The SA Veterinary Council (SAVC) has accused Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen of seeking to de-legitimise its free and fair elections and has written to President Cyril Ramaphosa, asking him to rein him in, reports City Press.
In his letter, Registrar Mongezi Menye claimed the Minister’s directive to restart the process was unlawful because no governing body exists to provide oversight.
A fortnight ago, Steenhuisen questioned the integrity of the election process of the regulatory body for the veterinary and para-veterinary professions, citing “inconsistent and conflicting communications to registered veterinary professionals regarding voting deadlines that created confusion and may have resulted in the exclusion of some eligible participants”.
The Minister said the department’s review had identified multiple irregularities in the SAVC’s elections process this year, including a failure to consult the full outgoing council, the inclusion of ineligible candidates, the exclusion of eligible nominees without a lawful basis, and the premature closure of the voting platform.
“In addition, I received several letters from those in the veterinary sector, indicating their concern and unease at how the election had been run,” Steenhuisen added.
The regulator’s registrar, Mongezi Menye, subsequently penned a 27-page letter to Ramaphosa, accusing Steenhuisen of interfering in the election process.
“The directive by the Minister is further unlawful … it instructs the SAVC to restart the election while there is no council or governing body to play an oversight role as stipulated in the Act and regulations,” he wrote.
Menye said the council took a unanimous resolution on 30 July indicating it was accepting the legal opinion sourced at the department’s request.
“The Minister must proceed and appoint the council. The resolution was sent to the Minister on 31 July and he has not yet responded to this letter. This means his directive is in direct contradiction of the full council resolution,” the letter reads.
He told the President Steenhuisen was not empowered by the Veterinary and Para-Veterinary Professions Act to overturn or rescind a council resolution. He said the election process conducted by the SAVC in terms of the Act and council resolution could only be nullified by a court of law.
“This would constitute egregious interference with a free and fair election and interference with the right to elect council members within a free and fair process. The fact that the Minister seeks to nullify even the five other components of the election, which are not tainted by any allegation of irregularity, clearly indicates the irrationality of the decision.”
In a statement on 3 August, Steenhuisen had said he’d requested a comprehensive report from his department, including legal advice, on the validity and procedural soundness of the SAVC elections.
He cited concerns raised “in the interest of full transparency and to enable appropriate legislative oversight” and had formally requested the department to initiate the process to restart the election.
Multiple irregularities
On Friday, Steenhuisen told City Press that his role was not to engage in personal disputes but to fulfil his statutory duty under the Act – to ensure council elections were lawful, procedurally fair and credible.
He said his interventions were directed at remedying alleged and reported defects to restore public trust and lawful governance, not at creating conflict with the council or its CEO.
“My actions are not interference: they are the lawful exercise of my oversight powers and obligations,” he said. “The onus was therefore on the registrar to ensure compliance with these provisions.
“Where this was not done and in light of the irregularities raised, I called for further scrutiny of the registrar’s role.”
He said the matter warranted consideration of whether an inquiry into the registrar’s conduct should be instituted, including whether costs arising from the flawed processes should be borne personally by the officeholder responsible.
Steenhuisen said he rejected the recent legal opinion obtained by the SAVC, noting that it exceeded the agreed mandate. It was limited to advising on whether the Minister could extend the council’s term, he said, but instead pronounced on matters that fell exclusively within his executive powers – like rescinding the election results and ordering a rerun.
“The legal opinion obtained by the council was not binding on me, nor was it obtained within the scope of what had been agreed.”