SA’s battle against Foot-and-Mouth Disease has reached an inflection point. Not because the disease is under control, but because the courts have finally forced the state to act.
The recent Pretoria high court ruling compelling the minister of agriculture to publish a Section 10 vaccination scheme by April 17 is as damning as it is necessary.
It confirms what I, farmers, veterinarians and industry bodies have been calling for while warning against the centralisation of the outbreak management for months.
Government inertia, fragmentation and over-centralisation have allowed this crisis to deepen, costing livestock owners dearly.
Let us be clear: this was not a policy breakthrough from the department. It was a legal intervention to compel basic governance. The court did not vindicate the current approach — it placed it on terms.
A costs order against the minister, the director-general and the director of Animal health underscores the court’s view that this matter should never have reached litigation in the first place.
For months, the department resisted precisely what it now appears willing to concede under legal pressure: that private sector capacity — farmers, veterinarians, and agricultural organisations — must be part of the rollout of the campaign in an effort to find a lasting solution.
The late introduction of a draft Section 10 scheme, allowing some form of private vaccination, represents a significant reversal. But it is a reversal born not of leadership, but of litigation.
The implications are profound. A Section 10 scheme under the Animal Diseases Act 35 of 1984 is not a vague policy statement. It is the regulatory architecture that determines who can access vaccines, who may administer them, and how they move through the system. In other words, it will determine whether SA gets ahead of this outbreak — or continues to chase it.
What has become increasingly evident is that the current institutional arrangement is not fit for purpose. The Ministerial Task Team (MTT), the Industry Co-ordinating Committee (ICC), and the department itself are operating in silos, with little evidence of effective coordination.
Drafts are circulated, inputs are provided, but decisions stall. Accountability dissipates across structures that appear designed more for consultation than execution.
This lack of coordination has real, devastating consequences. According to industry reports, outbreaks continue to rise, vaccine supply remains inadequate, and traceability systems are inconsistent. In some areas, available vaccines have already been exhausted while new infections are reported daily. Farmers are left navigating quarantine restrictions, biosecurity risks, and mounting financial losses, often with little clarity or support from the state.
This crisis has exposed a fundamental truth: effective disease control requires a partnership between state and industry, underpinned by clear rules, shared accountability, and decisive leadership. At present, we have none of these in sufficient measure
The frustration expressed by industry organisations is therefore entirely justified. Government cannot fight this battle alone. But more importantly, it is currently not fighting it effectively at all.
Where provincial departments have worked constructively with private actors, progress has been made. Where centralised control has dominated, delays and bottlenecks persist.
Equally concerning is the timeline. The ICC submitted a Section 10 application as early as late January. By any reasonable standard, an emergency response of this magnitude should have been measured in hours and days; not months. That it took a court application in March to trigger urgency raises serious questions about whether the department appreciates the scale and speed of the threat.
The court’s deadline of April 17 now becomes pivotal. It shifts the burden squarely onto government to produce a coherent, workable, and lawful plan. Not in principle, but in practice. Not in press briefings, but in a gazetted framework that can withstand scrutiny.
There are, in essence, two paths forward.
The first is a genuinely enabling framework: one that incorporates private sector capacity, removes unnecessary bottlenecks, and aligns regulatory processes to facilitate rapid vaccine access and administration. This would mark a turning point in the response and could stabilise the situation.
The second is a reassertion of centralised control under a different guise: retaining the same structural constraints that have hampered the response thus far. If that is the outcome, the matter will return to court on April 28 with even greater urgency and opposition, and rightly so.
What is no longer acceptable is the pretence that the status quo can hold. The spread of FMD does not wait for interdepartmental alignment, nor does it respect bureaucratic process. Every day lost to indecision is another day of avoidable economic damage, compromised food security, and deepening distress in the agricultural sector.
This crisis has exposed a fundamental truth: effective disease control requires a partnership between state and industry, underpinned by clear rules, shared accountability, and decisive leadership. At present, we have none of these in sufficient measure.
The court has now done what the department would not. It has imposed urgency, clarity, and a deadline. The question is whether government will finally rise to meet it.
If it does not, the consequences will not be measured in legal setbacks, but in livelihoods lost and an industry pushed further to the brink.
Athol Trollip, ActionSA parliamentary leader
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.