A group of frustrated South African farmers have threatened legal action against Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen, accusing the state of unlawfully restricting access to foot and mouth disease (FMD) vaccines while failing to stop a rapidly escalating outbreak.
The threat is contained in a sharply worded letter of demand dated January 26, sent by law firm KWV Inc. It is sent on behalf of Sakeliga NPC, the Suider-Afrika Agri Inisiatief (Saai), Free State Agriculture and a number of affected farmers.
The letter was addressed directly to Steenhuisen, the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture, and the Chief Director of Veterinary Services. And it was marked “EXTREMELY URGENT”.
Restriction to vaccine access condemned
In it, the farmers accuse the department of reserving exclusive control over vaccine procurement and administration for the state. This despite lacking the capacity to contain what they describe as a runaway crisis.
“It is now widely known that FMD has spread rapidly across various regions of the Republic of South Africa,” the letter states. It warns that the outbreak is “severely out of control. To the extent that the Minister of Agriculture has expressed the need to have it declared a national state of disaster”.
Despite repeated public assurances, the farmers say government has failed to present any workable plan.
“Our respective clients and their members and supporters are still waiting on a clear roadmap and plan from the state regarding this strategy,” the letter reads. Even though “vaccine accessibility stands central to the state’s response to FMD”.
At the heart of the dispute is what the farmers describe as a state-imposed chokehold on vaccine access.
“The Minister, his Department, and the Chief Director of Veterinary Services have restricted the procurement and administration of the vaccines exclusively to the state and state-authorised persons,” the letter states.
The farmers warn that this restriction has created a dangerous bottleneck at the worst possible moment.
“Our clients are particularly concerned about the centralised monopsony on vaccines imposed by the state. Especially in the context of what is likely to become one of the most significant agricultural and animal health crises in recent history.”
Sole buyer and gatekeeper
The legal team was careful not to confuse a monopoly with a monopsony. They argue instead that the state has positioned itself as the sole buyer and gatekeeper of FMD vaccines. Thus effectively enforcing a centralised monopsony rather than a traditional seller-controlled monopoly.
A monopsony occurs when there is only one buyer controlling access to a product. While a monopoly exists when there is only one seller controlling supply.
The letter places responsibility for the worsening outbreak squarely at the department’s door. It states that the crisis “has largely arisen from the department’s failure to contain the disease in historically affected areas through appropriate measures”. This coupled with an “ongoing failure and inability… to supply and administer adequate quantities of vaccine”.
The farmers dismiss any claim that private vaccination would be unlawful.
“There is no rational basis for prohibiting livestock owners from vaccinating their livestock against FMD,” the letter argues. It added that private vaccination would “supplement and expedite the rollout of vaccines” and “reduce the burden on the state”.
They warn that the economic consequences of continued inaction are severe.
Threat to farmers, livestock
“A significant portion of livestock farmers, across all backgrounds, now face the imminent threat of total operational collapse,” the letter states. It stresses that allowing private procurement “will not impede any possible supply to the state”.
Citing the Animal Diseases Act, the farmers insist the law permits private intervention. “There is, however, no prohibition on taking action privately. Private actors may undertake any activity not expressly prohibited by law.”
The letter gives Steenhuisen until Friday to respond. And it warns that failure to do so will leave farmers with no option but litigation.
“This will force the hands of our clients to approach a competent court for appropriate relief. One aimed at saving the livestock industry,” it concludes.
When contacted for comment, spokesperson in Steenhuisen’s office, Joylene van Wyk, said they will issue a statement towards evening on Tuesday.
Visit SW YouTube Channel for our video content
