A business organization, SA, is stepping in to advocate for South African farmers facing a severe agricultural crisis, particularly due to foot-and-mouth disease, by challenging the state's monopolistic control and advocating for private sector solutions.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
Farmer Peter Keane from Moy River said
to us that the uh disaster that has hit
agriculture or in particular those who
breed with livestock in agriculture is
the worst since the render pest in 1897.
Well, the farmers seem to have been left
in the lurch pretty much everywhere you
look. And now along comes a business
organization SA who are going into bat
and very strongly for the farmers. Uh
Pit Laroo is the chief executive of Saka
and I can I can tell you from watching
their record when they get involved the
Peter, I'm sure farmers are delighted to
hear that you are throwing your hat into
the ring here, starting to get involved.
It's not really your area though,
agriculture. So why is a business body
getting involved in this area? Look,
when things become a systemic problem
endangering the economic order uh of
substantial size and impact, then we get
involved. We are there to uh safeguard a
flourishing economic order. And how the
government's been dealing with this foot
of mouth disease and how it's
proliferated is causing systemic
problems. It's the same with black
economic empowerment be uh which uh we
have in various industries become
involved not because we are experts in
the industry but because we recognize a
pattern of destructive political or
policy behavior and uh you know we've
learned some lessons in one domain and
we hope to apply those in another if the
underlying problem seems to have a
similar origin.
>> What does systemic mean?
>> It means that it's big. It means that
people tend to speak about industries.
You often get industry bodies and they
exist for a good reason. They understand
the dynamics of an industry. Uh but uh e
economies are interwoven and uh
sometimes when you destabilize one
so-called industry for long enough or
you cause a big enough problem there
then you have all sorts of consequences
in the processing of the products of
that industry later on in the inputs
going into that industry. And in the
case of agriculture um with as as has
been reported to us from the farming
industry and from bodies that we work
with uh really huge numbers uh in
finance and heads of cattle and
operations are now involved. So that's
why we consider it systemic. It's large
enough and it's impacting other sectors sufficiently.
sufficiently.
>> Saraka is all about state proofing.
Maybe you can explain how that works and
why this is relevant in the foot and
mouth disease [clears throat]
uh issue.
>> We consider a the state not a suitable
solution for the problems of South
Africa. Uh I mean in theory you could
say that's what the stole the state's
role is X Y and Z. But if the state is
absent or it lacks the capacity or if
sometimes it has uh the desire or
whether it desires to or just does it it
acts to intervene harmfully um then it's
no use discussing what the state's role
should be. You have to work with the
facts as they are and the facts in South
Africa are such that it's not much use
to rely on the state for improving
things that are going very wrong or uh
to improve uh policy um and and get
involved. So this means that sometimes
you need to force the state's hand or
you need to get get the state out of the
business of what private sector and
industry bodies can solve themselves.
And in this case we consider the desired
solution to be state proof. That means
for its success the answer to this
problem should not rely on the uh
goodwill of the state uh either its uh
changes in policy or its acts um of of
intervention. Uh we need to come up with
a solution that does not depend on some
minister changing uh but on allowing the
private sector to solve the problem. M
uh when you have a look at the way that
the state has handled foot and mouth
disease up to this point, it's not like
it's just arrived,
there are people and I suppose because
it because it's been handled in this
way, there are many who are now saying,
but hang on, this is a deliberate issue.
