The SAPS directive from Major General Hendricks from the Gauteng Provincial Commissioner’s office (Ref 26/1/1) to all deputy provincial and district commissioners, all provincial heads and station and unit commanders, is entitled: Proliferation of individuals and shops purported to be licensed or permitted to deal in cannabis and cannabis products, was sent to media outlets such as News 24, and landed on Cannabiz Africa’s desk on 28 October 2026.
The Directive It instructs SAPS officers to take action action against all cannabis outlets who “claim to be authorised under either a licence or permit issued by SAHPRA, authorising them to deal with cannabis and cannabis products.
“It’s hard to know what to make of this” says Myrtle Clarke, CEO of activist organization Fields of Green for ALL (FGFA). She points out that SAPS is relying on the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act to prove criminality, despite the Department of Justice going on record as saying that cannabis will be removed from the Drugs Act schedules by the end of the year, by way of the final regulations for the Cannabis Act.
She says the instruction adds further confusion for officers on the ground as it appears to acknowledge that there are genuine SAHPRA retail licenses, whereas in fact there is no such thing. The directive also offers police no guidance in dealing with the members-only private cannabis clubs that have been established on constitutional principles and by definition are outside of SAHPRA’s mandate.
Clarke says the SAPS directive is out of line with the Department of Trade and Industry’s mandate to develop a commercial framework for cannabis and will serve only to drive the sector underground again. “We should wait and see what happens” she says. “On the face of it, the directive will be hard to enforce and there’s a danger of over-reaction that could cause unnecessary fear-mongering,”
You can catch up with Clark’s views on the subject on FGFA’s Hotbox
The following is an excerpt from the leaked document detailing processes and pitfalls.
13. INDIVIDUALS AND SHOPS PURPORTED TO BE LICENSED OR PERMITTED TO SELL CANNABIS/DAGGA
13.1 For the shops which are known to be dealing in cannabis and cannabis products, the police must apply for a search and seizure warrant for that premisses in terms of Section 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
13.2 Once the search and seizure warrant is granted, the plan a joint operation with SAHPRA and Environmental Health inspectors.
13.3.The photographer from LCRC where possible must form part of the operation to take photos of the cannabis or cannabis from where they are displayed in the shop or shelves in the shop.The police will then handle the cannabis aspect if found.SAHPRA inspectors and Environmental Health inspectors will handle the cannabis products aspect.
I13.4. If the cannabis/dagga if found and a person if deemed to be selling, such person must be charged for contravening Section 5 (a) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act for dealing in any dangerous dependence-producing substance or undesirable dependence-producing substance.The dealer must also be charged with contravention of Section 22A(9)(a)(i) for selling cannabis or dagga or cannabis products without permit.
13.5. Space-cookies are food that are infused with or contain a prohibited substance, therefore a person if found must be charger for contravening Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Foodstuff, Cosmetics and Disinfectant Act 54 of 1972 for selling foodstuff that contain prohibited substance.
14. Where it is not certain that a person is dealing in cannabis, but there is a believe that a person is dealing in cannabis/dagga the following procedure must be followed:
14.1. The police must apply for Section 252A entrapment and search and seizure warrant at the same time.
14.2. Once the entrapment order and search and seizure warrants are granted, entrap the alleged dealer, if found to be dealing, then utilize a search and seizure warrant to search the entire premisses and seize all the exhibit.Arrest the suspect for dealing in cannabis/dagga and book it into the SAPS 13
14.3. If cannabis need to be weighed, do that in the presence of the suspect.
15. If the person is renting out space for other individuals to plant dagga at that place at a certain cost, the owner of such space will be deemed to be dealing, therefore such practice is not permitted. The Western Cape High Court in the case of Haze Club (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Police and Others held that the rented space is not protected by the right to privacy, therefore a person is deemed to be making money form cultivation of cannabis for others which is classified as dealing in cannabis (Annex H).
16. Exhibit must be properly collected, recorded and packaged. Chain of evidence must be maintained throughout the process to render the exhibit admissible in court. The North Gauteng High Court in a case of Official v S has lambasted SAPS for failing to keep the chain of evidence where some exhibits were not recorded and uncounted for, and the exhibit bag was not recorded. Par 4.4 of the judgment states as follows;
“the so-called chain evidence explains what happened to the exhibit from the time that it was disputed to the time the report was received. It is important that the chain be properly proved …” (Annex I)
CLANDESTINE LABORATORIES
17. SAPS members must also enquire from the cannabis dealers about the places or suppliers from which they (dealers) buy their stock (dagga and dagga products), which will lead or assist SAPS to get to clandestine Laboratories. Clandestine Laboratory is any structure or vehicle in which unlawful dealing in dangerous dependent-producing substances or undesirable dependent-producing substances and manufacturing of drugs and drug related products (including cannabis and cannabis products), is taking place. If such laboratories are found the police or first responders must preserve the scene, then call the Provincial Investigating Unit (PIU) responsible for narcotics to the scene. The PIU will then assess, investigate and process the scene, if is found that the scene falls within the mandate of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) Narcotics then call them (DPCI) to the scene to take over.
CONCLUSION
18.1 This directive must be brought to the attention of all members under your command for immediate implementation.
18.2. Any uncertainties regarding this directive must be directed and be clarified with Provincial Legal Services.
18.3 Members of the SAPS must follow this directive and the directive of the National Office dated 2019-01-22 which was signed by then National Commissioner KJ Sitole
It is unclear how the directive will impact on the urgent application by Gareth Prince and others, calling for a halt to cannabis related arrests. The Western Cape High Court has ordered the State to come up with a cohesive response to the Prince application. The Gauteng provincial commissioner’s directive could derail the settlement discussions underway on that matter, and could lead to the case returning to the courts.
#
