Tobacco Bill bans sale of loose cigarettes – informal traders fear bankruptcy
The Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill in South Africa prohibits the sale of single cigarettes (or loose cigarettes), which informal traders say could bankrupt their businesses.
It also regulates other aspects of tobacco control, including public smoking, advertising, and packaging requirements.
The Portfolio Committee on Health discussed the impact of the Bill on businesses earlier this week. Members have completed public hearings in all provinces and are now taking oral submissions in parliament.
ALSO READ: Why is parliament dragging its feet with the Tobacco Bill?
Tobacco Bill
Mampapatla Madikoto, Limpopo Small, Medium Enterprises and Hawkers Association general secretary, told members of the portfolio committee that the ban on single cigarettes would cripple their operations, as many of their customers not only buy cigarettes but also other items.
A clause in the Bill bans the sale of single cigarettes. If a person is found selling a 'loose' cigarette, they can be fined and/or imprisoned.
He added that there are many reasons why people decide to buy single cigarettes, including a box being too expensive, or they are trying to control their smoking habit.
Display of tobacco products
Madikoto added that the clause will affect approximately two million informal traders, hawkers, spaza shop owners and home-based operators across the country.
The proposed Control of Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Bill aims to strengthen these measures further by introducing even stricter regulations.
This includes banning the display of tobacco products at the point of sale, regulating electronic nicotine delivery systems, and potentially moving towards plain packaging.
He told the members that the Bill's ban on displaying cigarettes on countertops or tables is impractical.
ALSO READ: Tobacco bill won't curb smoking in the least
Smoking outdoors
The proposed Bill also seeks to hold traders liable if their customers are found smoking near their stalls in outdoor public places that are designated nonsmoking areas.
Currently, tobacco legislation prohibits smoking in indoor public places, except for designated smoking areas that can be up to 25% of the indoor area. However, the government is considering a complete ban on smoking in indoor public places and certain outdoor public areas.
The owner of the restaurant/pub, or employer, will be responsible for ensuring that the public space designated as a nonsmoking area is smoke-free.
Selling online
Madoda Khuzwayo, CEO and founder of SIP, told the committee that the Bill discriminates against online shopping.
The Bill seeks to ban the sale and offer for sale of tobacco products online. Khuzwayo, who sells alcohol and tobacco products online, said this clause is unfair, as selling such products contributes significantly to his business.
He highlighted that online retailers will not be able to list any tobacco products, while larger physical retailers are permitted to do so.
ALSO READ: Pressure mounts for government to pass Tobacco Bill
Underage smoking
One of the reasons for the strict measures is to control underage smoking, which Khuzwayo has addressed in his business.
'When someone buys alcohol or cigarettes through our business, they will need to produce a physical identification document upon delivery, which will be captured into the system.
'But it is close to impossible for underage smoking to be prevented if children need to go into the store to make a purchase, because some look older and there will be no need to ask for proof of identity,' he added.
He said the government can check online retailers' data to prove that alcohol and tobacco are not being sold to minors. Additionally, most of the websites that sell these items block minors.
Khuzwayo has requested that the government consider removing the clause banning online tobacco sales.
He highlighted that without the necessary amendments, the Bill risks discriminating against small and medium enterprises (SMEs), as e-commerce is many SMEs' main source of revenue.
'Without amendments, the Bill entrenches inequality, especially in townships, and excludes emerging small business players,' he said.
