John Steenhuisen taken to court

Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen is headed to court over his alleged unlawful prohibition on private-sector vaccine production and administration amid a devastating foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak among South African cattle.

This comes after mediation efforts on this case proved unsuccessful, with the matter now set to be heard in the Pretoria High Court on Tuesday, 24 March 2026.

The FMD outbreak started in April 2025 and has since spread to all nine provinces in South Africa, with farmers across the country battling the highly contagious disease.

So far, the government has responded through export-certification requirements and restricting the movement of animals.

Steenhuisen and the Department of Agriculture have also introduced a multi-pronged approach to securing the vaccines needed to treat the national herd.

As the government currently lacks the capacity to produce all of the vaccines it needs, with vaccine manufacturing capacity at Onderstepoort gutted over the past few years, it has relied heavily on imports from countries like Argentina, Turkey, and Botswana.

In addition, South Africa – for the first time in over two decades – resumed local FMD vaccine production at Onderstepoort, though it will take some time to scale manufacturing to the levels required to ensure long-term self-reliance.

However, despite these efforts, Steenhuisen has found himself under severe scrutiny from South African farmers and other industry stakeholders for his handling of the crisis.

The Southern African Agri Initiative (Saai) has been one of the minister’s most vocal critics, slamming Steenhuisen and his department for what it describes as a slow response to the FMD crisis.

Steenhuisen has also been severely criticised for his insistence on state control over all aspects of FMD vaccination, which is the issue that will see him in court on 24 March.

A coalition comprising Sakeliga, SAAI, and Free State Agriculture approached the court in January 2026 to review and set aside what they allege is Steenhuisen’s “unlawful prohibition” on private FMD vaccinations.

The coalition applied for further or alternative relief as applicable, claiming there was no legal basis for Steenhuisen’s ban.

Steenhuisen under fire

In a press statement released on Friday, 20 March, Sakeliga, SAAI and Free State Agriculture said they would be in court next week to interdict the government’s obstruction of private-sector procurement and administration of FMD vaccines.

This, they said, comes after court-prescribed mediation between the parties was unsuccessful, with the matter now set to be heard in the Pretoria High Court on an urgent basis.

“The court application follows the failure by the Minister of Agriculture, John Steenhuisen, to provide a lawful basis for his prohibition on private-sector vaccine procurement and administration, and the detrimental interference by agriculture officials in private vaccine import agreements,” Sakeliga claimed.

It said the hearing concerns the first stage of its legal strategy – an interdict restraining the state from blocking private individuals and entities from administering registered or authorised FMD vaccines to livestock.

In addition, the organisation will seek to prohibit the state from interfering in the contractual relationships between those who legally import the vaccine and their suppliers.

“A review application, constituting the second stage, will follow at a later stage,” Sakeliga said. 

“This review application will seek, inter alia, declaratory relief confirming that there exists no impediment to owners or managers of livestock administering the vaccine, alternatively reviewing, and setting aside any such legal impediment that may exist or be created.”

The organisation alleged that Steenhuisen’s insistence on state control of all aspects of FMD vaccination has caused widespread distress and significant production losses across the agricultural sector.

It said the minister’s approach stands in contrast to the common practice of private procurement and administration of livestock vaccination for other diseases.

“Notably, nothing in our application would obstruct the minister or other officials from carrying out their lawful duties and efforts at combating foot-and-mouth disease,” Sakeliga claimed.

“If we are successful, however, farmers and others will immediately be free to vaccinate not only cattle but also other livestock at their own discretion and with their own resources, with reporting for tracking purposes as may be required.”

“It remains remarkable that the minister opposes this parallel approach, insisting that the disease should only be combatted at the pace his own department can manage.”