Director’s Cut: Piet Le Roux - Why farmers may sue the state over foot-and-mouth chaos

SA’s foot-and-mouth disease crisis is spiralling. Sakeliga CEO Piet Le Roux explains why government control has failed, why farmers are being blocked from acting, and why legal action against the state is now firmly on the table..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here..Watch here.Listen here.BizNews Reporter.South Africa’s foot and mouth disease crisis has reached a point where even seasoned agricultural veterans are struggling to find comparisons. One farmer recently told BizNews that the devastation facing livestock producers is the worst since the rinderpest outbreak of 1897. That is not the kind of historical parallel anyone wants to hear.What has turned a serious animal health issue into a systemic economic threat is not simply the spread of the disease itself, but the way it has been handled. Or more accurately, mishandled.That is why Sakeliga, a business organisation best known for taking on the state over issues like employment equity and regulatory overreach, has now entered the farming arena. Its CEO, Piet le Roux, says the organisation does not step into sectors lightly. But when state action, or inaction, threatens the wider economic order, they get involved.Agriculture, he argues, has crossed that line.Le Roux is clear that Sakeliga is not pretending to be an agricultural expert. Instead, it sees a familiar pattern. A government determined to control a problem it no longer has the capacity to manage, while actively preventing private actors from stepping in to limit the damage.Foot and mouth disease is officially classified as a state-controlled disease. That classification made sense when outbreaks were isolated and manageable. Today, it no longer reflects reality. The disease has spread widely, yet the state still insists on maintaining monopolised control over vaccines, distribution and administration.The result has been paralysis.Farmers who are perfectly capable of vaccinating and managing their herds are blocked from doing so. Private veterinarians, who could immediately expand capacity on the ground, are sidelined. Meanwhile, the economic fallout grows by the week.Le Roux describes this as a textbook example of a systemic problem. Agriculture does not exist in isolation. When livestock producers are crippled, the effects ripple through finance, processing, logistics and exports. At that point, it stops being an industry issue and becomes an economy-wide risk.One of Sakeliga’s core principles is what it calls “state-proofing”. It is a blunt acknowledgment of South Africa’s reality. The state often lacks capacity. Sometimes it intervenes in ways that actively make things worse. In those conditions, waiting for policy reform or ministerial goodwill is not a strategy. It is a gamble.State-proof solutions, Le Roux explains, are designed to work even if government cooperation never materialises. In the case of foot and mouth disease, that means getting the state out of the way and allowing farmers, agribusinesses and veterinarians to do what they already know how to do.The organisation’s immediate move has been to publish a legal template letter for farmers and affected businesses. The purpose is simple. If the state insists on monopolising control over the disease, it also assumes responsibility for the consequences. That includes financial losses suffered because farmers were prevented from acting.This is not a symbolic gesture. Sakeliga believes there is legal precedent supporting such claims, provided each case is properly assessed by legal counsel. The aim is not reckless litigation, but pressure. Pressure that signals to government that continued obstruction comes with real costs.At the same time, Sakeliga is exploring more direct legal action. Options include urgent interdicts to remove restrictions on vaccine imports, sales, distribution and administration. Le Roux stresses that litigation is never rushed. A bad judgment can set a problem back years. But he confirms that urgent relief is very much on the table.The frustration is compounded by political disappointment. Many farmers and industry players had hoped the current Minister of Agriculture would chart a different course from his predecessors. Instead, Le Roux says, key policies and bureaucratic instincts have remained largely unchanged.That includes the continued defence of state-centric control and broader empowerment frameworks that have already weakened agricultural competitiveness. While some have speculated about deliberate intent or ideological hostility toward farmers, Le Roux is unconvinced.His explanation is less sinister but arguably more worrying. A deeply dysfunctional state that repeatedly produces the same failures, regardless of who is in charge.From social grants to education to local government, the pattern repeats. Poor capacity. Bad incentives. No accountability. In that context, foot and mouth disease is not an anomaly. It is another symptom.If court action fails, the situation may evolve in less orderly ways. Le Roux acknowledges that many farmers are already taking steps that technically fall outside the rules, driven by necessity rather than defiance. History shows that when the state leaves a vacuum, people fill it. The July 2021 unrest was a stark reminder that state authority in South Africa is often more theoretical than real.That does not mean confrontation is taken lightly. The state remains dangerous, even when weak. Decisions made under pressure carry legal and personal risk. But for farmers watching herds collapse and livelihoods evaporate, inaction is no longer an option.What happens next depends on the courts, the speed of legal processes and whether government recognises the urgency of the moment. For now, Sakeliga’s message is clear. If the state cannot fix the problem, it must stop preventing others from doing so.The fire is already burning. Debating who is officially allowed to hold the hose is a luxury farmers can no longer afford.

Director’s Cut: Piet Le Roux - Why farmers may sue the state over foot-and-mouth chaos

Related Stories