NOW READ: Budget 3.0: Alcohol and cigarette prices will increase — here's by how much
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
5 days ago
- IOL News
Public Sector Pension Bill aims to simplify payments of post-retirement benefits for public servants
The National Assembly has approved the Public Sector Pension and Related Payments Bill, aimed at simplifying pension payments for public servants, Image: File photo. THE National Assembly has approved the Public Sector Pension and Related Payments Bill, which is aimed at simplifying how pensions and related post-retirement benefits are paid to public servants. The Bill will now be referred to the National Council of Provinces for concurrence. The legislation, introduced by the Minister of Finance as part of the 2025 Budget, proposes that public sector pension, post-retirement medical, and other benefit obligations become direct charges against the National Revenue Fund (NRF). This change seeks to streamline administration and avoid delays in payments, according to Parliament. Parliament said in a statement that 'the current payment system makes it difficult for National Treasury to pay the benefits, as there are administrative requirements to track which department each retired claimant worked in, causing delays and complications.' Trade union federation, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) supports the Bill. 'We were fine with the Bill as it is largely an administrative one that does not have any adverse impact or threaten public sector pensions and related payments,' said Cosatu Parliamentary Coordinator Matthew Parks. 'We are comforted by it correctly recognising that the state is responsible for all public sector and related pension payments. This is crucial to protect workers and pensioners.' Parks added that Cosatu was also reassured by the Bill's support for collective bargaining processes. 'We are pleased that it affirms the role of collective bargaining processes and agreements where matters affecting public sector pension funds are discussed and resolved with organised labour,' he said. 'We have been reassured by Treasury to this effect as well.' He concluded: 'We are confident that Parliament will conclude the passage of the Bill before the deadline and thus pension funds will remain protected.' However, the Public Sector Coordinating Union (PSCU) raised several concerns about the Bill's structure and safeguards, especially a clause that Parliament's Standing Committee on Appropriations had also flagged. The Standing Committee had noted that while it supported the Bill, it had concerns with a clause that says, 'If Parliament does not approve or reject changes to the list of benefits within three months, those changes will automatically become law.' The committee said it 'does not agree with this and asked the Minister of Finance to remove that clause in the next round of changes.' The PSCU echoed this criticism. 'This is a dangerous loophole. The PSCU unequivocally rejects the clause that allows benefit changes to pass automatically if Parliament procrastinates,' said Tahir Maepa, a PSCU representative. 'This is a betrayal of workers' trust. Pensions are a lifelong commitment, not a policy loophole that can be manipulated without due regard.' While cautiously supporting the Bill's intention to place pensions directly on the NRF, Maepa warned: 'We conditionally support placing pensions and post-retirement benefits on the NRF, as it should address delays and underfunding. However, we caution the government that this cannot be used as an excuse to freeze wages, reduce job opportunities, or privatise services. Workers' deferred wages must be legally protected from austerity measures.' He added that the Bill's success depends on firm guarantees. 'The Bill's promise of efficiency is meaningless without penalties for late payments to retirees; a union seat at the table to monitor the implementation of the Bill; and strong anti-cut protections embedded in the law itself.' 'If the government disregards our concerns, we will mobilise our members and challenge this Bill in every forum, including courts, public spaces, and Parliament,' Maepa said. THE MERCURY
The Citizen
6 days ago
- The Citizen
‘Greatest political mistake': Steenhuisen says Ramaphosa firing Whitfield was a ‘calculated assault'
