16 May 2025
Cape Town – A recent study has revealed that the alcohol industry may have unduly
influenced the delay of South Africa’s Liquor Amendment Bill of 2016 by dominating
the policy negotiation space at NEDLAC. This was presented during a Southern
African Alcohol Policy Alliance (SAAPA) webinar, which highlighted the exclusion of
civil society from key discussions.
The 2025 study was conducted by SAAPA, SAMRC/WITS and the University of
Stirling (UK). Researchers submitted a Promotion of Access to Information Act
(PAIA) request to the National Economic Development and Labour Council
(NEDLAC) for records related to the Bill from January 2016 to December 2022,
including meeting minutes, reports, agreements, and correspondence with
stakeholders. NEDLAC provided 56 documents (573 pages), but only five from 2017
and none from 2018 to mid-2020. A follow-up request on 23 November 2023 yielded
only duplicate documents with no new records. and looked at all records, minutes,
reports received from the National Economic Development And Labour Council
(NEDLAC)
Chairing the webinar was Bongiwe Ndodo, Chairperson of SAAPA and CEO of
Hlanganisa, who framed alcohol harm as a social justice issue, citing the ongoing
impact of apartheid-era alcohol regulation. “We are dealing with a health problem, a
socio-economic issue, and a social justice failure,” she stated.
Researcher Aadielah Diedericks explained that NEDLAC records were requested
under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), but many minutes were not
disclosed. Their analysis found that 14 industry organisations, including major
players like AB InBev and Heineken, were involved in five key NEDLAC committees,
with little civil society representation.
Diedericks outlined key provisions of the Bill—raising the drinking age to 21,
imposing a 500m trading radius around schools and places of worship, limiting
alcohol marketing, and introducing liability for producers whose products reach
unlicensed traders. “Despite support from an independent industry-funded study, the
Bill was stalled,” she noted.
Human rights lawyer Sasha Stevenson from Section27 called for greater
transparency and conflict-of-interest safeguards. “We see the same strategies used
across sectors—from sugar to tobacco—where public health policies are quietly
buried,” she said, warning that regulatory capture undermines constitutional rights.
Stevenson underscored the constitutional stakes: “The right to healthcare includes
preventative measures. This is not optional. Participation in policy spaces must be
more than symbolic—it must include those who bear the brunt of harm.” She also
called for civil society to organize more effectively, ensuring its representation is not
only louder but structured and sustained.
The research calls for a complete overhaul of how NEDLAC functions. That includes
implementing a rigorous conflict-of-interest policy, ensuring meaningful
representation from affected communities, and reviewing the structure of its
Community and Development Chamber.
End
For more information contact: Mr Julian Jacobs on 061 917 9661