Participants at public hearing allegedly ‘paid to oppose’ proposed new anti-smoking law

Participants at a public hearing on the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill in Richards Bay, KwaZulu-Natal, were allegedly paid R350 to oppose the Bill, said Dr Sibongiseni Dhlomo, the chair of Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Health.

“The public participation process is a constitutional process mandated by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, and the committee will listen to every view, either for or against the Bill. The public must express their own views and should not be induced in any way to share someone else’s view,” said Dhlomo.

He said participants at the public hearing in Richards Bay emphasised that the Bill could lead to job losses and have a negative impact on small-scale businesses.

He said the committee had only heard of one attempt to induce participants to oppose the Bill, leading it to conclude “that the credibility of the public participation process is intact, and the committee will continue to review all the submissions made to the committee.

“Despite this, it is necessary to caution all interested parties that such inducements are unwarranted and deprive the community of personal agency to formulate and input on the Bill free from selfish interests.

“The committee considers these allegations in a serious light, as they have the potential to compromise and render a legitimate public participation process illegitimate and unconstitutional.”

A Bill that divides opinion

The Bill will ban smoking in indoor public spaces and certain outdoor areas. It will also ban the sale of cigarettes from vending machines, introduce plain packaging with health warnings, ban the display of cigarettes at points of sale and introduce regulations for vapes.

The Bill has sparked debate on two major fronts: public health concerns and economic impact. In hearings across South Africa, including recent sessions in the Northern Cape towns of Kuruman and Upington, discussions centred around the Bill’s potential to reduce health risks, particularly among young people, and fears of the possible economic fallout if it were implemented.

Read more: Three tricks Big Tobacco uses to stop SA’s anti-smoking Bill from becoming law

Dhlomo said supporters of the Bill, including public health advocates, argued that stricter controls were necessary to reduce tobacco exposure among young people and lower the national healthcare burden.

“They contend that the health damage caused by tobacco products far outweighs the tax revenue generated by the industry.”

Dhlomo said these proponents emphasised that the use of tobacco products and electronic delivery systems had reached alarming levels and required immediate regulatory action.

“However, opponents — including industry representatives — warn that the Bill could lead to increased illicit trade, reduced tax revenue and job losses. They argue that the tobacco sector supports livelihoods across the country, and further regulation would weaken this industry.

“They also suggest that the Bill should return to the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) for further consultation to ensure adequate economic consideration. Critics contend the Bill does not appropriately differentiate between traditional tobacco products and electronic delivery systems, calling for separate regulatory approaches.”

Read more: Tobacco bill will stub out hospitality businesses, warn associations

Industry pushback

The South Africa Tobacco Transformation Alliance (Satta), a prominent industry group, is one of the Bill’s most vocal critics. Satta has claimed a loss of 28,000 jobs and an anticipated increase in illicit cigarette trading as key reasons for its opposition. None of these claims has been independently verified.

Satta spokesperson Francois van der Merwe claimed in response to allegations of attempts to manipulate the Richards Bay public hearing, that “We have no idea what is being referred to in the statement issued by the portfolio committee.”

He distanced Satta from any involvement in influencing public participation through financial means.

Meanwhile, the Cancer Association of South Africa (Cansa) is firmly in favour of the Bill, which it says is crucial to safeguarding young people from tobacco addiction and reducing the health risks associated with direct smoking and secondhand exposure.

Cansa argues that the Bill will curb deceptive advertising tactics targeted at younger demographics, lessen the health burden from smoking-related diseases and protect non-smokers from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke.

As the debate unfolds, the committee faces the challenging task of balancing the conflicting viewpoints.

Once the public hearings are completed, the committee is expected to assess the input and finalise recommendations on the Bill. DM