Dear Mr President, Dr. Buthelezi, SAHPRA Representatives, and Gauteng Department of Health Officials, Department of Trade and Industry Officials, and officials from CSIR.

I write to you as a concerned legal practitioner, compliance expert, and advocate for economic growth in South Africa’s emerging cannabis and hemp industry.

The recent Government Gazette notice, issued under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics, and Disinfectants Act, 1972, prohibiting the sale, import, and manufacture of foodstuffs containing any cannabis or hemp derivatives, presents a grave economic and regulatory contradiction that requires urgent reconsideration.

This decision directly contradicts multiple pronouncements made in the State of the Nation Address (SONA), where His Excellency, President Cyril Ramaphosa, repeatedly acknowledged the cannabis and hemp industries as key drivers for economic growth, job creation, and international trade.

By imposing a blanket ban, the government risks undermining investor confidence, destroying small businesses, and exacerbating unemployment—particularly among rural and marginalized communities that were encouraged to enter this sector based on policy assurances.

Key Concerns:

•               Economic Impact: Many businesses have invested heavily in hemp and cannabis product development, relying on government policy statements and SAHPRA’s regulatory framework. This ban threatens to bankrupt these businesses and force job losses.

1.              Contradiction in Policy Approach: The government has championed cannabis as part of the economic recovery strategy. The sudden reversal through the Department of Health and SAHPRA contradicts the economic commitments made in national policy discussions.

1.              Scientific & Regulatory Inconsistency: Internationally, hemp-derived products with low THC (as defined by global standards) are widely accepted and regulated. South Africa’s approach to banning an entire category of products—rather than implementing clear guidelines—places the country at odds with global best practices.

1.              Public Health Considerations: Instead of an outright ban, regulatory oversight with strict quality standards (e.g., aligned with SAHPRA, ISO, and international GMP standards) would ensure consumer safety without jeopardizing legitimate businesses.

1.              International Trade & Investment Fallout: South Africa risks losing credibility and competitiveness in the global cannabis and hemp market by reversing its stance arbitrarily. This decision discourages both local entrepreneurs and foreign investors from participating in the industry.

Proposed Solutions:

•               Immediate suspension of the ban pending broader stakeholder consultation.

•               Development of a clear and science-based regulatory framework distinguishing hemp-derived foodstuffs from psychoactive cannabis products.

•               Harmonization of local regulations with international standards to facilitate trade and economic development.

•               Industry engagement with regulatory authorities, including SAHPRA and the Department of Health, to establish risk-based product classifications rather than outright prohibitions.

I urge your offices to reconsider this ban and engage with industry stakeholders, legal experts, and economic policymakers to find a balanced regulatory approach that upholds both public health and economic sustainability.

The current status quo and irregular decisions by the Departments looking into the new regulations will not only increase the current black-market activity, which the South African Police Services not only fail to enforce but its also creating an element within law enforcement who is benefitting from “illegal” search and seizure operations.

The above mentioned conduct from SAPS as well as the following Human Rights abuses that accompany this ban is of grave concern and public action is not ruled out by the due to the following possible Human Rights Violations.

1.              Violation of Economic Rights (Section 22 - Right to Choose a Trade, Occupation, or Profession)

The South African Constitution guarantees that every citizen has the right to choose their trade, occupation, or profession freely, subject only to regulation by law.

•               The cannabis and hemp industry has been encouraged by the government as an economic driver, leading to investments, business growth, and job creation.

•               The sudden prohibition of an entire sector without industry consultation or scientific justification arbitrarily limits this constitutional right.

•               The ban effectively destroys livelihoods of small-scale farmers, processors, retailers, and entrepreneurs who relied on the government’s previous assurances regarding cannabis reform.

Any restriction on economic activity must be reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society (Section 36 - Limitations Clause). The government must demonstrate that this ban is proportional to any legitimate aim (such as public health).

1.              Right to Equality (Section 9 – Protection Against Arbitrary Discrimination)

The ban may disproportionately impact certain demographic groups, particularly:

•               Small-scale black farmers and rural entrepreneurs who entered the cannabis sector expecting government support.

