggestions of delay
Multiple suggestions this week by the Minister, that litigation would necessitate his department delay its response to FMD, is a misrepresentation in both fact and law. Neither a proper response to our letter, nor the litigation we have now instructed our attorneys to initiate, requires the state to suspend any lawful measure or exempts the Minister or other officials from the obligations arising from their classification of the disease as “state-controlled”.
Accordingly, we are monitoring the Minister’s statements and conduct in light of section 27 of the Animal Diseases Act 35 of 1984, which exempts the state and state officials from claims of damages only in the case of bona fide (good faith) conduct.
