The Pretoria High Court has ordered Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen to finalise a scheme that for the first time proposes unsupervised private vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease (FMD).
The interim order, handed down yesterday, follows an urgent application launched by Sakeliga, Suider-Afrika Agri Inisiatief NPC (Saai) and Free State Agriculture to end the Minister’s obstruction of private FMD vaccine procurement and administration.
The Minister was ordered to publish regulations for the scheme by April 17. He was also ordered to pay costs of the application.
Until the morning of the hearing, Steenhuisen had opposed private vaccination, with his director-general stating in court papers 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 his legal team filed a supplementary affidavit attaching a draft section 10 scheme under the Animal Diseases Act that now allows private veterinarians appointed by livestock owners to direct unsupervised administration of FMD vaccines.
Sakeliga welcomed the court-imposed deadline but warned that the draft still contained significant shortcomings.
The draft centralises vaccine importation, procurement and distribution through a committee structure rather than permitting free private-sector procurement. The scheme also reserves sweeping power for the Minister to publish control measures that could reimpose centralised state control at any time.
“The minister’s ability to deliver shows significant improvement in the face of litigation,” the organisations said.
On December 18, 2025, Steenhuisen had committed to publish a section 10 scheme by the end of January 2026 but the first draft only emerged after the court hearing.
Minutes of the Ministerial Task Team meeting of March 17, included in the supplementary affidavit, said the scheme had to be finalised urgently to “support the department in its defence in some legal matters”.
Steenhuisen yesterday welcomed the court’s decision, saying it affirmed the department’s lawful authority to regulate and manage South Africa’s FMD response.
“The application brought by Sakeliga and others sought urgent interim relief that would have effectively allowed for unregulated private procurement and administration of FMD vaccines, outside of the established national framework,” Steenhuisen said.
“It is important to note that the court did not grant the urgent relief sought by the applicants. Instead, the matter has been postponed, and rightfully so to allow the department to finalise its vaccination scheme.
“This matter was never simply about access to vaccines. It was about ensuring that South Africa’s response to FMD remains credible, coordinated, and compliant with the legal framework that protects both our national herd and our export markets.”
He described the attempt to secure urgent court intervention as both premature and misdirected and said the court had recognised there were “no grounds for urgent intervention that would disrupt the state’s ongoing disease control strategy”.
Steenhuisen said his department had been working on a formal vaccination scheme in consultation with the Ministerial Task Team and industry stakeholders.
“The scheme will provide a structured mechanism for broader participation, while maintaining the necessary safeguards around traceability, vaccine integrity, and disease control.”
The matter returns to court on April 28 to consider the lawfulness of the Minister’s measures.
If the final gazetted scheme imposes unlawful obstacles to private procurement or administration, the applicants may seek further interim relief.
Sakeliga, Saai and Free State Agriculture have indicated they will continue to challenge any remaining barriers to private-sector participation, maintaining there is no lawful impediment to livestock owners administering registered FMD vaccines.
Onderstepoort Biological Products and the Agricultural Research Centre have withdrawn their opposition to the matter and will abide by the court’s decision. Only the Minister, the Director-General of Agriculture and the Director of Animal Health continue to oppose the application.
