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
The Citizen
a day ago
- The Citizen
The DA is failing dismally
Every passing week brings a new reversal for the DA. Party leader John Steenhuisen has misjudged every single power play made by the ANC. The DA performed much better as the official opposition than it did in its self-appointed role as the party that would galvanise the government of national unity (GNU). The same is true of its leader, John Steenhuisen. Its ministers have executed their duties with a zeal that puts their ANC counterparts to shame. But its larger strategy has fallen flat. The DA believed this link-up for the greater good with its former foe was a prerequisite for achieving the economic lift-off that would drag in its slipstream a fleet of benefits, such as revitalised institutions. It is self-evident that nothing like that has happened. ALSO READ: Steenhuisen has made a bad situation worse with tactical blunders Instead, the DA has been house-trained by the ANC. It barks furiously and still strains at the leash on occasion, but it will sit up and beg on President Cyril Ramaphosa's command. While I don't share the disdain of many journalists for Steenhuisen, some of the criticism is deserved. As DA leader, he has misjudged every single power play made by the ANC, from accepting a poor partnership deal at the outset to being goaded into making meaningless threats that he has been forced to back off from. Every passing week brings a new reversal for the DA. This week, its support ensured that the Appropriation Bill for all government departments was passed at its first reading. It's about as complete a climbdown as can be imagined for a party that had threatened to block the Bill. The plan had been that this would be the DA riposte to Ramaphosa's sudden firing of the DA's Andrew Whitfield, Steenhuisen had been incandescent. 'If this situation is not corrected, it will go down as the greatest political mistake in modern SA history,' he warned parliament. On the face of it, it was a brilliantly simple move. The DA would counter the ANC by singling out only departments headed by ministers implicated in corruption. ALSO READ: Steenhuisen warned of 'insubordination' over national dialogue stance Unless Ramaphosa sacked those ministers within 48 hours, the DA would join the uMkhonto weSizwe party and the department of economic development in voting down their departmental budgets, thus stymying the passage of the Appropriation Bill. The DA, said Steenhuisen, would vote against the departmental budgets of Nobuhle Nkabane (higher education), Thembi Simelane (human settlements) and 'corruption-accused ANC ministers'. The DA would also withdraw from the National Dialogue, no doubt the DA was chortling at its genius. At least three 'compromised' ANC politicians would bite the dust and the DA would be perceived to be guardians of governmental integrity. It didn't work out quite like that. Ramaphosa did indeed fire Nkabane, but it had more to do with ANC self-interest than the DA ultimatum. She was already fatally politically wounded and facing cross-party, including ANC, sanctions from the parliamentary ethics committee. ALSO READ: 'Long overdue' – Opposition parties welcome Nkabane's removal And in a real up-yours, Ramaphosa didn't fire any of the other DA-named ministers. This turned out to be just another dismally misjudged power play by Steenhuisen. But Steenhuisen has hinted that he has one card to play: proposing a motion of no confidence. This would not mean a general election – constitutionally, the earliest this could happen is in 2027 – but if it succeeded, Ramaphosa would have to resign. In that kind of scramble, because the ANC is so deeply divided, the DA could, at last, influence the direction of the state by choosing the person at the top, rather than merely lending the party their votes. It's time for the DA to etch a steely red line. READ NEXT: 'Right-wing nexus': Presidency cautions South Africans against the DA
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Willies Mchunu defends MPLs' decision to oppose the Division of Revenue Bill
MKP convenor in KwaZulu-Natal Willies Mchunu says the party will not discipline the six MPLs who voted against the Bill. Image: supplied Umkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) will not discipline the 'rebelling' six members of KwaZulu-Natal Legislature who voted against the Division of Revenue Bill because they did the 'right thing' This was confirmed by the party's provincial leader Willies Mchunu on Saturday. He said there was no plan to act against the six MPLs for their action which the party does not deem wrong. He stated that when you look at the national leadership position on the Bill which rejected it, the six members do not seem to be in the wrong. Mchunu further stated that there was no communication between the provincial leadership and the caucus before voting therefore the party will not act against anyone, adding that he has directed the caucus to discuss the matter and find each other. 