The agriculture minister contended that the president's decision is 'hypocrisy at the highest form'. Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen has warned that South Africa's future is at risk following President Cyril Ramaphosa's dismissal of Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, Andrew Whitfield. The announcement of Whitfield's dismissal was made on Thursday. This was due to Whitfield's trip to the United States (US) earlier this year without the president's approval – a decision made during a period of strained relations between South Africa and the US. Whitfield's removal could place the future of the government of national unity (GNU) in doubt once more. Steenhuisen reacts to Whitfield sacking Speaking during a National Assembly plenary session on Thursday, Steenhuisen said Ramaphosa had informed him shortly before Tuesday's Cabinet meeting that Whitfield would be removed as minister. The DA leader said he had requested for 24 hours to speak to Whitfield and to inform his party about the developments. 'However before I could do so, just three hours later, Whitfield received a letter informing him of his removal,' Steenhuisen said. He confirmed that the US trip was the reason for the 'sudden ill-considered' decision to fire Whitfield. Steenhuisen was then heckled by MPs, while MK party MP Brian Molefe asked why the DA leader was discussing an issue that was not on the agenda. 'The last time I checked, we were debating the Division of Revenue Bill,' Molefe said. ALSO READ: ANC stands divided over DA While Parliament's chair of chairs Cedric Frolick asked Steenhuisen to stick to the relevant topic, the agriculture minister insisted that he was setting a path of how the DA would vote on the Bill. The Division of Revenue Bill sets out how government revenue is allocated among the national government, provinces and municipalities. Steenhuisen argued that Whitfield had written to Ramaphosa requesting permission to travel to the US on 12 February. However, 10 days later he had not received a reply or 'any response whatsoever'. 'The facts of this matter contradict this flimsy reasoning,' the DA leader said. Watch the plenary session below: According to Steenhuisen, Whitfield subsequently wrote to the president to apologise if he had caused offence, but he received no response again. 'Then yesterday, months after the incident, and without a further word on it, the president unilaterally removed a DA deputy minister without even giving his largest coalition partner an opportunity to discuss it with the member or his party. 'According to the president's spokesperson, this move is not part of a broader reshuffle and there can therefore be no other conclusion to be drawn that this is a calculated assault on the second largest party in the governing coalition,' he remarked. Steenhuisen take swipes at Ramaphosa and ANC ministers Steenhuisen further described Whitfield's removal was 'a product of a flagrant double standard' and listed ANC Cabinet ministers accused of questionable conduct. 'There are members in the Cabinet who are implicated in the VBS scandal and looting. 'There are members in the Cabinet despite apparently misleading Parliament over an attempt to deploy corrupt cadres to Seta [Sector Education and Training Authority] boards remains in the Cabinet,' Steenhuisen said. READ MORE: Higher education minster accused of covering up tender irregularities — report 'Serial underperformers and people implicated in state capture continue to sit around the cabinet table. 'Now, instead of being summarily fired like Whitfield was, these ministers get an opportunity to submit a report to the president on their behaviour. 'In the past, even ministers who had serious public protective findings against them were merely admonished or had their pay docked. Yet a DA deputy minister is dismissed with the flimsiest of excuses.' 'Hypocrisy at the highest form' The minister claimed that Whitfield was succeeding in his job, asking 'uncomfortable questions' about the controversial national lotteries licence tender, among other things. 'Now if this situation is not corrected, it will go down as the greatest political mistake in modern South African history. 'And so seeing the president is now 'cleaning house', I would like to suggest that he sweeps in front of his own doorstep before he sweeps in front of the DA's doorstep.' Steenhuisen emphasised that Ramaphosa's decision is 'hypocrisy at the highest form'. 'The ball is now in the president's court and he must show us now that he is a man of his word.' He indicated that the DA would ultimately vote in favour of the Bill 'not for politics, but for South Africa'. The DA leader called for the dismissal of ANC ministers implicated in corruption within 48 hours. 'This is now the moment of truth.' NOW READ: SA's coalition government is at risk of crumbling: Why collapse would carry a heavy cost
Daily Maverick
6 days ago
- Daily Maverick
SABC Bill withdrawal crisis and South Africa's public broadcasting future
The six months of silence since Communications Minister Solly Malatsi withdrew the SABC Bill is unacceptable. The Speaker must urgently gazette that withdrawal, in line with the rules of the National Assembly. Silence is killing the SABC. For years, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) has weathered waves of political noise, controversy, and intense public scrutiny — the kind of attention that once threatened its survival. But today, it is not the noise, but the silence that endangers its future. On 10 November 2024, the Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies Solly Malatsi withdrew the SABC Bill in terms of Rule 334 of the National Assembly Rules, following sustained pressure from civil society organisations, including the SOS Support Public Broadcasting Coalition (SOS), and