Nine years on and Liquor Amendment Bill stalled: Call for action by Southern African Alcohol Policy Alliance
The bill proposes raising the legal drinking age to 21, restricting advertising and limiting liquor outlet proximity to schools and places of worship.
SAAPA stressed underage drinking is not simply the result of peer pressure or poor parenting but is structurally enabled through weak enforcement of age restrictions, such as at Enyobeni Tavern where 21 children died.
It said it is concerned about an over-saturation of liquor outlets in residential and impoverished areas, marketing of alcohol, including at youth-linked events, and a lack of legislation and enforcement.
SAAPA-SA communications lead Julian Jacobs said raising the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 is a key proposal in the stalled bill which would provide 'a firmer legal barrier' during a period of heightened vulnerability.
'It would also send a strong normative signal that alcohol is not appropriate for adolescents undergoing cognitive and emotional development,' he said.
'The recently passed Bela Act, which prohibits alcohol on school premises, is a step in the right direction. Schools must be places of learning and safety, not venues for the normalisation and socialisation of alcohol,' said Jacobs.
The alliance welcomed findings from Aware.org's recent study on tackling underage drinking.
'We fully agree that education and prevention strategies must be tailored. The study's insight that younger teens are open to learning, while older teens seek practical, real-world skills, is important. However, while educational campaigns are vital, they are insufficient on their own. We must address the systemic issues that allow youth access to alcohol and contribute to its normalisation,' said SAAPA secretary general Aadielah Maker-Diedericks.
She accused the alcohol industry of pushing an 'education over regulation' narrative to avoid stricter laws.
'We are clear: education alone cannot address a regulatory failure. The initiatives must be backed by strong, enforceable laws.'
SAAPA's demands include immediate passage of the Liquor Amendment Bill, effective implementation of the Bela Act to keep schools alcohol-free, a moratorium on new liquor licences and a national audit of outlets, full transparency from the alcohol industry on distribution data and stronger law enforcement against Liquor Act violations.
Maker-Diedericks said: 'If we are serious about protecting youth, we must stop asking what's wrong with our children and start asking what's wrong with our laws, our institutions and our political courage.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
3 days ago
- The Citizen
National Dialogue: ANC talking to an empty room, but it must listen
What is the use of a National Dialogue when the nation isn't taken seriously by its leaders? You don't have to be an expert to know that a wounded animal, when cornered, will fight tooth and nail for its survival. Such a scene is playing out before our eyes with the ANC and its hijacking of the National Dialogue. The dialogue, packaged as a forum for citizens, activists, civil society, business, and political parties to discuss issues facing the country, kicks off today in Pretoria. A true family meeting is needed. Not the one-sided announcements fed to us by the president under the Covid-19 lockdown, but a proper, clear-the-air discussion to unite us behind a strategy to take the country forward. SA really is sitting on a watershed moment. A coalition government demands more political consensus and unified policy than has been needed since 1994. Black economic empowerment (BEE), the Expropriation Act, and SA's foreign policy are just three of many sticking points in the ruling government of national unity (GNU) that need to be discussed and a national stance adopted. We can no longer drink from a tin that says national unity but tastes and smells just like ANC policy. Social collapse Socially, we sit on a tsunami of crises that threaten to overwhelm communities and citizens. Whether it is powering streetlights or fixing potholes, businesses and citizen groups have had to step in where the government has failed. They deserve a place and a voice at the discussion table. Services that should be offered by the government to its citizens are now being privatised, leaving those who want them to pay for everything from water and electricity to schooling, security, waste collection, and medical care. This further divides the chasm between the haves and have-nots in the most unequal country in the world. Those who live on both ends of the chasm deserve to have a voice at the National Dialogue. They should speak about how the government's failure to provide sufficient basic services and jobs has led to a scarcity and frustration that has become a fertile ground for Operation Dudula to thrive. Whenever the vigilante group questions the nationality of those working at stores or in line at clinics, hospitals, and schools, they are adding to the hysteria that 'foreigners are stealing our jobs, rights, and privileges'. All citizens will talk about how we blindly deal with water shortages, power outages, corruption, racism, gender-based violence, and crime on a daily basis. SA is among the most