John Steenhuisen is getting sued

Agricultural interest groups, along with lobby group Sakeliga, are launching legal action against the Minister of Agriculture, John Steenhuisen, for his alleged failure to justify a ban on private Foot and Mouth vaccinations. 

The coalition comprising Sakeliga, the Southern African Agri Institute (SAAI) and Free State Agriculture, will approach the courts to review and set aside Steenhuisen’s “unlawful prohibition,” and to apply for further or alternative relief as applicable. 

The group informed the minister on 26 January that there was no proof to justify his claims that there is a legal basis for the ministry to prohibit the private use of the vaccines.

They gave Steenhuisen until Friday, 30 January, to provide legal justification for his ban on private vaccinations, or concede that there is no legal basis for the prohibition. Steenhuisen did not respond to the letter.

“With the deadline now expired, we have instructed our attorneys to approach the courts to review and set aside Minister Steenhuisen’s apparently unlawful prohibition, and to apply for further or alternative relief as applicable,” Sakeliga said. 

The lobby group added that the minister’s failure to reply contradicts earlier statements he made this week that he would do his best to avoid litigation. 

“Had he been confident in the lawfulness of his conduct and position, he could easily have stated so with reference to the alleged legal grounds,” Sakelga said. 

Steenhuisen, upon receiving the group’s complaint, said that litigation would unnecessarily delay the state’s current vaccination plan. 

Sakeliga states that this is a “misrepresentation in fact and law”, adding that neither a response to the letter, nor the litigation that has now been initiated, requires the state to suspend measures or exempts the Minister from the obligations arising from their classification of the disease as “state-controlled”.

Steenhuisen fails to justify ban on private vaccines – Sakeliga

The groups argue that the state’s centralised control over the vaccination process is failing and that the restrictions preventing private farmers from protecting their own herds are unlawful and irrational.

The lobby groups argue that the current outbreak is “severely out of control” and that the government’s strategy, which involves vaccinating the entire national herd, lacks a clear roadmap.

They contend that the Department of Agriculture has failed to administer prescribed vaccines effectively in affected areas, making it “irrational” to prohibit livestock owners from taking the initiative to save their animals.

FMD is a highly contagious and severe viral disease that affects cloven-hoofed animals.

It is characterised by fever and blister-like sores on the mouth, tongue, teats, and hooves, causing severe lameness and reduced productivity.

While it is not a threat to human health, it is a catastrophic disease for agriculture, with South Africa currently facing its worst outbreak in history. 

At the heart of the conflict is a disagreement over the interpretation of the Animal Diseases Act.

The legal demand asserts that Section 11 of the Act places an obligation on land managers and animal owners to take reasonable steps to prevent infection, implying that blocking them from vaccinating frustrates their legal duty.

Furthermore, the groups argue that current regulations do not contain a “direct prohibition against private individuals administering vaccines to their own livestock”.

They maintain that private sector participation would “reduce the burden on the state” and allow for a decentralised, rapid response to the crisis.

“The situation is dire, so much so that a significant portion of livestock farmers, across all backgrounds, now face the imminent threat of total operational collapse,” the lawyers for the coalition wrote.

Private vaccinations short-sighted and reckless – Steenhuisen

Steenhuisen responded sharply to the threat of litigation, urging unity and warning that legal battles could “derail” the national vaccination rollout.

In a media statement released on January 27, 2026, Steenhuisen described the proposed private vaccination scheme as “short-sighted and reckless”.

The Minister emphasised that FMD is a “controlled animal disease” strictly governed by the Animal Diseases Act.

The government argues that to regain the country’s “FMD-free status with vaccination” from the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), South Africa must prove strict state control over the process.

This requires official surveillance and systematic coverage that can be verified, which the state claims is impossible without centralised monitoring.

Steenhuisen accused the lobby groups of using the “war on Foot and Mouth Disease” to drive membership recruitment and solicit donations.

He urged the farming community to be wary of groups “attempting to profit from the hardships farmers are currently enduring”.

In response, Saai’s Francois Rossouw denied this, saying it “will litigate because this is the worst animal biosecurity failure in a century. Entire farms are being destroyed while the Department of Agriculture plans and centralises away.”

The lobby groups assert that a “centralised monopsony” on vaccines is unacceptable given the magnitude of the crisis.

They claim there is ample vaccine supply available for import and that private suppliers are ready to assist immediately without impeding the state’s own supply lines.

According to the Common Sense, Steenhuisen’s firm stance on the issue is causing fault lines within the Democratic Alliance (DA).

Within DA ranks, there is a concern that the party is risking alienating some of its core supporters with Steenhuisen’s insistence on state control of vaccines.