South Africa’s escalating foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) crisis has moved from the farms to the courts, with Sakeliga, the Suider-Afrika Agri Inisiatief (SAAI) and Free State Agriculture launching an urgent application in the Gauteng high court in Pretoria to fight for private vaccine access.
Court papers filed on March 2 confirm that the applicants are seeking to interdict the minister of agriculture and his senior officials from interfering with livestock owners who wish to administer registered or authorised FMD vaccines. They also want to stop the government from disrupting commercial arrangements between lawful importers and their international suppliers.
The litigation unfolds against the backdrop of a national state of disaster declared on February 13 2026 after the disease spread to all provinces.
In his founding affidavit, SAAI CEO Francois Rossouw states that the purpose of the application is to “safeguard the South African livestock industry by allowing producers and farmers to privately administer vaccines” amid what he describes as a devastating and uncontrolled outbreak.
At the core of the dispute is the state’s insistence that FMD vaccination remains under centralised government control. The applicants argue that while private livestock owners routinely procure and administer vaccines for other animal diseases, the agriculture department has blocked similar arrangements for FMD, despite vaccine shortages and limited rollout capacity.
Read: Agriculture department lobbying Treasury for more money to fight foot and mouth disease
The urgent relief sought is twofold. First, the applicants want an interdict preventing the state from blocking private vaccination and from interfering in relationships between lawful vaccine importers and their foreign suppliers. Second, within 20 days of any interim order, they intend to institute review proceedings to obtain declaratory relief confirming that no legal impediment exists to private administration of the vaccine or, alternatively, to have any such impediment set aside.
In his papers, Rossouw cites rights to dignity, freedom of trade and occupation, just administrative action and property.
He contends that farmers face severe financial losses, prolonged quarantines and the collapse of breeding programmes, while the state lacks the capacity to deliver rapid mass vaccination.
The affidavit further alleges that the government has interfered in commercial arrangements between private importers and Biogenesis Bagó, an Argentine vaccine manufacturer, effectively removing Design Biologix as a local agent after a meeting with the minister and officials. The applicants argue that such interference is ultra vires and unlawful.
The legal argument turns largely on interpretation of the Animal Diseases Act and its regulations. The applicants maintain that outside formally declared controlled areas, there is no blanket statutory prohibition on private vaccination of susceptible livestock.
They argue that any attempt to impose such a nationwide restriction without amending the regulations would be irrational and unlawful. They further contend that reliance on World Organisation for Animal Health standards to justify exclusive state control is misplaced.
The state has previously argued in public statements that vaccination must be tightly regulated to prevent the introduction of new strains, ensure compliance with international surveillance standards and avoid compromising South Africa’s long-term strategy to regain FMD-free status.
It has also indicated that vaccines may only be administered under state veterinary oversight.
However, the applicants dispute both the factual and legal basis for that stance. They point to what they describe as years of vaccine production delays, insufficient stock, administrative bottlenecks and inadequate veterinary capacity.
They argue that private farmers, veterinarians and agribusinesses are capable of accelerating rollout at no cost to the fiscus.
The matter has been enrolled on an urgent basis, with the applicants seeking to have non-compliance with ordinary timeframes condoned under Rule 6. A hearing date of March 17 at 10am is specified in the notice of motion.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.