NDZ and Cyril’s sneaky booze ban

Cogta Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma has conceded that government did not consult with affected industries or the public before reinstating the ban on alcohol sales last month – and she says this was deliberate.

“Neither Cabinet nor I was opposed to consulting … It was simply that the circumstances on the ground did not permit this. There was an urgent need to take steps that would aid the health challenge,” Dlamini-Zuma said in papers filed in the High Court in Pretoria in response to a bid by the wine industry to overturn the ban insofar as it relates to wine.

“Moreover, government was mindful that a run on off-site liquor stores should not precede the regulations as that would undermine the restrictions and be detrimental to the very goals sought to be achieved.”

That goal, the minister went on, was to reduce the strain on the healthcare system and open up beds for Covid-19 patients when the infection rate peaked.

“Even if a consultation process was feasible under the urgent circumstances, it could not be possible to engage every industry participant,” she said.

Francois Rossouw – the chief executive of the Southern Africa Agri Initiative, which together with nine other industry players launched the bid – said in the founding papers the ban was placing thousands of jobs and the industry as a whole in jeopardy.

“The stark financial reality is that the continued prohibition of on-site sale and consumption of wine in restaurants will lead to many restaurants not re-opening, the permanent loss of thousands of jobs in the restaurant industry, the loss of substantial wine sales by wine farms, and the consequential loss of thousands of jobs on wine farms,” said Rossouw.

He added that this constituted “economic losses and damage that the whole of South Africa simply cannot afford”.

Rossouw argued for wine sales to be treated differently to the sale of other alcohol. He said the industry was intertwined with the tourism and restaurant industries and that there was no real prospect of alcohol abuse by patrons of wine farms, restaurants and hotels – at least, not “to such an extent that the health system of the country will be overburdened”.

But Dlamini-Zuma in her papers described the focus of the court action as “narrow” and “informed by self-interest”.

“Governmental focus has to be much wider. It [government] has a duty to all South Africans to support livelihoods and save lives,” she said.

The minister said the case in question was based on “a fundamental error of evidence and reasoning… That wine is different to other types of alcohol in that its drinkers and the drinking of wine does not result in alcohol-related trauma.”

“The effect of alcohol remains the same whether it is as a result of drinking alcohol or another form of alcohol,” she said. “To allow wine but disallow other types of liquor would not achieve the purpose of alleviating alcohol-related hospital admissions… A differentiated approach is likely to result in drinkers of alcohol substituting their preferred type of alcohol for wine.”

She said government was trying to “limit hardships facing the economy and individual livelihoods” and that the plan was to “reevaluate” the ban regularly.

There was no desire on the part of government to continue the ban for longer than it was regarded necessary, Dlamini-Zuma said.

“Unfortunately we are not in normal times and it is imperative that government finds the appropriate balance between our constitutional responsibility to protect lives and the need to protect livelihoods across the economy,” she said.

“It is hoped that the suspension will be temporary and only for a relatively short period while we manage through what is expected to be the most severe part of the crisis”.

The case is expected to come before the court next week.

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