This is a deliberate attempt to destroy
the white farmers in South Africa. I've
had feedback from someone who was in the
room before being kicked out. he's not a
white person who said that within that
conversation it was a very deliberate
attempt let's let's uh let's sort these
guys out once and for all. Is there any
credence to what this person has told me
or indeed to what you have discovered in
your engagement with people in the
industry? I think it's fair to say that
the level of disastrous policy in South
Africa is often at least sometimes
inspired by um an animous is that the
correct word a a dislike for white
people. Um unfortunately that's be a lot
of be is in one way the good
interpretation is it's a desire to
improve uh the this the economic uh and
the social condition of black
communities. In that way it's a
desirable uh objective at least. But uh
in my dealings with people who try to
influence policy or who discuss politics
sometimes I have found that um the
desire is you know it's a bit like
communism or socialism. It's not a
desire to help other people go up even
though it's seld like that. It's
actually a dislike of certain classes of
people and the desire to see them uh
experience problems. However, in the
foot of mouth disease situation, I have
not seen that. Um, and no one's relayed
experiences like what you've just
relayed to me. So, I I haven't seen that
and I would be surprised to to see a big
plan to harm white farmers because
government's not really good at
executing big plans comprehensively and
systemically. So, it I would be
surprised if that's the main reason why
things are going bad. I think the
simpler explanation is uh a state that
um wants to intervene, wants to be in
control, doesn't have the capacity and
even if it had the capacity, it doesn't
have um the u the understanding um of of
what the the origins are. It's the state
continues to see itself as be have to be
having to be central to the solution
while many other diseases are perfectly
well dealt with farmers themselves. So
it's it's that old saying that uh 1%
conspiracy 99% cockup and in this case
it's an unholy cockup but not very funny
if you happen to be sitting on the other
side if you're a farmer and your herds
are being devastated. Just explain what
you meant that other diseases that are
contagious have been handled uh when the
state state wasn't involved with them.
>> Yes. Let me first say we act on in
cooperation with other role players. For
example, we've um benefited a lot from
uh uh meetings that have been held with
various industry role players. And in
this current litigation that we're
foreseeing, Alec, we sent out a press
release late last week to say that we're
now considering litigation. We're
cooperating with SAI uh and with Free
State Agriculture. And so Saka does not
understand the specifics of the
agricultural industry just as we don't
understand the specifics of any other
industry where we team up with role
players to help solve a problem that we
do understand. It's being we are being
told and we understand this to be the
case that many animal diseases are
perfectly well dealt with by farmers
themselves uh when they administer
either preventative or or treatment uh
medicine. And uh this uh in the in the
case of foot and mouth disease, the
state seems to insist that uh state
veterinarians should be involved or
should drive and be at the center of
this. In recent um weeks, there seems to
have been uh
sounds being made by the Minister of
Agriculture that private veterinarians
will be allowed to uh assist with this.
But we just think get the state
veterinarians out of the business just
since it's almost a national crisis now.
And in fact, the Minister of Agriculture
has said that he wants to have a a
national disaster declared well in when
when the fire is raging, uh you don't
prioritize monitoring and quality
control, especially from um state
veterinarians who don't have petrol in
their cars to reach all the various
places. So um I I'm just putting it to
you Alec that farmers relate to us,
veterinarians relate to us, industry
bodies relate to us that they can
perfectly deal uh with the
administration of this uh uh vaccine and
the medication they consider appropriate
without state intervention.
>> I farmed for a while and I certainly
applied my fair number of vaccines as
well as a farmer. So it nobody's telling
you um pork pies on that side. um they
farmers know how to do those kind of
things and it's in their interest to be
be competent at it. But but let's just
have a look at what's behind all of this
because you have a statemanaged
or state controlled disease. It's it's
spreading like wildfire. It's causing
untold damage and yet the farmers are
unable to protect themselves. And I
suppose that's why you get these
conspiracy maybe ideas that this is
deliberately an attempt to destroy white
farmers in South Africa. What would you
suggest is the rational way of
approaching this?
>> Well, the first point to make is that
calling it a state control disease is a
misnomer. The state has lost control of
the disease. And the whole idea of a
state control disease is that the state
gets involved when there are isolated
outbreaks and that the intervention is
such that it can stamp out that outbreak
and you deal with isolated cases from
time to time. Now it's wildly spread.
