Firstly I have to admit this document was so badly written and conceived when I received it yesterday that I was convinced, along with some others in the know in South Africa that it was a fake.
But as the Ramones once sang D..U…M…B everyone is accusing me which is another way of saying sometimes things are so dim that they are actually clever!
News 24 in South Africa have said that they can confirm 29 October 2026 the source is indeed the SAPS ( South African Police Force)
You can read their story (paywall) at
https://www.news24.com/business/companies/raids-loom-for-gautengs-dagga-shops-leaked-police-memo-shows-20261028-1081#google_vignette
Other sources have also revealed that they have been told and delivered the document directly by (unamed) police officers
So .. Firstly who has put their name to this document before we dive into the contents.
The document is signed and dated 21 October 2026
Position: Provincial Commissioner (Lieutenant General)
Jurisdiction: Gauteng Province, South Africa [1]
Office Contact:
Phone: 011 274 7875
Fax: 086 630 1686
Email: Gauteng-provcomm@saps.gov.za
Staff Officer: Captain Pule
Key Operations: Frequently leads high-density multidisciplinary crime-fighting efforts such as Operation Shanela across Gauteng districts
First up, the document says zip about who actually decided this should be the ongoing course of action.
Only Mthombeni and Hendricks are mentioned in the header, did they decide themselves or receive political directives from above?
Lt-Gen Mthombeni
Major General Colin Hendricks — The SAPS Provincial Head of Legal Services (and Acting Deputy Provincial Commissioner for Support Services) in Gauteng, who has represented SAPS management at official events, court hearings, and community safety imbizos
The document then quotes the Prince & Rubin cases as what appear to be their main reasons for “taking action”
The following paras then state their arguments as defined by the judgements.
CLR has an inkling that there are a number of lawyers in South Africa who may have different thinking on the interpretation of this language, watch this space.
I would first highlight the quoting of the Drug Trafficking Act 140 1992
Their main argument on p.3 of this document keeps referring to “dependence-producing substance(s)” and yes under South African law as far as this publication is aware that is indeed the case, even worse it is also “undesirable”
Legal Classification
- Statute: Under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 , cannabis (dagga) and cannabis products are explicitly listed under Part III of Schedule 2 , which defines them as undesirable dependence-producing substances. [1, 2, 3]
- Definitions: The Act categorizes drugs into three groups: dependence-producing substances (prescription meds), dangerous dependence-producing substances (e.g., morphine, heroin-adjacent opiates), and undesirable dependence-producing substances (e.g., cannabis, Mandrax, methamphetamine)
Source: Google
It means enforcement and the question will be enforcement of whom?
South Africa has a number of high end dispensaries and lounges who have built businesses with advice from lawyers. Government inaction has meant these businesses don’t fit squarely under the law but they have attempted to do things by the book. Will they be targeted? Will they have to take proactive action and hit the courts quick pronto or will they wait to see if SAPS turn up on their doorstep?
The second and even smaller group of business are Wellness type retail outfits operating on a very small scale and small margins and once again in the main attempting to do things as legally as possible in a sea of grey.
Finally the majority of businesses smaller retail outfits, here today gone tmmrw organisations with a veneer of legality that is so grey i sense that even those running them don’t know or don’t care what the law is.
Some are operating as local community organisations, some are kosher and working within the grey market without legal advice and yes some are purely fronts as a new distribution network for criminal organisations.
Who will SAPS target or will they just blanket enforce where the opportunity looks the easiest?
As always the people that they really want to clear will be the criminal organisations and by their very nature it will be those people that will be the hardest to enforce and then in a rush for results easier targets such as community organisations and wellness businesses will be on the receiving end.
SAPHRA’s Involvement
Anybody following SAPHRA the country’s regulatory agency managing medical cannabis will know that they have given up on issuing licences as of mid this year, they refuse to communicate with media, engage with the sector and yet, this document states that they have the resouces to send inspectors on police raids around the country to document and enforce. If this is indeed the case it sounds as though somebody in government weilding power has decided to provide a budget to allow this to happen. Then again it could just be fantasy. Only time will tell
Are we about to see a wave of enforcement and compliance as a political ploy to shift attention away from government inaction on cannabis.
The few advisors attached to this SA government department and that \have retreated quietly over the last six months. With no clout other than roles as “advisors” they were sidelined and removed themselves from the equation.
Documents like this suggest that worse is on the way unless the courts force government to act.