various broadcasters. In line with Rule 277(3), the Speaker of the National Assembly was required to formally gazette this withdrawal. Six months later, this has yet to happen. Instead, the process has evolved into political infighting. On 21 December 2024, the Parliamentary committee on communications and digital technologies issued a statement rejecting outright Minister Malatsi's decision, describing the withdrawal as both unilateral and unconstitutional. Deputy communications minister (also former minister), Mondli Gungubele vented on X, opposing the withdrawal, while civil society organisations, including SOS, supported the withdrawal of the flawed SABC Bill. On 8 February 2025, News24 reported that Deputy President Paul Mashatile had convened a meeting with the Speaker and Minister Malatsi to understand the reasons behind the withdrawal. However, by 2 March, TimesLIVE reported that the deputy president, in his role as leader of Government Business, was on the receiving end of a backlash from ANC ministers after he presented and supported Malatsi's rationale for withdrawing the Bill. To date, the Speaker has not gazetted this withdrawal, the Cabinet and the parliamentary committee have gone quiet, and the public has been left in the dark. This silence goes beyond mere procedural oversight – it is symptomatic of a severe lack of political will to protect and reform the public broadcaster. The SABC Bill In October 2023, former Minister Gungubele introduced the SABC Bill in Parliament. The Bill seeks to repeal the outdated Broadcasting Act 4 of 1999 and should ideally pave the way for the SABC to address its persistent financial woes, at which it dismally fails. Civil society organisations, including SOS, raised myriad concerns about the Bill's implications on media freedom and sustainability, warning it would erode the SABC's editorial independence, entrench political interference and delay much-needed financial reform. The SOS Coalition, in a joint submission with Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) and the South African National Editors Forum (SANEF), highlighted the following concerning flaws: Policy vacuum: The Bill is being introduced in the absence of pre-requisite policy, the Audio and Audio-Visual Media Services, and online content safety; Policy U-turn: It proposes the establishment of a commercial board when it is clearly stated in the first iteration of the Audio and Audio-Visual policy that 'the idea of the commercial division cross-subsidising the public division has been a failure from inception'; Retrogressive: The Bill proposes that the group chief executive officer, a business-oriented executive who lacks journalistic experience, be the editor-in-chief, while overlooking the head of news, who has the appropriate journalistic background and is involved in daily editorial matters; No funding model: The Bill promises that the minister will develop a funding model framework, but only in three years, and not a funding model, while the SABC's financial challenges worsen; and Ministerial powers: The minister is granted powers that are contrary to prominent court judgments that specifically require protection of the independence of the public broadcaster from ministerial interference. One case in particular is the SOS Support Public Broadcasting Coalition and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited and Others; SOS Support Public Broadcasting Coalition and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited and Others (81056/14) [2017] ZA. In the Bill, the minister has powers to interfere with processes at the SABC and appoint board members of the commercial board, the interim board, and extend the board's term after the end of the second term by six months or until a new board is appointed. These concerns justify the withdrawal by Minister Malatsi, who agrees that the Bill is 'totally flawed'. The withdrawal of the Bill was within Minister Malatsi's purview, and he followed due process. The Cabinet has no formal role in this process and its subsequent involvement has caused further delays. Following the meeting between the deputy president, the Speaker, and the minister, and in particular the endorsement of Minister Malatsi's withdrawal by the deputy president, it remains unclear why Cabinet has not yet directed the Speaker to gazette the Bill. The sooner the withdrawal is formally gazetted, the sooner the department can begin the necessary consultations and revisions to address the flaws in the Bill. The continued silence is unacceptable. The Speaker must urgently gazette the Bill's withdrawal, in line with the rules of the National Assembly. Similarly, Cabinet and political parties must demonstrate the political will to support meaningful reform of the SABC rather than delay this reform through political infighting. The public broadcaster is a cornerstone of our democracy and provides millions of South Africans with critical information to make informed decisions about their lives – it needs to be safeguarded and supported to fulfil its public mandate. DM
