THE Tobacco Industry Marketing Board (TIMB) says 200 individuals have been convicted for side-marketing.
Speaking to the Daily News on Sunday yesterday, TIMB public relations officer Chelesani Moyo said there was likely to be more convictions as they have dispatched a unit that is monitoring unscrupulous individuals’ activities.
“Looking at the conviction rate, this season it seems the detection mechanisms being used by our inspectorate department has helped to reveal more side-marketing cases this year hence figures show an upward trajectory. Furthermore, the implementation of Statutory Instrument (SI) 77 of 2022 that prohibits side-marketing has also seen the numbers going up.
“Indeed, more convictions will be made this year because the SI 77 of 2022 ties loose ends in tobacco side-marketing. In the past season just over 200 people were convicted yet at this point in time, barely two months into the tobacco marketing season. We have already surpassed the total convictions made last season. By the end of the season we are likely to surpass 300 convictions,” Moyo said.
Zimbabwe Tobacco Association (ZTA) chief executive officer Rodney Ambrose, however, told the Daily News On Sunday yesterday that side-marketing would continue if price viability issues were not addressed.
“A low selling price versus excessively high input costs is fuelling side-marketing. Year in and year out, viability is not being addressed. Pricing should be the cost of production plus margin for profit and many farmers are not even able to clear costs. Hopefully, the penalty measures by the TIMB will curtail the activities. Surprisingly, there is no publication of companies extorting farmers,” Ambrose said.
The SI was introduced in April by Agriculture minister Anxious Masuka who said the SI provides that “any contract tobacco which is required to be sold to the contractor in terms of this section shall be delivered at receiving points as designated by the contractor”.
“Any contract grower who contravenes and shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level five or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
“Notwithstanding the penalty … any person found guilty in terms of that subsection may be ordered to compensate three times the loss that a particular contractor incurs due to such infringement,” the SI read.
