FMD: Appropriate response from Minister Steenhuisen still outstanding

The Minister of Agriculture’s public statement on Tuesday responding to our letter of demand served to him on Monday this week falls short of complying with our requirements. He has until Friday, 30 January 2026 by close of business to comply.

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, due to vagueness and other shortcomings, the Minister’s media statement cannot be considered an appropriate response.

In Monday’s letter of demand, written on behalf of Sakeliga, SAAI, and Free State Agriculture, our attorneys explain that we could find no statutory impediment to farmers and other roleplayers wishing to privately procure and administer foot-and-mouth disease vaccines to their livestock. The Minister is then given until the end of the week to state – in writing – whether he agrees with us or, alternatively, disagrees, in which case he is required to explain his position with full reference to the legal documents on which he relies.

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. If we were to conclude that the Minister or his associates are unlawfully or unduly obstructing private sector vaccine procurement and administering, it would be incumbent upon us to urgently rectify that through litigation.

Misrepresentations inviting further measures

Finally, in his statement, the Minister expresses his desire to avoid litigation, which is welcome.

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. This is a misrepresentation in both fact and law, with which he appears to pave the way for further excuses for ongoing obstructions of businesses or failures by his department and associates.

The litigation that would follow, should it transpire that the Minister maintains an unlawful position obstructing private vaccine procurement and administering, 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”.

Should we find that the Minister or his department is in any way inappropriately derailing, frustrating, withholding, or otherwise delaying their state response to FMD, despite litigation being carefully structured precisely not to require this, the Minister would invite further measures to be taken against him and such state officials personally.