The state has lost control but it still
maintains the pretense of control. uh
and uh when you listen to the minister
of agriculture in his statements in
recent weeks, you'd see that uh he
emphasizes the importance of monitoring
and that's why it should maintain remain
a state control disease. Our position uh
and what we've discussed with industry
bodies and farmers is that the state can
call it whatever it likes. You can call
it a state monitor disease, state
control disease that does not uh allow
the state or make it just or fair or any
way acceptable for the state to prevent
the intervention of farmers and uh agri
businesses when there is a crisis which
is uh apparently both on the minister's
version and on the farmer's version and
on the industry body's version the the
state right now. It's like saying a uh
you know the whole mountain's burning
and uh because uh somehow mountain fires
are the state's uh responsibility. No
farmer may quell the fire when it
threatens his property and uh just
because it's a state property or
something. You know the whole idea of
state control should not mean um that
the farmer or the agri business cannot
intervene when it affects them. And um
so it's it's rather trying the state's
actually trying to make this a state
monopolized disease which is the reason
behind the disaster. Of course diseases
spread from time to time. There are
outbreaks all over the world but things
can be contained. There's not a shortage
of medication that the farmers tell us
they need and that the ind industry
bodies tell us they need. It exists all
over the world. There's just a a
shortage in South Africa and there's a
prohibition on the application of that
uh medication. And so that's that's the situation.
situation.
>> Are there be gatekeepers
on those vaccines? That's been
speculated by farmers.
>> Uh possibly although I from what I've
gathered from discussions with
veterinarians, industry role players and
also um people who believe that they
could be and have been in the process of
trying to supply and distribute vaccines
in South Africa um animal disease
biological companies. they uh have not
relayed to me that be has been in this
case a uh a factor. It could be but um
we haven't seen direct evidence of that.
I mean the be is a larger problem in
South Africa. It's the main reason or
one of the main reasons there's no
economic growth in this country. So it's
costing at least 5% of GDP perom but
it's not the primary cause I think
behind the uh uncontrolled foot and
mouth disease outbreak. That's more uh
just general state control. Well, thank
you for putting that to rest at least
partly. What you have done though is
you've got a form letter, a proxy letter
for farmers to start taking to their
attorneys that they can fill in their
names and their losses so that the
farmers can sue the state presumably for
the uh losses that they have incurred
through this foot and mouth disease
epidemic which is continuing. That's an
unusual step. Why did you go there?
>> Well, Alec, it's because of that word
state control disease. If the state
insists on being control of in control
of something, then it uh brings onto
itself a higher level of responsibility
to manage the consequences and
especially now that it's in its
interpretation of state control
preventing uh agri businesses and
farmers and so on from taking measures
of their own. um that increases yet
again the owners of responsibility that
relies on them. And uh upon the uh
discussions with our attorneys and uh we
we understand there to be good reason
for possible future claims against the
state if it continues to uh insist on
its monopolized control of the disease
uh and its monopoly on interventions.
And so uh that's just not it will not be
straightforward but we believe that it
has now become appropriate for farmers
and industry organizations for
businesses uh to keep track of their
losses and to put notify the parties as
we set that out in that template letter
um that they consider them responsible
for preventing the agri business or the
farmer from intervening themselves and u
so there are juristprudence in South
Africa or there is juristprudence that
supports supports such a you. But we do
stress that it depends in all as in all
legal matters um on the facts in each
case. And so even though we have
provided this template, it should be
carefully studied, carefully used and in
conjunction with a consultation with the
business's own attorneys. It's not a
magic wand. Uh but it does uh and we
hope that it would help uh the business,
the affected business and his attorneys
consider the legal remedies available to
this. Additionally, I think it also adds
to the um it helps to tell the Minister
of Agriculture what time it is because
it alerts him, I hope, to the very real
legal and monetary consequences that the
state is facing if it continues to
prevent and obstruct or in somehow
disrupt private solutions to what it
wants to call a national disaster. you
guys work uh very very cleverly through
the courts through the court of law and
if South Africa wants to be seen as a
lawabiding country a member of the
international community it's got to uh
follow what happens in the law courts
but in in this case are there any
precedents that you will be able to
apply for what you are giving farmers to
use uh in their case against somebody
and one in one expects the government We
refer in that template letter and in the
uh note that precedes it to the
Kamichell case um or Kichel. I'm not
sure about the pronunciation at this
moment. Uh but again, it's on the advice
of our attorneys that there does exist
juristprudence that could be referenced
uh in
notifications of this nature to the
state. So um aloc it's uh there are uh
in many uh u areas domains of law both
in South Africa and internationally good
precedent for if a state wants to
monopolize something and then it brings
onto itself a higher level of
responsibility and uh it is uh time to
alert the state to that and we recommend
uh closely studying that letter that
we've provided in conjunction with your
attorneys to consider uh whether it's
appropriate in each farmer's case.
