H3 Legal Solutions’ Charl Botha has called on the DTIC to urgently release for public comment the Draft Cannabis Commercialisation Policy Document Version 2 that has been drawn up with select stakeholders in private.
Botha says the DTIC should also reveal who it has been consulting with behind closed doors and subject itself to Parliamentary oversight. He has written to DTIC Minister Parks Tau, asking him to confirm receipt of the letter and commit to a public participation process on cannabis commercialization before April next year (the DTIC’s scheduled time for stakeholder input).
Botha says the DTIC’s pattern of promising transparency while bypassing public input is becoming a pattern of bad behaviour. He says this is illustrated by two recent examples:
Hemp Foodstuffs Ban
On 7 March 2025, the Department of Health issued regulations banning hemp in foodstuffs without any public consultation or observance of the mandatory three-month comment period required under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act.
Civil society immediately challenged the absence of due process. In response, the Presidency withdrew the ban on 26 March 2025 and publicly committed to broad stakeholder consultation before reissuing revised regulations.
Despite this assurance, the DTIC continued its internal policy development, announcing in September 2025 that the full commercialisation policy would be ready for Cabinet approval by April 2026.
This discrepancy between public pledges of inclusive engagement and the reality of closed-door progression exposes a systemic failure to honour commitments to transparency.
DTIC Repeating the Mistakes of the Past
Similarly, he says, a DTIC media statement on 9 September 2025 declared that the Hemp and Cannabis Commercialisation Policy would be finalised for Cabinet and opened for public comment by April 2026, implying an imminent and inclusive process.
Yet Parliamentary Question 4515 confirms that by August 2025, consultation had already been consolidated exclusively among “targeted stakeholders,” with no public invitation issued.
“The gap between this public promise and the documented closed-door reality not only undermines confidence in the process but also constitutes misleading communication that further erodes institutional trust” writes Botha.
What the DTIC Should Do to Restore its Cred
He says that to restore legitimacy and comply with constitutional and administrative obligations, the DTIC must immediately:
• Publish the full consultation timeline, including the names and affiliations of all targeted stakeholders;
• Release Version 2 of the Revised Discussion Document in its current form for open public access;
• Commit to a minimum 60-day public comment period in line with the Public Participation Framework (2013); and
• Submit a detailed explanatory report to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competition, outlining the reasons for prior exclusion and the concrete steps being taken to ensure full, inclusive participation moving forward.
Botha says that “the evidence, from parliamentary records, public statements, and regulatory actions, demonstrates a systemic pattern of exclusion, delay, and administrative unfairness. This is not mere oversight; it is a breach of constitutional governance and public trust.”
“Unless immediate remedial action is taken, this process risks being declared unlawful under PAJA and subject to investigation by the Public Protector for maladministration. Trust cannot be restored without transparency, fairness, and genuine public participation.”
#
