The meeting, initiated by Charl Botha of H3 Legal Solutions, took place at the DoA’s Imbizo Boardrooms in Pretoria on 27 January 2026, and brought together government officials, SAHPRA, development bodies, legal practitioners and industry representatives to confront mounting tensions between regulatory progress and on-the-ground realities for farmers. The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition was conspicuous by its absence, although it had been invited.
Botha tells Cannabiz Africa that at the core of the meeting “was a blunt acknowledgement: hemp is now regulated as an agricultural commodity, yet many growers continue to experience treatment more consistent with criminal enforcement. Participants repeatedly stressed that this contradiction is undermining the objectives of the National Cannabis Master Plan and entrenching illegal markets.”
He said that although no formal policy announcement was framed, “the discussion signalled increasing momentum toward removing SAPS from frontline involvement in lawful hemp cultivation.”
Where was the DTIC?
A notable feature of the engagement was the absence of DTIC officials, despite that department’s responsibility for commercialisation policy. Industry bodies reported that submissions to DTIC remain unanswered and that delays in approving domestic markets and pilot projects are accelerating illegal retail growth.
Botha says the DoA undertook “to escalate the meeting’s outcomes formally and request that DTIC convene existing interdepartmental structures to resolve market access, seed-import pathways, commercial pilots and justice-system timelines. Observers characterised this escalation as critical: agricultural systems are being built, but without trade and industrial frameworks, the sector cannot mature.”
Enforcement Under Scrutiny
Botha reports:
While formally framed as a discussion on regulatory coordination, enforcement dominated much of the room. Participants across sectors agreed that confusion between hemp and cannabis policing is fuelling instability. Farmers face inconsistent inspections, contradictory instructions from different agencies, and seizures before laboratory confirmation of THC levels.
These conditions, delegates warned, are driving producers back toward informal markets rather than into compliance.
The meeting therefore called for:
• nationally consistent enforcement protocols
• justice-department regulatory timelines
• standing interdepartmental operating committees
• immediate pilot programmes to inform permanent rules
Legal practitioners present argued that routine oversight of permitted hemp operations should sit squarely with agricultural regulators, with police intervention limited to organised crime and illicit high-THC activity—an approach aligned with international norms.
#
