Steenhuisen welcomes High Court decision in FMD vaccine procurement dispute
Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen said the ruling affirms the department’s regulatory authority over animal disease control.
Image: File
The Gauteng Division of the High Court has declined to grant urgent interim relief sought by Sakeliga, the South African Agricultural Industry (SAAI) and Free State Agriculture in a case challenging the state’s control over foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccine procurement and administration.
The applicants, Sakeliga SAAI and Free State Agriculture, approached the court seeking an interdict that would allow private importation and administration of registered FMD vaccines, arguing that current restrictions unlawfully limit private sector participation in livestock disease management.
In a statement on Tuesday, Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen said the ruling affirms the department’s regulatory authority over animal disease control.
"The Minister of Agriculture, John Steenhuisen, welcomes today's outcome in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, which has affirmed the Department's lawful authority to regulate and manage South Africa's response to Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD)".
The department also stressed that it was "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 Department has been given a defined and reasonable timeframe within which to publish a vaccination scheme in terms of existing legislation".
The department also revealed that it has already been working on a formal vaccination scheme through consultations with its ministerial task team and industry stakeholders.
"This matter was never simply about access to vaccines. It was about ensuring that South Africa's response to FMD remains credible, coordinated, and compliant with the legal framework that protects both our national herd and our export markets," Steenhuisen said.
He added that the attempt to secure urgent court intervention to bypass established regulatory processes was "premature and misdirected".
"The Court has recognised that there are no grounds for urgent intervention that would disrupt the State's ongoing disease control strategy. This is an important affirmation of the role of government in managing animal health risks in a structured and responsible manner."
The department also said that the state has already been implementing its FMD response strategy.
"We will continue to engage constructively with all stakeholders. But we will not compromise on the principles that underpin an effective biosecurity system"
IOL News