Liquor traders get ready to fight Ramaphosa

Desperate liquor traders, who say the total ban on alcohol sales that came into effect with the national Covid-19 lockdown has all but ruined them, are readying themselves for battle.

At the weekend, lawyers for the Gauteng Liquor Forum – a collective of associations, mostly of township-based shebeens and taverns, claiming to represent more than 20,000 business owners – wrote to President Cyril Ramaphosa and threatened court action unless the lockdown regulations relating to alcohol sales were relaxed.

UPDATE: Ramaphosa responds to liquor forum’s call to relax alcohol restrictions

Eric Mabuza, of Mabuza Attorneys, said on Monday that the president had acknowledged receipt of their letter and that they were expecting a response by midday on Tuesday, in line with the deadline they had provided.

He said this response would determine their next move but confirmed he was under instructions to approach the court with an urgent application if the regulations were not relaxed.

Also read: EFF: Tavern owners trying to murder black people with anti-booze-ban court case

The traders’ call came after Ramaphosa last week announced that the lockdown – which was originally expected to last 21 days – had been extended by two weeks, in a bid to further contain the spread of the virus.

In their letter, Mabuza and his team said their clients’ businesses had already been “gravely affected” by a total ban on alcohol sales during the lockdown and that if this were to continue it would “most likely ruin their businesses”.

“They do not have access to other means of surviving while the lockdown continues,” they said.

They said their clients were “responsible liquor traders”.

“They do not sell alcohol to minors, pregnant women, people who are highly intoxicated or people in uniform,” they said.

They also raised constitutional issues, saying their clients operated their businesses “in the pursuance not only of their financial well being but also in the exercise of their legal and constitutional rights”.

“Our clients do not take any objection to the necessity to take measures to ensure that the spread of the virus is contained and the virus is eliminated. Our clients are concerned that the regulations are unconstitutional as a whole and there is no authority under the constitution to issue the regulations,” they said. “It is also notable that the entire framework for disaster management is not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny and the risk for abuse of power is manifest.”

They said they would have been willing to accept limited trading hours but labelled a total ban on trade “unreasonable” and said it had “no rational connection to the mischief which is sought to be prevented”.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.