Sakeliga defeats Steenhuisen’s draconian controls in court

On May 25 2026 the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria handed down an interim order in urgent proceedings brought by Sakeliga, the Southern African Agri Initiative (SAAI) and Free State Agriculture against the Minister of Agriculture, John Steenhuisen, the Director-General of Agriculture and the Director of Animal Health.

According to an official statement by Sakeliga on X today, “The Minister tried to centralise control over FMD vaccines, barring farmers and livestock owners from privately procuring and administering vaccines without state permission. Sakeliga, SAAI, and Free State Agriculture have argued since January 2026 that there is no lawful impediment to privately obtaining and administering approved FMD vaccines. Today, the court confirmed our assessment.”

The order grants livestock owners of cloven-hoofed animals (cattle, sheep, goats and pigs) the right to procure privately lawfully imported or lawfully manufactured and approved foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines and to administer them privately. This relief is subject to some quality control conditions: owners must give at least five days’ prior notice to the relevant provincial director of veterinary services or state veterinarian, providing details of the animals and their location; the cold chain must be maintained; and proof of vaccination must be submitted after the event.

The order does not confer any automatic right to import or manufacture vaccines (these are retained by pharmaceutical bodies). It does not affect existing controls on animal movements or the statutory obligation to report suspected FMD cases. The state retains full control over the vaccines it itself procures and distributes.

But the challenges are not simply procedural or idealistically rights-based. The state has proved they were insincere when they abused the emergency legislation to ram through an extremely suspicious monopoly contract. Worse, the state’s delivery has been so incompetent, the DA-run Western Cape province, at the risk of humiliating a Minister from the same governing party,  has had to create its own implementation schedule.

The court interdicted the minister and the named officials from interfering in the commercial relations between parties who lawfully import FMD vaccines and their international suppliers. Judge Cornelius van der Westhuizen ruled that the minister’s Section 10 scheme, gazetted under the Animal Diseases Act to regulate vaccination campaigns, did not constitute a substantive defence to the applicants’ challenge. Costs were awarded against the respondents, including the costs of two counsel.

The judgment forms the latest stage in litigation initiated in February 2026. The applicants have throughout contended that there exists no lawful basis under the Animal Diseases Act or any other statute for the department to prohibit or materially restrict the private procurement and administration of approved FMD vaccines. They sought, first, an interdict restraining such obstruction and, second, a review of the minister’s decisions and conduct as unlawful, irrational and unconstitutional.

Court-ordered mediation failed, and Steenhuisen fought tooth and nail to frustrate the legal action brought against the department and fight for the unethical and harmful monopoly contract they were enforcing, fuelling speculation of corruption.

Multiple hearings followed (March 24-25, April 28-29 and subsequent dates), in which the court repeatedly imposed deadlines on the department to publish its Section 10 scheme, initially by April 17, later adjusted to May 5, and issued punitive costs orders against the state for delays. The judge criticised the handling of the matter, including last-minute filings and an absence of substantive defence.

The applicants have been directed to institute the full review application within 20 days for final relief.