Litigation forces Agri Minister to u-turn on private FMD vaccination
A draft scheme proposes that private vaccination will be allowed as directed by private veterinarians and without supervision.
The Pretoria High Court has ordered Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen to finalise a scheme shown to the court at the last minute in which the Minister now for the first time proposes to provide for unsupervised private vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease. The Minister was also ordered to pay costs.
“When death knocks on the door, then presto,” and “suddenly, when the shoe pinches, all kinds of things are done.” “If you look at what the first respondent [Minister Steenhuisen] has said on public platforms, it goes totally against his attitude now.”
These are some of the judge’s remarkable pronouncements in the lead-up to today’s court order compelling the Minister of Agriculture to finalise by 17 April his proposed scheme for unsupervised private vaccination.
The court accepted the urgency of the application by Sakeliga, SAAI, and Free State Agriculture, and also set down a further hearing on 28 April to deliberate on the appropriateness and lawfulness of the measures taken by the Minister and further outstanding matters. Notably, the judge also awarded a cost order against the Minister, and reprimanded him and fellow respondents at the Department of Agriculture for their late filings.
Context
The court proceedings today stem from Sakeliga, SAAI, and Free State Agriculture’s application in February 2026 to end the Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen’s obstruction of private foot-and-mouth vaccination procurement and administration.
Until this morning, the Minister vehemently opposed Sakeliga and our co-applicants demand for private animal vaccine administration, arguing under oath through his director-general that “vaccination [is] a controlled veterinary act that may only be performed by authorised persons on the Director's instruction." However, at the last minute, the Minister’s legal team today furnished the court with a supplementary affidavit introducing a proposed scheme contradicting the Minister’s previous position. While not free of shortcomings, the unfinalised scheme – drafted under section 10 of the Animal Diseases Act – proposes that private vaccination will be allowed as directed by private veterinarians and without supervision.
Given Minister Steenhuisen’s persistent delays and missing of deadlines, it is a welcome development that his timelines are now prescribed by court.
The Minister’s section 10 scheme
It is notable that the Minister’s ability to deliver shows significant improvement in the face of litigation. In contrast to his public commitment as far back as 18 December 2025 in a media statement – that a section 10 vaccination scheme would be published by the end of January 2026 – it took a court hearing to suddenly produce a first draft by the end of March.
Minutes of the Ministerial Task Team meeting of 17 March contained in today’s supplementary affidavit reflects that the section 10 scheme had to be finalised urgently to "support the Department in its defence in some legal matters".
There is, however, no guarantee that the final gazetted version of this scheme will contain the same provisions as the draft version, which, in its current state, do provide some form of unsupervised private administration of FMD vaccines. The draft currently includes vaccination by authorised private veterinarians appointed by livestock owners or as directed by private veterinarians, in contrast to what the Minister and other opposing respondents had maintained so far.
Moreover, the draft scheme contains several provisions that risk perpetuating the very gatekeeping Sakeliga is challenging:
It centralises vaccine importation, procurement, and distribution through a committee structure rather than allowing free private-sector procurement.
It reserves sweeping power for the Minister to publish control measures that may require owners and responsible persons to take mandated action – a broad discretion that could be used to reimpose centralised state control at any time, notwithstanding the scheme's nominally voluntary character.
Sakeliga and our partners maintain that there is no lawful impediment prohibiting private-sector participation in FMD vaccination, and that the state's insistence on exclusive control is both unlawful and unsustainable. Our further efforts will be directed accordingly.
Next steps
The matter resumes before the High Court on 28 April 2026, after all parties have had sight of the possible published scheme and have had the opportunity to supplement their cases.
If the final scheme imposes unlawful obstacles to private procurement or administration of vaccines, or is otherwise open to challenge, the applicants can supplement their court papers and seek interim intervention by the court as early as 28 April 2026. In the event that no publication is forthcoming, we will continue with the current case on 28 April. Further constitutional proceedings can also not be ruled out.
Following today, it is only the Minister, the Director-General Department of Agriculture, and the Director of Animal Health still opposing the application. Onderstepoort Biological Products and the Agricultural Research Centre have withdrawn their opposition and are abiding by the decision of the court.
Resources:
Supplementary affidavit filed on 24 March 2026
Minutes of the Ministerial Task Team meeting held on 17 March 2026
Proposed draft scheme