•               Indigenous communities that use hemp and cannabis for traditional, medicinal, or cultural purposes.

•               Medical cannabis patients who use hemp-based foodstuffs for dietary or therapeutic reasons.

If a policy disproportionately affects a specific group of people without a justifiable reason, it may be unconstitutional under Section 9, which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination.

1.              Right to Health (Section 27 – Access to Healthcare & Medical Rights)

The ban undermines the right to health by restricting consumer access to non-psychoactive cannabis-based foodstuffs that many people use for medical and nutritional benefits. 3

•               Hemp-derived foods (rich in CBD, proteins, and essential fatty acids) have been widely recognized internationally as beneficial for chronic pain, inflammation, and mental health conditions.

•               Patients who rely on hemp-infused health products now face unnecessary restrictions, potentially infringing on their right to access alternative and natural treatments.

The ban prevents people from accessing beneficial and lawfully produced healthcare alternatives, it could be challenged as an unjustifiable infringement on health rights.

1.              Right to Cultural and Indigenous Practices (Section 31 – Cultural, Religious & Linguistic Rights)

Certain indigenous groups in South Africa have a historical and cultural relationship with hemp and cannabis.

•               Traditional African medicine includes cannabis-infused products for healing and ceremonial purposes.

•               The ban ignores indigenous knowledge systems and could be viewed as cultural erasure, violating Section 31, which protects cultural, religious, and linguistic rights.

The ban prevents indigenous communities from exercising their traditional healing practices, it may be an unconstitutional restriction on their cultural rights.

1.              Administrative Justice (Section 33 – Right to Just Administrative Action)

Under South African law, all government decisions must be lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair (Promotion of Administrative Justice Act - PAJA).

•               The government did not adequately consult industry stakeholders before issuing the ban.

•               The policy lacks transparency and scientific backing.

•               There is no clear appeal mechanism for businesses affected by the ban.

A court challenge could argue that the government’s process was unfair, violating PAJA and Section 33 of the Constitution.

The recent prohibition on foodstuffs containing any part of Cannabis sativa L., including hemp derivatives, appears inconsistent with existing regulatory frameworks established by South African health and agricultural authorities.

The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) has categorized Cannabidiol (CBD) as follows:

Schedule 4 Substance: CBD is generally classified under Schedule 4, indicating it is a prescription-only medicine.

Exemptions: Certain CBD products are exempt from this scheduling, specifically:

Complementary Medicines: Products containing no more than 600 mg of CBD per sales pack, providing a maximum daily dose of 20 mg, and intended for general health enhancement, maintenance, or relief of minor symptoms (considered low-risk).

This categorization reflects SAHPRA's recognition of CBD's potential therapeutic benefits and allows for its controlled use within specified limits. 4

The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) has implemented a regulatory system for hemp, defined as cannabis with low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content.

This system includes:

•               Varietal Listing: Registration of approved hemp varieties.

•               Registration of Premises: Licensing for cultivation and processing facilities.

•               Import Regulations: Guidelines for importing unlisted hemp varieties.

These measures indicate the department's intent to promote hemp as a viable agricultural commodity, acknowledging its industrial applications and economic potential

The Department of Health's recent prohibition on foodstuffs containing any part of Cannabis sativa L., including hemp derivatives such as hemp seed oil and flour, appears inconsistent with the regulatory frameworks set by SAHPRA and DALRRD.

While SAHPRA allows specific low-dose CBD products and the Department of Agriculture promotes hemp cultivation under defined regulations, this sweeping ban on hemp-derived food products contradicts and potentially undermines these established policies.

The inconsistency between the Department of Health's ban and the policies of SAHPRA and the Department of Agriculture raises concerns about regulatory coherence. Hemp, recognized for its low THC content and industrial utility, has been positioned as an economic enabler. Therefore, a comprehensive review and harmonization of these regulations are essential to ensure logical and supportive policies that align with South Africa's economic and public health objectives.

I look forward to your urgent response and an opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue on this pressing issue.

Sincerely,

Charl Botha

B.Proc (S.A) H3 Legal Solutions