Staff Reporter.
Photo Credit: Istock.
British American Tobacco South Africa (Batsa) on Saturday said it had been vindicated in its view that the ban on tobacco products was unjustified, ill-considered and had worsened illicit trade.
The Western Cape High Court ruled in favour of tobacco companies in the case against the Cooperative Governance Minister on the ban of the products.
This after Batsa and other industry players took Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma to court earlier this year to challenge the decision to prohibit the sale of tobacco products during the hard lockdown.
In court, authorities had argued that the ban was aimed toward decreasing the occupation of intensive care unit (ICU) beds by people who smoke. If individuals did not smoke they might probably not get Covid-19 in a extra extreme type, it argued. But BATSA maintained that authorities had not justified the ban in legislation or science.
The ruling was in favour of British American Tobacco, and others, in their case against co-operative governance minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, President Cyril Ramaphosa and the national coronavirus command council.
The court ruled that each party should pay their own costs because the ban had already been lifted, and because the government was dealing with something completely new and, therefore, had to act swiftly even as science and knowledge were developing.
However, due to a number for factors, the court nonetheless decided that it was “in the interests of justice to determine the merits of the case in spite of mootness”.
These factors included that:
- the matter was fully argued over two days:
- the issues raised are “complex and vitally important, more so in the light of the continued state of the coronavirus pandemic and lockdown”;
- the scientific research into the link between Covid-19 and smoking “is continuing”;
- the state of disaster has not yet been lifted and there is “a possibility of the infringement complained of in the current matter being repeated in the future”; and
- the matter is important “not only to the parties before court, but also to the public”.
Once it weighed up the arguments, the court found that the respondents — Dlamini-Zuma, Ramaphosa and the national coronavirus command council — “have not shown that regulation 45 reduced or acted to reduce the strain on the health care system”.
Therefore, the respondents have not shown that regulation 45 was necessary nor that it fulfilled and/or furthered the objectives of the National Disaster Management Act.