KBL, Gov't Must Clarify Levy Reduction

Monitor Editor | Monday October 15, 2018 11:03

No one can blame the consumers for being averse to KBL’s stance, as the introduction of the alcohol levy dug deep into the pockets of the gullible profit well that being the consumer. 

Hence, it is no surprise that the amendment of the alcohol levy to 35% should effectively result in a drop in alcoholic beverage prices.  It is therefore not an unreasonable expectation from the consumer, who has felt the brunt of the effects of both the hefty alcohol levy and the alcohol price hike. If the KBL statement is authentic and is anything to go by, then there is need for the brewer and distributor to clarify certain aspects to its consumers.  It is common knowledge that the levy was introduced to curb excessive alcohol consumption, which was not the resultant case.In 2008, while arguing against the introduction of the alcohol levy KBL had said the levy of any amount carries with it significant social and economic consequences, including but not limited to loss of jobs, losses on the Botswana Stock Exchange, negative impact on inflation, illegal cross-border smuggling of alcohol, the production and sale of potentially harmful illicit and counterfeit products as well as other associated crimes while still not addressing the noble aim of reducing alcohol abuse.  The distributor’s concerns were quite legitimate, some if not all, have since come to pass.  It is understandable that there are other aspects at play here, and that the introduction of the alcohol levy had affected the entire supply chain, but KBL needs to give a more detailed statement on its decision not to reduce prices and how it will come to appreciate its most supportive consumer, the buyers.

KBL in their statement claim that the objective of the reduction of the alcohol levy to 35% “was not to make beer more affordable but rather to cushion local manufacturers to be competitive”.  If that is the case, there is need for more consultation on these issues, because to a layman, it seems like KBL wants to realise success at the expense of its customers.Yet another claim made in the same statement is that the reduction is meant to assist local manufacturers to be more involved in Corporate Social Investment (CSI) projects. Once again in the layman’s thinking, the first question that comes to mind is whether the customers should be the ones financing the brewer’s CSI projects?

The statement released seems to have caused confusion for some and angered many more consumers, which shows that customers also expect some kind of adjustment in pricing, maybe out of courteous appreciation of support rendered during KBL’s fall into hard times.

President Mokgweetsi Masisi’s administration has promised to engage in a consultative process prior to decision taking, which is very much welcome.  Now both parties should ensure that the general public has a clear understanding of this non-reduction in price, since KBL claims ‘the objective was not to make beer more affordable’.