South African farmers organisations have instructed their attorneys to approach the courts after Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen failed to meet the deadline to disclose the legal basis for prohibiting private procurement and administration of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines.
In a statement issued by Sakeliga, the Suider-Afrika Agri Inisiatief and Free State Agriculture said litigation had now become unavoidable following the minister’s failure to respond to a letter of demand sent on January 26. The deadline for a response expired at close of business on Friday, January 30.
Unlawful prohibition
The organisations said their attorneys had informed the minister that they could find no legal impediment preventing farmers or other private parties from procuring and administering FMD vaccines. They demanded that Steenhuisen state in writing whether he agreed or disagreed. And if he disagreed, he must disclose the legal grounds for his position.
“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,” the organisations said.
The farmers’ move follows a week of escalating public exchanges between the department and agricultural bodies. The state insisted that vaccine rollout must remain centrally controlled. While farmers accuse the department of entrenching a state-controlled monopsony. And this limits access during a worsening outbreak.
The organisations said Steenhuisen’s public statements earlier this week, in which he urged unity and warned against litigation, were now undermined by his failure to respond.
“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,” the statement said.
Unlawful conduct
They argued that, had the minister been confident in the lawfulness of his position, he could have simply explained it.
“Had he been confident in the lawfulness of his conduct and position, he could easily have stated so. And with reference to the alleged legal grounds therefor,” the organisations said. They added that this would either have rendered litigation unnecessary or significantly narrowed the scope of the dispute.
Instead, they accused the minister of introducing unnecessary delay and uncertainty.
“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,” the statement said, describing the situation as “regrettable and costly”.
The organisations also rejected claims made by Steenhuisen that litigation could delay the state’s response to FMD. They called such assertions misleading.
“Multiple suggestions by the minister that litigation would necessitate his department delay its response to FMD, is a misrepresentation in both fact and law,” they said.
They argued that neither their letter of demand nor the court application now being prepared would require the state to suspend lawful disease-control measures.
State assertion disputed
“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’,” the statement said.
The organisations said they were monitoring the minister’s conduct in light of section 27 of the Animal Diseases Act. The Act limits state liability to actions taken in good faith.
“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 conduct,” they said.
The court application is expected to seek an urgent review of the minister’s position. It is potentially setting the stage for a landmark legal battle over how South Africa manages disease control during agricultural crises.