crime-ridden countries in the world. Private security companies and police are on the front line each day, dealing with everything from potential terrorism threats and illegal mining to extortion, kidnapping and muggings in the CBD that 'nobody saw'. They should be heard at a national discussion. ALSO READ: A VIEW OF THE WEEK: When will the ground fall beneath us? National dialogue: another ANC rally? But none of these crucial players, whether meaningful political opposition to the ANC or John from down the road, will be there on Friday. Several political parties have pulled out, as have key foundations and civil society organisations. Their fears that this will be a costly talkshop for ANC cadres and their supporters to hijack may become a reality, with echo chambers of party policy passed as national consensus. The party should have learnt from losing power in a bruising 2024 election and realised it needs to be a fair player. Like an apologetic but insincere ex, ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula loves to go on about how the party has learnt its lessons from its past failures and has listened to the people of SA. It is a lie parroted by his boss, President Cyril Ramaphosa, when addressing the national government's failures. But what lessons have they learnt, and who exactly have they been listening to? Government community imbizos are a powerful and progressive step, but complaints fall on deaf ears, and no changes are implemented when the blue-light brigades leave town. Both the ANC and the government that it controlled for 30 years need to understand the reality of the people they claim to serve, but refuse to hear it and would rather talk to an empty room. Perhaps if they stopped talking, stopped fighting, the silence of those who chose not to be part of their charade will tell them how they got there in the first place. NOW READ: A VIEW OF THE WEEK: Ramaphosa risks losing control of Cabinet
Daily Maverick
3 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Trophy hunting in the greater Kruger area — what the study overlooks
Trevor Oertel is an Executive Committee member of the Sustainable Use Coalition of Southern Africa (SUCo-SA) and has represented SUCo-SA at CITES meetings both in Panama and Geneva. He has served under various ministers of Environmental Affairs on the Minister's Wildlife Forum. A recent study published in Biological Conservation Vol 309, September 2025, and amplified by Adam Cruise in Daily Maverick claims that communities near Kruger National Park reject trophy hunting and that alternative livelihood options should be explored ('Communities near Kruger Park reject trophy hunting, embrace ethical alternatives — study', 28 July 2025). Yet the very same study simultaneously acknowledges the conservation and economic benefits that trophy hunting has delivered in southern Africa for decades. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads This contradiction is at the heart of the problem: the study does not confront the source of public opposition to hunting, nor does it critically assess how representative the voices quoted actually are of the broader land use reality in the region. The paper states that 'public pressure could end trophy hunting of wildlife, potentially negatively affecting species conservation and the human communities that depend upon the revenue hunting generates'. This is not an insignificant point. In fact, it is perhaps the most important finding in the study, though the authors treat it as a side note. But who is driving that public pressure? Animal rights ideology It is not coming from the rural African communities who live alongside wildlife and bear the costs of its presence. It is driven largely by foreign NGOs and urban-based lobby groups rooted in animal rights ideology, not conservation science or socioeconomic realities. These groups wield emotive campaigns across digital media, often misrepresenting facts and vilifying hunting without engaging the voices of landowners, conservation professionals or rural custodians. The resulting 'public pressure' is thus manufactured by narrative, and not grounded in local truth. The paper correctly identifies that banning hunting could harm both people and wildlife, yet it fails to interrogate why public opinion is being manipulated against a practice that has demonstrably conserved habitats, maintained viable populations of wild animals and their habitats, and generated revenue for landholders and communities. A prominent example of this group is World Animal Protection (WAP), a multimillion-pound UK-based animal rights group that has consistently lobbied against all forms of hunting, including regulated and sustainable hunting. Besides the study that Cruise cites being funded by WAP, it fails to clearly disclose up front that at least three of its authors are either employed by or have formerly been employed by WAP, calling into question the neutrality of the research and its conclusions (the authors' biographies are disclosed in hyperlinks, not in an up-front disclaimer). When those crafting the questions, framing the data and interpreting the findings are aligned with an organisation vocally opposed to hunting in any form, one must ask: Is this research or advocacy under the banner of science? The Daily Maverick article and the study it draws from focus on communities bordering Kruger National Park in the north-eastern Lowveld of South Africa. However, it is also worth asking: 'How much actual trophy hunting happens in this area?' The answer is very little, particularly on communal lands in the immediate vicinity of the park. Hunting in this region is constrained by land tenure, regulation and land-use policies. This means most households surveyed in the study have had minimal, if any, direct experience of benefits from hunting in general, and specifically from trophy hunting. