Lobby groups challenge ‘irrational’ ban on private procurement of FMD vaccines in South Africa

A coalition of agricultural lobby groups has issued a stern ultimatum to the South African government.

They have demanded the immediate right for farmers to privately procure and administer vaccines to combat the country’s escalating Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) crisis.

The coalition, comprised of Sakeliga, the Southern African Agri Initiative (Saai), and Free State Agriculture, has served a formal letter of demand to the Minister of Agriculture, John Steenhuisen.

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.

In a letter sent by KWV Incorporated Attorneys on January 26, 2026, the groups have given Steenhuisen, the Department of Agriculture, and the Chief Director of Veterinary Services until the close of business on January 30, 2026, to respond.

The organisations are seeking written confirmation that “livestock owners and the private sector generally may procure and administer FMD vaccines according to their own risk management considerations without being blocked by state gatekeeping and red tape.”

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. 

Control vs capacity

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.

Steenhuisen warns of a ‘free for all’

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.

“We have already seen the disastrous effects of unfettered access to vaccines that have been illegally imported into KwaZulu-Natal by certain farmers and the serious risk this has posed,” Steenhuisen stated.

Defending the state’s efforts, the Ministry announced that it has already acquired and administered two million vaccines from the Botswana Vaccine Institute.

Additionally, the department noted that it has begun issuing permits for private companies to act as local agents for imports.

He specifically mentioned permits issued to Dunevax for the Dollvet vaccine and imminent permits for the Biogénesis Bagó vaccine.

However, the Ministry warned that the impending legal action forces the department to divert critical financial and veterinary resources away from the frontline fight against the disease to answer court challenges.

Experts say that South Africa would not be scrambling for vaccines if the government had not allowed Onderstepoort Biological Products (OBP), a state-owned company based in Pretoria, to collapse under its watch.

It is the country’s primary producer of veterinary vaccines for livestock and other animals, historically considered world-class, but now widely described as being in a state of disaster.

Accusations of profiteering

The standoff has become increasingly acrimonious.

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.

The coalition has made it clear that if the Minister does not provide a favourable response by the Friday deadline, they will assume there is a dispute and will approach a competent Court for “appropriate relief aimed at saving the livestock industry”.