Foot-and-mouth vaccine row escalates, Sakeliga seeks urgent response from Steenhuisen

Sakeliga has escalated its dispute with Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen over South Africa’s foot-and-mouth disease vaccination strategy. The dispute follows a media statement issued on Tuesday bySteenhuisen, in which he warned that threatened litigation by Sakeliga, SAAI, and Free State Agriculture could derail the national FMD vaccination rollout and divert critical veterinary and financial resources away from outbreak control. In his statement, the minister argued that FMD is a state-controlled disease governed by the Animal Diseases Act and that a strictly centralised vaccination programme is required to regain South Africa’s “FMD-free status with vaccination” from the World Organisation for Animal Health.

He also cautioned against what he described as reckless calls for unrestricted access to vaccines. Sakeliga has now rejected that response as inadequate. In response, the organisation said the minister’s public response to their letter of demand “falls short of complying with our requirements” and warned that failure to provide a proper legal explanation could result in urgent court action.

According to Sakeliga, “Minister John Steenhuisen’s uncharacteristically fast response time points to the merits of credible legal proceedings as a means to greater accountability from otherwise unresponsive state officials.” Minister John Steenhuisen’s uncharacteristically fast response time points to the merits of credible legal proceedings as a means to greater accountability from otherwise unresponsive state officials.” However, the organisation said the content of the response was insufficient.“Due to vagueness and other shortcomings, the Minister’s media statement cannot be considered an appropriate response,”it said. “Due to vagueness and other shortcomings, the Minister’s media statement cannot be considered an appropriate response,” The business organisation said the minister has been given until today to state in writing whether he agrees or disagrees with that position and, if he disagrees, to explain his stance“with full reference to the legal documents on which he relies.” “with full reference to the legal documents on which he relies.”