Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
Sakeliga, Free State Agriculture, and the Southern African Agri-Initiative (Saai) celebrated a small victory over government on 24 March 2026. The Gauteng division of the High Court ordered the state to promulgate and publish the intended animal scheme relating to foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) by no later than 17 April. Promises to release this so-called Section 10 document has been circulating in the media for months.
The court further ordered the minister of agriculture, the director general, and the director of the Directorate of Animal Health to pay the applicants’ wasted costs for the day’s hearing, including the cost of two legal counsels where applicable.
Heated courtroom
Presiding Judge CJ van der Westhuizen made it clear throughout the proceedings that he was dissatisfied with both the pace and substance of the arguments. He frequently interrupted counsel, pressing them for direct answers. He did not mince his words, openly challenging submissions and expressing frustration at what he appeared to regard as evasiveness and a lack of progress. At one point, he sharply rebuked the state’s counsel, stating: “Counsel, you are not going to sit down just yet.”
The judge then proceeded to interrogate council about the distribution of vaccines and the tender processes surrounding it. “What is wrong with the tender? What exactly is objectionable?” He demanded. He referred to the first respondent, the minister of agriculture, who has publicly stated since March 2026 that vaccines would be distributed to anyone who wanted them, effectively allowing people to act as they wished.
In response, the respondent’s council argued: “My Lord, it is not on a first-come, first-served or ‘free-for-all’ basis. There must be regulatory oversight.”
The judge rejected this, saying that this is precisely what was said on public platforms.
Later, counsel submitted that government oversight, including the role of Onderstepoort Biological Products (OBP), needed to remain intact. The judge responded by asking what OBP had achieved over the past twenty years, pointing out that nothing of significance had been delivered by the parastatal during that period.
The matter was then stood down until 28 April 2026. All parties are granted leave to supplement or amend their papers if necessary. The respondents (minister, DG and DDG) must file their submissions on or before 22 April and all other parties may file on or before 24 April 2026.
Reaction to the proceedings
Dr Theo de Jager, chairman of Saai, said in a press release that the court order underscored the gap between the bureaucratic world of the civil service and the urgency facing livestock producers. “While more farms face financial strain every day, the minister, after three months, brings a draft framework for action (a section 10 vaccination scheme) to court as his solution, which was rejected by his own department a week ago.”
Dr de Jager added that the current outbreak posed a major threat since 2022/23, yet the minister was only able to come up with a draft minutes before the hearing. He said that the more than three months during which the agricultural sector attempted to assist the department in developing the vaccination scheme had been prohibitively expensive, leaving hundreds of dairies, stud breeders, commercial herds and small‑scale farmers with losses from which many may never recover. Saai welcomed the strict deadlines now imposed on the minister, ahead of the postponed court date.
In a press release, the minister of agriculture, John Steenhuisen, welcomed the outcome and stated that it affirmed the department’s lawful authority to regulate and manage South Africa’s response to FMD.
“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,” the statement read.
Steenhuisen added that the outcome reinforces the principle that South Africa’s biosecurity response must be co-ordinated, science-based, and aligned with national and international standards.
“This matter was never simply about access to vaccines,” he said. “It is about ensuring that South Africa’s response to FMD remains credible, co-ordinated, and compliant with the legal framework that protects both our national herd and our export markets.” – Susan Marais, Plaas Media