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads It is therefore not surprising that many interviewees do not see hunting as a livelihood opportunity — they have not been given the opportunity to benefit from it in the first place. Deeper issue This raises a deeper issue — is this study truly about assessing trophy hunting, or is it part of an agenda to explore alternatives in an area where hunting hasn't really been implemented or tested as a sustainable revenue model? The study proposes alternatives like vegetable farming, sewing or craft-making — all worthy initiatives, but hardly equivalent in income potential, ecological compatibility or explaining how they would incentivise conservation in any way. Hunting alongside photographic tourism aligns livelihoods with managing wildlife and its habitats. Generating income from vegetables, sewing or crafts moves communities away from wildlife and disincentivises conservation. For instance, vegetable farming in buffer zones around protected areas risks increasing human-wildlife conflict. Water access, crop raiding by elephants or baboons, fencing costs and soil degradation are real constraints. Yet the paper glosses over these very practical concerns. In contrast, hunting incentivises keeping wild land wild, placing value on intact ecosystems and large, free-ranging species. It doesn't require land clearance or conflict with the ecosystem — it works with it. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads Instead of using communities' limited exposure to hunting as proof of rejection, the study could have investigated: Why opportunities from hunting have not reached these communities. How to expand access and equity in hunting revenue, including governance reforms. How existing conservation success in neighbouring areas like APNR (Associated Private Nature Reserves) or KwaZulu-Natal community hunting initiatives could serve as models. The Daily Maverick article is penned by Adam Cruise, who is well known for his opposition to trophy hunting. In this instance, Cruise's tone borders on celebratory. However, as a journalist Cruise would do well to temper his personal biases and acknowledge the full scope of the study's findings, including its clear warnings that banning hunting could harm both conservation and local livelihoods. The study paradoxically confirms that ending trophy hunting could harm both conservation and communities, yet it aligns itself with a movement that is pressuring governments to do just that, without addressing the source of that pressure or the sociopolitical power imbalance behind it. Real conservation solutions must be led by local needs, backed by science and sound conservation management, and shielded from ideological interference. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads Disregarding proven conservation industries like hunting simply because of foreign sentiment, often divorced from African realities, risks sacrificing both people and wildlife for the sake of fashionable morality. The debate about trophy hunting should not be about emotion or optics. It should be about what actually works for conservation and for the people who live with wildlife every day. DM
IOL News
5 days ago
- IOL News
Battle for SA's education future: BELA Act divides stakeholders as deadline approaches
Basic Education Minister Siviwe Gwarube Image: GCIS As the closing date for public comments on the controversial Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Act approaches, reactions from education stakeholders remain mixed, with some raising concerns about implementation and equity, while others welcome the legislation as a step toward accountability and fairness in South Africa's public schools. The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education, Joy Maimela, warned that some of the regulations 'might undermine the legislation's intention.' 'Firstly, the committee has previously called for all the regulations to be gazetted in one go and not in a piecemeal fashion. We want the public to engage on a comprehensive document that will give expression to the intentions of the Act. 'While we understand the intent may be to avoid technical delays, this fragmented rollout undermines the coherence, urgency and integrity of the BELA implementation process. South Africa's children cannot afford to wait for bureaucratic caution or political compromise,' said Maimela. She added: 'Furthermore, it is noted that some of the terms used in the regulations seem to deviate from the Act. It gives the impression that the regulations aim to undermine the intention of the Act.' Maimela warned that this could contradict Parliament's goal of transforming South Africa's education system and might instead perpetuate the exclusion of vulnerable learners. 