>> When you take it one step further and
you mentioned that the Minister of
Agriculture, yeah, you're talking about
the leader of the once official
opposition but now part of the
government, the Democratic Alliance, you
you say that he should see what the time
is, but if there's massive losses for
the state, he doesn't pay anything. The
bureaucrats don't pay anything. They
they just carry on. they can carry on
until the gates of hell. Is there no
case here for attacking the individuals
who are applying these laws or certainly
not budging on laws when every rational
person in the world should say but
surely give the farmers the ability to
protect their own assets?
Yeah, Alec, we've often considered and
and I I wish and many people have
requested us to go after state officials
in their personal capacity and we have
done that on one or two occasions.
Unfortunately, the uh South African law
and this is again I'm not a lawyer. We
do this uh on advice of our attorneys
and uh it's it's not um that appropriate
to get right out of the gates and target
people in their individual capacity when
they act in a state capacity. So um
that's that's not no golden uh silver
bullet there for that one Alec but uh we
are as SIA together with our
collaborators in this instance so far
SAI and Free State agriculture we are
currently considering alternative legal
steps which will be directed at removing
the obstructions or restrictions of the
state that is either department of
agriculture or the agriculture research
council or any of the related bodies to
the uh chain of vaccine supply or
medication supply and uh administration.
Um and so currently
in general terms I'd say we you'd like
to get the state out of the import of
vaccine out of the sale of uh vaccines
and medication out of the distribution
of vaccines and medication and out of
the administration of vaccines and
administr medication. uh if it wants you
it can ask for uh reports about what has
been administered or what has been
distributed but why should it have any
role in uh actually doing any of those
four things and so currently besides the
legal letter that we have provided that
we hope farmers and businesses consider
in conjunction with their attorneys we
are currently considering um legal
remedies to uh remove the state's
obstructions or restrictions and through
the course of this week I hope that we
get more clarity on the uh prospects for
success for that. Um Alec Saka often
litigates and we we're we're experienced
with it. So I can assure you that we're
giving it our best attention. Although
not all problems are in South Africa are
remediable by u litigation. We hope that
this one is and once we once we have
made a call on that we'll we'll be clear
about that. Just from an outsers's
perspective, surely an urgent interdict
is what is needed now because the state
isn't it's dragging its feet. Uh CNAs
and when was it two weeks ago had a
press conference, terrible tragedy.
We're going to address it. Well, we've
heard nothing since then. Certainly
aren't any vaccines that have been
flooding into the country. Don't you
need something aggressive like that? An
urgent interdict. Get the state out the
way. At least the farmers can protect
the herds that they still have left.
Yeah, other you know talking of 10year
plans for foot and mouth disease uh
eradication in South Africa is really
not um interesting to farmers who facing
the next 10 days 10 weeks and 10 months
which is a survival question to them. So
um urgent interdict is something that
we're looking at Alec and uh once we
have clarity on that our team's working
on it we're we're checking in with our
collaborators at Free State Agri and at
SAI and uh we we hope to make as urgent
as possible a move in litigation. Why is
John Steenhazen in your in your opinion,
now we're asking for your opinion here,
why is he backing these bureaucrats when
his whole is the whole reason why he's
in government in the first place is to
be able to hold those people to account
and yet he seems to be supporting them,
defending them, and and taking their
side against the farming community.
