20 Aug 2026

Two major feedlot operators have asked the High Court to allow them to export or slaughter more than 6,600 cattle, arguing that continued restrictions arising from the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak are threatening their operations.

JS Beef Pty Ltd and PrimeFast Pty Ltd have cited the Minister of Lands and Agriculture, the Director of Veterinary Services, Botswana Meat Commission (BMC) and others before Justice Onkemetse Tshosa, arguing that they could no longer afford to maintain the cattle, which had remained in feedlots for more than 200 days beyond their intended slaughter dates.

Represented by Advocate Reginald Wills, the applicants argued on Tuesday that they accounted for about 30 per cent of BMC’s beef exports to the European Union.

Advocate Wills said the imposition of livestock movement restrictions left the two companies with about 6 600 cattle stranded in feedlots, resulting in additional feeding costs of approximately P27 million to date.

 He argued that if the cattle were not slaughtered, they could ultimately be destroyed, which he said would not benefit the country and could damage Botswana’s reputation.

 Advocate Wills further argued that although Maun and the North East were designated red zones, cattle in those areas were permitted to be slaughtered. He said his clients’ cattle had been vaccinated as required by the ministry and should therefore also be allowed to be slaughtered for local consumption.

“The fourth respondent (BMC) is able to slaughter cattle and the only thing that prevents them is that Dr (Kobedi) Segale’s measures prevent them,” he said.

He said there had been no consultation between his clients and the ministry despite their status as major industry players, adding that no explanation had been given for what he described as different regulations applying in different red zones.

 “We can see Maun is a red zone and Zone 11 is a red zone, the meat can be slaughtered and even exported. They do not tell us why they cannot slaughter our cattle,” he said. 

Advocate Wills further submitted that World Organisation for Animal Health standards indicate that meat from infected animals can, after a 24-hour freezing period, be consumed and exported. 

He said his clients had complied with the law and were aware of the presence of FMD in South Africa, but should at least be allowed to export the cattle to avoid their destruction. “We are not asking for all measures to be taken off or suspended, we are asking for relief, so that we can deal with the consequences of the decisions taken,” he said, adding that the temporary relief sought was limited to the affected cattle.

He maintained that the matter was of significant public importance and did not concern public policy, but rather measures issued by Dr Segale.

Deputy Attorney General Mr Joao Salbany opposed the application, arguing that the relief sought could not be granted because it involved executive policy and decision-making.

He said the relief sought by the applicants should be a relief that could be enforced by the court, adding that the current one engaged policy and executive functions, thus it cannot be granted.

He also said the urgency of the matter raised by the applicants was self-created, adding that the case was more about the economic hardship faced by the applicants.

“The real relief they are asking for is to export, whether by carcass or car ,” Mr Salbany said, adding that while the State was sympathetic to their circumstances but what they “ are dealing with here are the requirements of the law.” He said the applicants had gone to the extent of calculating the damage they will suffer, and argued they would be forced to liquidate, noting that there were alternatives to liquidation such as judicial management. Mr Salbany further said the applicants had failed to demonstrate that both respondents acted in bad faith, noting such was a requirement to dislodge the protection under legislation. 

He further added that the economic impact was felt by all, adding that there was a need to weigh the needs of the few against the needs of the many. Mr Charles Batsalelwang for BMC also opposed the application, saying while BMC sympathised with the applicants, unfortunately the law was the law and it had to be complied with. 

He said the applicants had failed to comply with the basic elements of entry to the court by showing that the matter was urgent.

He said the applicants had failed to account for the period from when they saw the notice extending the movement restriction measures until the matter was brought before the court.

 He also said BMC does not have the capacity to give the applicants preferential treatment over a couple of dozen cattle producers in the country, hence BMC ought not to have been cited in the proceedings. He further said BMC should remain autonomous to carry out its business without interference from the applicants. They should not call on the court to tamper with the autonomy of BMC under the BMC Act, he said adding that the application ought to be dismissed with costs.

The judgment has been reserved for 01 September. ENDS