The Pretoria High Court has imposed fresh deadlines on Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen after rejecting an attempt by his department to delay urgent legal proceedings over foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccine access.

The ruling comes amid mounting pressure from lobby groups Sakeliga, the Southern African Agri Initiative (SAAI), and Free State Agriculture, which are challenging what they describe as unlawful government obstruction of private vaccine procurement and administration.

The Common Sense previously reported on court pressure on Steenhuisen here.

The court ordered the minister to publish his long-delayed Section 10 vaccination scheme by next Tuesday. It also set a date for arguments in an urgent interdict application aimed at clearing the way for private sector involvement in FMD procurement. These will be held on 11 May.

The Section 10 FMD vaccination scheme refers to a regulatory framework under the Animal Diseases Act that governs how vaccines for FMD may be approved, distributed, and administered in South Africa. In practice, it determines who is allowed to import and use vaccines, and under what conditions, with authority largely centralised in the state. The scheme has become a focal point in the current outbreak as farmers and industry groups argue that strict controls are slowing vaccination efforts, while government maintains that tight oversight is necessary to protect South Africa’s animal health status and export markets.

In its remarks, the court signalled clear frustration with the conduct of the minister and his officials. It noted that although the outbreak had been declared a national emergency, their actions suggested a lack of urgency.

According to Sakeliga, Steenhuisen has missed multiple previous deadlines, including commitments made in late 2025 and earlier in 2026.

The applicants argue that there is no legal barrier preventing farmers and private entities from importing and administering approved vaccines. They maintain that the state is attempting to preserve a monopoly over disease control while failing to contain the outbreak effectively.

According to Sakeliga, litigation will now proceed on an urgent basis. The outcome is likely to determine whether private sector vaccination efforts can move ahead independently of the state.

For farmers already facing losses, the case is about speed and access. For government, it is about control over how disease responses are managed. The court has now made clear that further delay will not be tolerated.