>> Yeah, Alec, it's um it's disappointing.
It's disappointing. We've uh we've had
um some runs with minister since he
became minister of agriculture and we
had hoped not to have to continue our
work against his predecessor his
predecessors actually they developed
what's called agribe policy. It's not
even it's it's a it's a policy that
basically says beify
the whole industry. Um it includes uh
restrictions on uh duty-free imports and
exports exemptions. It includes um uh
certain levies uh for funds uh in
various industries that are dedicated
for so-called transformation which is
just be and minister has has defended on
all crucial points either defended or
continued his predecessor's policies so
far and even we we later went more
public with that. Initially we just
wrote him letters uh very politely
reminding him of what the problem was
with his predecessor requesting a change
and we have not seen that from him and
so um let me not speculate on the
reasons for it as things stand now. The
fact is that um minister has very much
uh made far fewer changes from his
predecessor's policies than we had hoped
for. So we the people look back and we
say politicians are all the bloody same
and I'm afraid uh the action tends to
suggest that that is what's occurring.
Okay. So you've said that it's not
deliberate by the bureaucrats that uh
they they aren't they haven't moved in
the right direction. For what reason
then? If it's not deliberate why are
they dragging their heels? Why are they
seeing this disaster around them? Not
just the white farmers. There are many
many uh small farmers who are getting
smashed by this thing too.
>> Well, let's zoom out of farming. Let's
look at things that one would say is in
the government's interest to keep going.
Look at Sassa. 20 million odd something
payments per month through SAS and
various other government handouts.
That's not working well. Look at
government education. you'd say it's in
the government's interest to uh you know
sell the success of how it's transformed
education in this country and it's not
doing so. Now I know some people say the
government's deliberately sabotaging
education because uneducated voters
would vote for the ANC and so on. I I
think it's just too uh it's just we are
trying to find too much method in the
madness. There are there is sometimes
method in the matters but the reason the
country is basically falling apart in
many domains and many areas is not
because the government wants you to fall
it apart. There are very incapable
people uh in the South African uh state
and in the government and they have very
wrong ideas and then it seems that we
have a system in place that keeps
reproducing the same results. Uh last
year Alec I think I mentioned it on your
show your show we we tried and we are
involved in some of the recovery efforts
in uh local towns across the country.
Now a town like Luenberg which is no
sizable town with a sizable uh agri and
other industries around it. Um that town
is is basically its municipality has
fallen apart and uh through that process
of trying to make that town recover and
our interventions. the minister um the
MEC for for COCA in Northwest actually
said on national television last year
that they are not even going to
encourage an a new election by
disbanding the municipal council because
it will just produce the same result.
Now if even the MEC of COCA of Northwest
which and he so he's a senior ANC person
and an ANC appointee is saying that
something in the system is wrong if it
keeps producing the same results then uh
Alec I I'd like to echo that and I don't
have answers for you in this program but
somehow the way in which we uh as a
society and as communities come up with
who runs which part of the country in
which way um is not working and needs to
be reformed and this will need to be a
process of several years but um
currently we're right on the wrong
course and more and more failure is
bound to set in and it's we're not
looking at an overnight collapse but we
are looking at a collapse if we don't
intervene in the next
several years. Let me not put a a time
limit on that. bit from your
perspective, let's just say that you are
successful in your uh application to the
court. What would the consequence of
that be for other state industries which
we seeing similar disasters occurring in?
in?
>> It's unlikely that there would be
immediate implications. Um possibly it's
always possible that the state keeps
taking something on appeal and it
becomes a principle ends up in the
constitutional court and forms juristp
prudence which can inform other
decisions um the kind to which we refer
in that letter but um
it's possible Alec at this states we're
just trying to uh fight the fire in uh
this industry with the expertise or the
knowledge or the um the understanding
that we have developed from similar
problems in other areas. So I guess the
the best um scale effect here right now
is that SAL has we've built a vehicle
and organization with a capability to
understand the underlying problems the
when it when economic disorder appears
and once we see that once we learn to
solve that in one domain it's a a
quicker path to success in another uh I
think that's the the method of scale
we're aiming for currently
>> and what happens if the court kicks you
about what's your plan B?
