The recent announcement by SACCA and two traditional legacy communities that they are working together to create a practical compliance framework to put to Government has may not be a monumental step on its own. But in their quest to get legal recognition in upcoming cannabis legislation, something more profound is taking shape.
The SACCA network alliance is paving the way for an alternative legal market to one based only on commercial considerations.
SACCA spokesperson Albertus van Jaarsveldt and Cannabiz Africa editor Brett Hilton-Barber are in conversation here:
BHB: Project Indlela has got the ear of Government and they know that the desired outcome of the campaign is to get the legal recognition for private clubs and legacy communities to be able to make a living out of cannabis. Where are we at now?
AvJ: Over the past few months, we’ve focused on building real alignment across the sector. Phase one has been about unifying non-commercial stakeholders — cannabis clubs, legacy growers, and
artisanal producers — around a shared compliance framework. As part of that, we’ve hosted three national dialogue webinars to bring stakeholders into conversation with government representatives and make the process transparent. Those sessions are publicly available and form part of the foundation we’re building.
At the same time, AFRimeter has developed a digital platform to support SACCA’s onboarding and national cannabis survey. The process is simple and accessible — participants are introduced to Project Indlela and the non-commercial guidelines, and can then choose to onboard as either a club or a grower.
At this stage, onboarding is about mapping the ecosystem. The next step is integrating different systems into a central data layer so that compliant clubs and growers can connect within a structured environment. Alongside onboarding, participants can contribute to the National Cannabis Survey, which is designed to build a credible dataset for engagement with government. So far, we’ve received over 150 applications, but expanding that participation is critical — because this phase is fundamentally about data.
The goal is simple: instead of waiting for regulation, we define a practical, working model that government can adopt or refine.We’re now moving into the next phase, where that data becomes the backbone of a formal submission — demonstrating that this ecosystem is already structured, accountable, and ready to be recognised.
BHB: Presumably the next step is to make a submission to the DTIC? How are you going
about this and what timelines are we looking at for submission?
AvJ: There isn’t a fixed timeline at this stage. The survey is the final piece we need to support the framework with credible, representative data. Once we’ve reached a sufficient level of participation to build a reliable dataset, we’ll be in a position to compile and submit to the relevant government departments, including the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition.
Our aim is to conclude the survey within this year, but that ultimately depends on participation. The strength ofthe submission will come from the depth and breadth of input across clubs, growers, and the wider ecosystem. So right now, the focus is simple: grow participation, strengthen the data, and make sure that when we do submit,it reflects a credible and functioning sector — not just a proposal on paper.
BHB; Assuming you get Government buy-in, then would there be some certification process? Made easier of course by the fact that everyone you’ve signed up has agreed to cetain standards?
AvJ: Yes — but it won’t follow the traditional, top-down licensing model. What we’re proposing is a simple, accessible system: a permit for non-commercial clubs, and a licence for
community cultivators or processors who supply those clubs. The key principle is that access is based on compliance, not capital. If you meet the minimum requirements — around
traceability, accountability, and responsible operation — you become eligible to participate.
So certification becomes a practical extension of the framework. It’s there to recognise compliantoperators and maintain standards, not to create unnecessary barriers to entry.
BHB: Are you saying that any ‘certified’ cannabis grower would then be able tosupply any ‘certified’ club?
AvJ: That’s exactly where this is going. Once you have a shared compliance framework, you’re no longer dealing with isolated operators — you’re building a connected ecosystem.
We’re working towards enabling lawful distribution between compliant members across the country. The idea is to expand the compliance circle, so that more participants can operate within a recognised and trusted system. At the same time, we recognise that clubs operate on different models. The intention is not to standardise everything into one structure, but to allow those models to continue — as long as they adhere to the minimum non-commercial compliance standards.
That flexibility is important, because it allows the system to grow organically while still maintaining accountability.
BHB: Albertus, I’m sure you realize the implications of what we are talking about here? If there is a connected market of compliant growers and compliant clubs across the country, this is basically building a legal adult-use market from the ground up.
AvJ: That’s essentially what’s happening.
It’s important to understand that this market already exists — it’s been operating in a legal grey zone for years. What we’re doing is not creating something new, but formalising what already exists so that it can be lawfully recognised and engaged with by government.
By putting the compliance framework in place first, we’re creating a foundation that government can work with — whether that’s formal regulation, a national register, or future licensing structures. Instead of theory, we’re presenting a working model that reflects how the sector actually operates.
BHB: You should be paid by Government because you’re doing their job for them.
AvJ: Not at all. This is co-creation.
It wouldn’t make sense for policymakers to develop rules in isolation, especially in a sector with deep cultural, historical, and practical roots. Government has shown a willingness
to engage, and our role is to bring real-world experience into that conversation so that any future regulations are fair, practical, and evidence-based.
We also have direct, on-the-ground experience of how cannabis clubs can operate within existing constitutional rights while still maintaining accountability and structure. That practical insight is critical — because without it, it becomes very difficult to shape regulations that actually work in reality.
BHB: Essentially, what you proposing is a model to flip the Grey Zone into a regulated framework, but not one that is strictly commercial. Why the differentiation between commercial and non-commercial? Isn’t it all about making money at the end of the day? What would be lost if government just dished out cannabis retail and consumption licences to anyone who met the required standards?
AvJ: If everything becomes purely commercial, you lose something important.South Africa has a long-standing relationship with cannabis — particularly through legacy and traditional communities. That knowledge, those genetics, and that culture don’t fit neatly into a corporate model.
The non-commercial framework protects that space. It allows artisanal growers and private clubs toparticipate without being pushed out by large-scale commercial interests.mIf we ignore that distinction, werisk turning cannabis into just another commodity — and losing the diversity that makes this sector valuable.
BHB: What you are saying is that cannabis is a distinct part of South African history and should be celebrated as such?
AvJ: Absolutely. Cannabis in South Africa isn’t new — it’s deeply embedded in our history and communities. It’s also important to recognisemthe custodians of the plant — the legacy growers and traditional communities who have carried this knowledge and cultivation through decades of prohibition.
At the same time that thousands of clubs are operating across the country within this legal grey zone, many indigenous cultivators are still being arrested. That imbalance highlights exactly why an inclusive framework is needed. Any future system has to bring those communities into the value chain in a meaningful and protected way — notleave them behind while others formalise.
Private clubs create a space where that culture can continue to develop responsibly. If you look at industries like wine, their strength comes from regional identity, craft, and variation. Cannabis has the same potential — different regions, different cultivars, different traditions — but it needs the right framework to grow into that.
BHB: But Europe could learn from us?
AvJ: Yes — if we get it right. Most international models are either heavily commercial or tightly controlled. What we’re building is something different — a hybrid that balances compliance, community, and culture. We’re already seeing stronginternational interest in this approach. The model has been featured in global platforms like High Times, and we’ve been approached by stakeholders from the USA, Germany, and Australia — all looking closely at how a community-centric framework could work in their own jurisdictions.
In many of those markets, cannabis is rapidly becoming dominated by corporate interests, and there’s growingnconcern about exclusion of smaller, legacy participants. What we’re developing
here offers an alternative — one that keeps participation broad and rooted in community.
A good example of that momentum is the upcoming international symposium in June, where stakeholders from around the world will be engaging with South Africa’s approach. The central theme is
clear: how to create fair, inclusive regulations that place cannabis back inmthe hands of the people. If we can demonstrate that thisnmodel works in practice, it has the potential to be adapted well beyond South Africa.
Artwork courtesty TCC.
#
