The Northern Cape High Court has ruled in favour of DGMT in a case about the constitutional responsibility of provinces to protect public health and safety by limiting when alcohol can be sold.
DGMT’s landmark case challenges parts of the Northern Cape Gambling and Liquor Act of 2024, a law that extended liquor trading hours across a province already dealing with high rates of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD).
DGMT argued that longer trading hours in the province would increase alcohol availability and deepen alcohol-related harm, such as gender-based violence and road deaths.
In addition, the organisation said the law was passed after an unfair and constitutionally defective public participation process.
What this case is about
At the heart of the case is a simple question: Can a province make it easier to buy alcohol, despite clear evidence that longer trading hours fuel violence, road deaths, gender-based violence and other harms, and do so without properly hearing from the public?
Today’s judgment answers that with a resounding no. The ruling comes just two months after President Cyril Ramaphosa, in his State of the Nation Address, called on provincial governments to play their part by strengthening alcohol regulation, including through restricting trading hours.
The Northern Cape Gambling and Liquor Act made it easier to buy alcohol later into the night, allowing many bars, taverns and other venues to sell alcohol until 2 a.m., seven days a week, and extended some take-home alcohol sales on Saturdays and public holidays.
During the hearing in October last year, DGMT’s senior counsel said communities in the Northern Cape were already carrying the burden of heavy drinking, highlighting that between 12% and 28% of children in some areas are living with FASD.
Why this case matters
DGMT welcomes the ruling as a major step forward for public health, public accountability and safer communities.
“This judgment sends a clear message to provinces about their constitutional mandate to protect communities,” says Kashifa Ancer, Campaign Manager of Rethink Your Drink, DGMT’s alcohol harms reduction campaign. “Provinces cannot pass liquor laws that ignore evidence, sidelining the public and leaving communities to absorb the harm of heavy drinking.”
“However, what happened in this case is that the public was asked to comment on a draft law that proposed shorter trading hours, only for the final law to allow materially longer hours. Those changes were made without giving the public a fair chance to respond,” Ancer explains.
Ultimately, the court found this was not a minor procedural defect but a serious failure of democratic law-making. It held that when the public is not given a meaningful chance to engage on material changes to a draft law, the legitimacy of the process itself is undermined.
As the judge put it: “Any legislative process which diminishes these principles not only weakens public trust but also falls short of the democratic ideals.”
Looking ahead
“This case has always been about people above profit,” says Ancer. “Women, children and working-class communities are too often expected to absorb the cost of weak liquor laws. This judgment pushes back against that.”
“This is not only a legal win, it is a public health win and a reminder that provincial governments have a duty to protect people from preventable harm,” Ancer concludes.
The full judgment can be viewed here.