>> Uh, Alec, um, I think some farmers have
already started um, treating their
animals um, with uh, in ways and
controlling animal movement and
monitoring animal movement in ways that
I think technically they're not allowed
to do. And uh, I think that's perfectly
acceptable in an emergency situation.
And they are considering their legal
risks as they do that, possibly in
conjunction with their attorneys. Um so
solving uh every problem in the economy
or in a specific sector I don't consider
SIA's uh role. Sometimes we we do what
we can and we need to um and eventually
a problem if it doesn't get solved that
way becomes large enough for for people
to solve it in their own way. Um and the
government possibly disappears from the
scene. And if it doesn't, if the
government keeps monopolizing things,
um, then it's it's it's a bad time that
lies ahead for the industry. And so,
Alec, it's it's going to depend on the
ingenuity and, um, I suppose bravery of
many organizations and businesses over
the next few years, whether we get
through state obstructionism.
>> But the state monopolizes violence.
That's what it has. It's got the guns.
And as a consequence of that, if it was
to take a hard line, this could really
spiral out of control because given that
you're talking about a sector of the
community that has been under fire for a
long time and indeed is well armed,
>> that's uh it's true that the state
aspires to monopolize violence and um
that is the classical theory of the
state at least since Hobbes and several
centuries ago. Uh but in practice the
state is not all powerful and just
consider what happened during the Kaden
riots a few years ago. Um it was not the
state who quelled that unrest, those
riots, that plundering. It was people
who blockaded streets um who took
measures that um is nowhere for provided
strictly in positive law. And um
consider the proliferation of private
security guards. That just shows you
that the state does not monopolize
violence in South Africa. In fact, it's
probably only being kept under control
because of private security guards. In
so many domains, Alec, the South African
state is very far removed from classical
state theory. That does not mean that uh
one must not act judiciously. Uh that
one must not be careful in one's
confrontations with the state or
stepping in into the void where the
state ceases to matter. Uh but uh it
does that's part of the reality that we
face Alec. The state is not all powerful
and sometimes it leaves voids. Um and I
think anybody who lives in Plutland,
South Africa knows that the theory of
what the state should be doing and is
doing and can prevent you from doing is
is not always real. That's why people
are filling potholes. Why people are um
putting power to uh stop lights, robots,
electric street traffic lights. That's
why people are sometimes um c catching
people on national roads or fighting
fires in in different ways. Um the the
theory of the state being all powerful
is is not applicable in South Africa.
But the state can be dangerous and can
be harmful. It can also do positive and
good things, Alec. But let's put that
aside because the problem now is what
the state is admitting to do what it
should or or where it's harmfully
interfering. there. Uh my my
recommendation is just that people
should um be careful and judicious in
their application of doing what is
necessary under circumstances. And it's
it's the same risk people have faced all
through history. Sometimes a bad guy is
strong enough or someone does the wrong
thing, but he's strong enough to to harm
you if you resist. Um and you have to
make that trade-off and decision and do
so judiciously and not brazenly. But if
you were to look at the cabinet of South
Africa and you were to pick one person
that you think would have the common
sense to be able to understand what's
really happening and to make the right
decisions, Steen would be up there
somewhere in that list. And yet, have
you engaged with him? Has he has he
opened his mind or is he has he really
just become what many people criticize
him of as a as a porn of the ANC? >> I
>> I
enough about Mrs. Dion. Um, I don't
think he's the reason for the problem.
Um, and I don't think swapping out Mr.