'We will not act against anyone in this matter and we have directed our caucus to sort it out themselves in the legislature. I think there was a misunderstanding,' said Mchunu. In an unprecedented move last week, six party MPLs broke ranks with the caucus and voted against the bill while 31 other members supported during the chamber sitting, prompting calls for action against the 'rebelling' MPLs, however, the members defended their decision. The member who spoke on condition of anonymity on Thursday denied going against the party's position, saying it was him and other five members who kept the long-standing position and voted against the Bill. He stated that firstly, the new chief whip Bonginkosi Mngadi never called a caucus meeting before voting and there was no new instruction for members to vote in a particular way. He said in the absence of an instruction, the six of them followed a long-standing position that the MKP will never support anything that comes from the Government of Provincial Unity (GPU) since the party believes the elections were rigged. Furthermore, the member said to prove that they were not wrong, the party has not charged them after explaining their side to the provincial leadership under convener Willies Mchunu. The member further said that in their engagement with Mchunu it "became clear that it was an oversight from those who supported the Bill". However, the party chief whip Bonginkosi Mngadi disputed the member's version that there was no meeting or mandate to support the Bill. He stated that he called a caucus meeting where he informed the members of the position and even articulated the position when he spoke for the party before voting for the Bill. 'I am chief whip of the party in the legislature and spoke in the chamber that the party will support the Bill since it was talking about transparency and accountability so I was speaking on behalf of the party,' said Mngadi. He said he would not want to discuss the matter further since it was reported to the provincial leadership. There was also confusion when the same Bill was voted in parliament on Wednesday where the MKP chief whip Colleen Makhubekele voted yes for the bill only to change her vote later, arguing that she thought the vote was about the Ad hoc committee on allegations of Police Minister Senzo Mchunu's interference in police operations which we were reported by KwaZulu-Natal provincial Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. [email protected]
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Communities call for stricter measures for marriages between locals and foreign nationals
Residents of Greater Lejweleputswa District Municipality called for stricter measures to ascertain the authenticity of marriages between foreign nationals and South Africans. Image: Emma Bauso/pexels At the recent public hearings on the Marriage Bill held at the Toronto Recreation Centre in Welkom, residents of the Greater Lejweleputswa District Municipality voiced their concerns over the rise of marriages of convenience between foreign nationals and South Africans. This was the second of three public hearings in the Free State, where community members presented a robust call for stricter measures to verify the authenticity of marriages, fearing that fraudulent entries could compromise the integrity of the national register. Participants echoed a collective apprehension regarding the troubling trend of marriages that, they argued, are not motivated by genuine intentions. "It is essential that the Bill outlines a clear process to distinguish authentic unions from those undermined by nefarious motives," said one attendee. The committee has previously heard similar concerns in other provinces and has urged the Department of Home Affairs to take immediate action to investigate these claims comprehensively. In addition to concerns over fraudulent marriages, the hearings have also revealed a variety of differing opinions regarding the alignment of the Marriage Bill with the South African Constitution. Some participants expressed that integrating different marriage laws into a single statute may infringe upon the constitutional right to choose. When it came to polygamous marriages, the views proved equally divided. Advocates for polygamy highlighted its historical significance within African communities, asserting that formal recognition within the legal framework could provide much-needed certainty. Conversely, opponents raised concerns over sustainability and potential conflicts, particularly regarding property rights, and called for a ban on such arrangements. The discussion also ventured into the contentious issue of same-sex marriages, with representatives from various faith-based organisations opposing the recognition of these unions based on religious teachings. However, proponents of same-sex marriage adamantly argued for the constitutional rights of all citizens to love and marry whomever they choose. The committee expressed disappointment over instances of perceived discrimination against same-sex couples, reiterating the importance of protecting the Constitutional rights of every South African. Another area of debate focused on the legal age of consent, with some participants supporting the established threshold of 18 years, while others contended that younger individuals should complete their educational pathways before entering marriage. Marriage officers also raised a significant concern about potential repercussions they might face should they refuse to solemnise marriages that conflict with their personal beliefs. Many called for clearly defined protections for these officers, as well as a comprehensive rollout plan for the training of new marriage officers in alignment with the provisions of the Bill. With the final hearings on the Marriage Bill set to take place today in the Thabo Mofutsanyane District Municipality, the committee has urged residents to attend and share their insights concerning this pivotal legislation. IOL