'The regulations on admissions, for example, refer to taking into account the demographics and education needs of the 'surrounding community'. In the Bela Act the responsibility for admission policy lies with the head of department (HOD) and is based on the 'broader Education Districts'. This potentially reinforce local demographic homogeneity, contrary to the type of inclusivity the Act intended.' She further noted: 'This, once again, points to keeping previously disadvantaged learners out via location. Historically it has been linked to exclusion. It seems these regulations are attempting to re-write the Bela Act and re-introduce matters that were unsuccessfully contested in the Bela Act legislative drafting process.' Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Andre De Bruyn from EUSA Image: Supplied 'The committee will continue to closely monitor this process and engage robustly with the Minister on the gazetted regulations, which seem to deviate from the national objective,' emphasised Maimela. Gwarube said the regulations provide 'an important opportunity for education stakeholders and the broader South African public to actively shape the future of basic education in our country.' 'These regulations are instruments that will affect how schools are governed and managed, how children are admitted, and how our values as a society are reflected in our education system. I call on all South Africans, including parents, teachers, school governing bodies, civil society, education experts and community members to participate meaningfully in this public comment process. Your voice matters. Let it be heard in shaping the policies and regulations that govern the education of your children,' said Gwarube. The Educators and Allied Workers Union, Western Cape (EUSA) has raised concerns about proposed learner–teacher ratios, warning they will remain 'a pipe dream' unless consistently enforced across all schools. André De Bruyn, Chairperson of EUSA, said: 'Post level 1 educators are bearing the brunt, often with very little or no administrative time, together with overcrowded classes. Poorer schools face relentless pressure to admit more learners, resulting in severe overcrowding, while affluent schools seldom face the same demands. Wealthier schools have the resources to challenge the department in court over forced admissions.' He added: 'If budget constraints are blamed, who will be appointing the teachers and building the classrooms to make a 1:40 ratio possible? The Department of Basic Education ultimately pursues its predetermined agenda regardless of community engagement. More and more demands are being put on teachers, especially in poorer schools, while the vision of 1:40 and 1:30, if not enforced in all schools, will remain an illusion.' The South African Democratic Teachers' Union (SADTU) expressed strong criticism of the regulations and the Minister's approach. SADTU highlighted that the Minister issued implementation guidelines earlier this year, which the union rejected as unlawful, arguing that only formal regulations have legal standing. Vanessa Le Roux from PEESA Image: Supplied 'The issuing of guidelines appears to be an attempt to sow confusion, delay the implementation of the Act and advance the DA's political agenda against the full implementation of Sections 4 and 5,' said SADTU in a statement. The union emphasised its commitment to safeguarding learners' constitutional right to quality education, warning that any provisions undermining these rights would be opposed. SADTU confirmed it is studying the draft regulations and will submit formal comments by the 5 September 2025 deadline. Vanessa Le Roux of Parents for Equal Education South Africa (PEESA) welcomed the BELA Bill, seeing it as a mechanism to enforce equity and accountability in public schools. 'As an organisation there is mixed feelings, especially because we reside in the Western Cape, over the years we saw the inequalities growing to the point where we feared that education will only be for those who can afford it. 'On the other hand we don't want to take away the power from the SGB/community, who is the real authority when it comes to schools, however what we saw over the years is that governing bodies, in especially township schools are not equipped with enough knowledge to govern the school, and ultimately the principal runs that school to the point where they are involved with finances of the school.' Le Roux said out of all the 9 Provinces in public participation, the Western Cape was the only province who took real issue with the Bela Bill and said it came down to a case of accountability. 'For far too long these former model C schools have gotten away with the violation of the rights to basic education for all learners, and they were protected by the education department. 'So whether they call it centralisation of power, we from poor communities, call it a step in the right direction. The same rules, policies, and laws should be applied. It is a matter of addressing inequalities, discrimination, and racism in public schools. We welcome the implementation of the Bela Bill with much hope, and open arms.' Weekend Argus