Steinen with one other person would have
would solve the problem overnight. I'm
sure Mr. CZ could do a better job. And
I'm sure this sister could have been
alleviated if he had uh acted uh
differently. But
um the general problem is not limited to
the minister in place at any one
particular point. Alec, there's too much
going wrong all around us. It doesn't
seem like a change of ministers, a
change of guard is is what's going to
help us. I think there's something
rotten in the way. um the whole state
structure gets propped up with a
collection of so many uh people uh who
seem to just tie each other down in
doing what's necessary at the right
moment. You got to wonder how long we
the people will continue to pay their
taxes and
uh pass on this this uh mirage of power
that exists in a in a central area which
just doesn't have it anymore because
when they're supposed to come to the
party well we know the consequences as
you said in 2021 in July now this this
foot and mouth disease and yet many of
the ties are are completely oblivious to
what's happening what's really happening
ing to the national herd. Has it reached
the point of no return? Has it got to a
point where South Africa from being a a
food exporter is going to be threatened
with with having to import its meat in future?
future?
>> Alec, if uh from what we are being told
by uh people in the industry, there's a
real risk to the viability of many
farming businesses. Whether that spills
over to having to import or not, I can't
uh can't tell you. I wouldn't venture a
guess. But uh the the serious the the
matter is serious enough that it
threatens the livelihood of many
businesses um and um all the connected
businesses to them. Uh so that's why
we're involved and whether it's it means
beef has to be imported or not uh
doesn't um is not fundamental to our
decision to become involved. It's
there's a obvious problem that's large
enough uh which um many in the industry
tell us that the key problem to solving
a large part of it is government
obstructionism and that they are
perfectly capable these private
businesses to do to to solve the
business solve the problems themselves.
I think that warrants um our
intervention and uh we have been
approached and we uh we we look forward
to keeping collaborating with the the
industry role players.
>> So I'm sure many farmers watching or
listening to this are thinking okay so
what next? What happens? What are the
steps from here?
>> Uh first is I think um consider our
letter that we've included with the
press release. It's available on our
website. Um, if you if you would like to
go find it, just search for I think
Google Sikha FMD or foot and mouth
disease, you should find that. Uh,
consider um putting the state on notice
for future damages um and cons discuss
with your lawyers the contents of that
letter and see whether it applies in in
your case. That will help with the
pressure I think. And then secondly, uh
I think keep doing what's necessary in
your own uh farm, in your own business.
I'm not a farmer. I cannot help I cannot
advise you what you should do on your
farm. Just do what is best what what you
think should be done. You're in the best
position as a farmer. And then um
thirdly together with industry bodies uh
we will uh from Saka side we're
seriously looking at litigation. Um and
as soon as we've found an angle that we
believe is can work has a reasonable
prospect of success is sound in law uh
we will we will move on that. uh that
does take some time u but we are uh
spending we have spent time over the
weekend last week we're working on it as
we speak so uh as soon as we uh have
clarity on that we will make an
announcement then finally I think um
there are industry bodies and role
players who you know seem to prefer a
different track or at least in parallel
continue their negotiations discussions
with the minister with the various agri
state entities I think keep doing that
just uh become even more aggressive if
you need to. Um, and there's there's
always a room for both a stick and a
carrot. So, if someone's able to swing a
carrot before the uh Department of
Agriculture or the Agricultural Research
Council or any of those swing that
carrot as well
>> and the urgent interdict when might that
be be provided?
>> Alec, let me not try time myself down to
a date. It's the way we always litigate
is um as much as we understand the
urgency that's why we are investigating
litigation. Uh we we litigate as when
the litigation team assure that we have
a good prospect of success that the that
it's sound what we're doing. Um and then
we move and then we move without delay.
So we are working hard on it but we need
to make sure that we don't get a bad
judgment and things turn out even worse.
So it's it's important to pull the
trigger when we're ready and we'll we'll
we'll announce when we are ready. For
now, we thought it was just important to
make it known that we are collaborating
with industry bodies to work on
litigation and uh once once we're clear,
we'll we'll we'll let we'll make an announcement.
announcement.
