The Health Minister has provoked outrage from all quarters with his shock ban on cannabis in foodstuffs. Worse still Dr Aaron Motsoaledi has run for cover since the 7 March 2025 notice, and two weeks later has not explained the reasons behind the ban, nor made any public comment. News 24's Muhammad Hussien interviewed specialist attorney at Cullinan and Associates Paul-Michael Keichel (pictured above) on the new regulations.

MH: How would you interpret the new cannabis edibles and hemp regulations Minister Aaron Motsoaledi quietly published last week?

PMK: It's important to distinguish between cannabis edibles (like brownies and gummies), which contain the psychoactive compounds THC/CBD, and hemp food products, which are non-psychoactive and high in protein and nutrients.

The regulations seem to target cannabis edibles, which were already illegal under existing drug and medicine laws.

So, the new regulations don't really add anything new in that regard. It is redundant but understandable.

However, the regulations also appear to ban the sale of hemp food products, which have been sold safely in stores like Dis-Chem, PicknPay and Wellness Warehouse for years. They are not marketed as THC or CBD at all.

These are nutritional foods that have undergone the rigours of food safety regulations.

MH: The department said the minister of health did this for public safety reasons.

PMK: I'm not sure how the Health Minister thought he was protecting public health by banning the hemp components of the cannabis plants.

Another issue is that the Foodstuffs Act has a provision that says he was supposed to put this regulation out for 90 days of public participation. Another provision says that if he thought it was in the public interest to avoid public participation, then he could bypass this.

But given that we are eight years past the Constitutional Court [Prince] judgment (where dagga was decriminalised), why the sudden wake-up? 

MH: And why is it in the public interest to avoid public consultation?

PMK: That provision to bypass public consultation is used when, maybe, an ingredient is found to have a serious health risk, then banning that ingredient and bypassing public consultation makes sense.

Not when the discussion on cannabis has been ongoing since at least 2018 - what public interest has been served?

MH: Does this mean that the regulation is null and void?

PMK: Not automatically. There's a principle called Oudekraal that renders an administrative action valid until it is set aside, and this falls under that. So, this regulation is valid and binding until such time it is set aside by the courts.

It is voidable but not automatically void.

Many big industry players may be gearing up to challenge this regulation and have it reversed.

MH: What can be done to avoid that?

PMK: If the minister wakes up to the fact that he's made an administrative mess of this, he can either take his own decision on review or publish another notice in the Government Gazette saying, "I revoke these regulations."

In the absence of that, these regulations are valid and binding law.

MH: Does that mean penalties can be meted out?

PMK: Yes, which they already were in respect of cannabis edibles.

But now those places and companies selling hemp seed oil, hemp seed flour, and protein shakes with hemp seed, are all acting in contravention of a criminal prohibition.

This is absurd as it also seems that the minister did not consult intragovernmental, as it affects departments like trade and industry, justice and police.

MH: So, how will the enforcement take place?

PMK: It all comes down to whether there is an appetite to enforce these laws.

Technically speaking, if they wanted to, the Hawks and the SAPS could go and raid all these big stores and charge them criminally in terms of these regulations read with the criminal prohibition in the primary act.

But it may be very questionable whether a court would agree to convict under these circumstances.

MH: Could corrupt actors take advantage of this by seizing goods under this regulation?

PMK: It would be a very risky move by these corrupt elements if they did take advantage of this given the high-profile media attention on it. But it is possible.

MH: So, shakedowns are possible?

PMK: Absolutely.

But again, there's a distinction between cannabis edibles and hemp. People have been selling cannabis edibles and opening stores illegally for seven years now.

This is just a new angle on a pre-existing prohibition. But the true absurdity here lies with hemp.

 #