South Africa's Health Portfolio Committee Faces Scrutiny Over Tobacco Bill Hearings

Public hearings on the Tobacco Products & Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill conducted by South Africa's Parliament’s portfolio committee on health have recently been thrown into the spotlight due to concerns regarding public participation and official conduct. The column written by Thembinkosi Gcoyi critically addresses these concerns.

The bill, first introduced to parliament on May 31 by deputy health minister Sibongiseni Dhlomo, has met with significant disapproval due to various perceived shortcomings. While the public, health community, and business groups have already pointed these out, the focus here is the scrutiny of the hearing process, rather than the content of the bill itself.

The evaluation of the hearings is juxtaposed against the Constitutional Court ruling in the Mogale case, which stresses the importance of sufficient notice and meaningful public involvement in legislative processes. According to Gcoyi, the portfolio committee on health has fallen short of compliance with these principles.

Many towns across five provinces have seen hearings without the mandated five-week notice, often with venue confirmations occurring in the same week. While parliament has been issuing media statements, these hardly suffice as adequate notice for upcoming hearings in other provinces. The column furthers the argument by pointing to the inadequacy of prehearings workshops led by overworked parliamentary staff with insufficient knowledge of the bill’s implications, rendering them unproductive in empowering community members for informed participation.

The selection of individuals for public workshops, largely facilitated by ANC councillors without broad public notice or an information campaign, seems to be based on political affiliations rather than a transparent and inclusive approach.

Adding to the critique, the article sheds light on the insufficient time allocation for hearings. Several instances are cited where hearings concluded much earlier than scheduled, depriving numerous individuals of the opportunity to voice their opinions. Moreover, venues have been consistently overcrowded, with more than a hundred individuals being denied access in Tshwane alone, demonstrating a lack of foresight or concern by those organizing the events.

The conduct of the presiding officers has also come under fire, as they allegedly favor certain individuals who track hearings across provinces, sidelining local residents. Episodes of condescension toward community members and threats of using parliamentary security are said to add to the hostility of the environment.

The presence of heavily armed police forces at the Westonaria hearings, rather than facilitating a peaceful dialogue, appears to intimidate and suppress the vocal disapproval of the bill by community members.

These incidents culminate in a portrayal of a flawed process, depicting an apparent disconnect between parliamentary members and the communities they represent. A reminder rings out through Gcoyi’s words that South African democracy values loud and exuberant public expression, something that seems to be under threat owing to the recent conduct of public hearings.

The article concludes with a strong assertion that parliament has significantly missed the mark in representing and empowering community voices in the discussion of the tobacco bill, terming the entire process as disastrous and indicating a need for significant improvements.