>> And the object of litigation, if I
understand you correctly, is simply to
let the farmers take care of themselves.
>> It's one of either of the four. This
isn't my layman's explanation. And it's
either to it's it's it must either
diminish or remove the state's
obstruction of uh vaccine and medication
imports. It must either uh remove or
diminish the obstruction of the state on
vaccine sales. It must either remove or
diminish the state's obstruction of uh
distribution and it must either remove
or diminish the state obstruction um of
application or administration the the
actually applying that medication or
vaccines. Um, so any one or four of all
four of those areas is what um I've
asked the team to find us a possibility for.
for.
>> And just to close off with, what's your
track record like when you do go up
against government through the courts?
How often do you win?
>> We we have a very good track record,
Alec. It's I'd say in upwards of 90% of
cases we we win. We're successful. uh
that doesn't mean success always comes
quickly and that doesn't mean that
success eventual success cannot include
um intermediate um or object
complications along the way. For
example, together with NIASA, we are
fighting the Employment Equity Amendment
Act, which is what wants to tell farmers
that they basically can't keep their
family business running, that they have
to um meet some kind of racial quotota
and uh in their employment and
eventually in their management and so on
as well over the next 5 years. So we're
fighting that now. Together with NASA,
we put together a great court case. But
an unsound judgment have has delayed the
eventual success that we hope to have
that from September since September last
year. That doesn't mean we give up.
We're currently going for the
constitutional court and both the
Supreme Court of Appeal at the same
time. Um so we keep at it until we
exhaust all legal avenues in South
Africa. Once we that's one of the things
once we start a case um we want to be
very sure that we can um defend this all
the way to the constitutional court and
then if that doesn't work I don't know
if this will be the case in foot and
mouth but for example on matters like
employment equity and be we designed
that case so that even if it's uh even
if it's not successful within South
African courts that it can stand up in
international eyes and potentially for
other uses later on which we'll get to
which we haven't had to do so far. But
that's how we approach litigation, Alex.
So, we're good at it, but it's no
foolproof uh measure for it's no
foolproof method for success
>> and it also takes time as you've
explained to us. So, you don't rush off
and it's not a knee-jerk reaction here.
How long have you been thinking about
this one?
>> Alec, we through the course of last
year, I mean, I took notice um of food
mouth disease, but we've been we focused
at that stage on the expropriation act,
the driontain matter. We looked at
employment equity which we're trying to
uh turn that around other be matters um
and uh and so on town recovery at
Luxmbourg and so it's only really
earlier this year that I I thought sh
this thing seems just to be taking off.
Alec in part through what what you've
been um revealing through your shows. I
watched that interview with the Kaden
farmers, the veterinarians and uh the
other ones you've been doing and that
alerted me to this being a serious
problem that now you know seemed to to
keep growing. And then we looked at that
press statement by um press conference
by minister and where he said he wants
to declare it a national disaster and
Alec you know we've had our experiences
through lockdown and co with so-called
national disasters and all of that just
seemed to have made things worse. Now
maybe it does or maybe it doesn't in in
the case of foot and mouth disease but
um that's what prompted me to get in
touch with our legal team and during the
course of the last two weeks we were all
then also approached by various
agricultural organizations and some
farmers and some veterinarians even uh
this morning I had some some calls. Uh
so it seems like people thought this was
a job for SA to become involved with and
uh well I think it's justified doesn't
we don't we can't guarantee success but
we're gonna we're going to aid the
farmers who say we want to do something
about this ourselves
>> and uh on that uh letter that is on the
Sarika website and it's silik as you say
it.co.za ZA um the Minister of
Agriculture, it's the email addresses,
the Department of Agriculture, and the
Chief Director of Veterinary Services.
All of their information is there, so
your lawyers have actually got an easy
run. Um they've got a got a proformer, a
letter, add in what you need to, and
well, you don't have to do as [music]
much work as you would otherwise have
to. Pit Laroo is the chief executive of
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
