# ZERO PERCENT ALCOHOL LIMIT

- Link: https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/news-2/zero-percent-alcohol-limit/
- Published: 2026-09-21T14:40:33+02:00
- Author: dearSA

_Advert_

_Advert – scroll down_

![Minister Creecy's 0% Alcohol Limit is an Irrational Distraction](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.
co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/21143116/an-ill-rational-idea.jpg "an ill-rational
idea")

### MINISTER CREECY’S 0% ALCOHOL LIMIT IS AN IRRATIONAL DISTRACTION

_By Rob Hutchinson_

Transport Minister Barbara Creecy’s ongoing push to amend Section 65 of the National
Road Traffic Act and lower South Africa’s permissible blood alcohol concentration
limit from 0.05g/100ml to an absolute zero is not just unworkable—it is an ill-informed
and irrational idea. Instead of tackling the catastrophic failure of visible traffic
policing and a broken justice system, the Minister is opting for a lazy legislative
fix. It is the stroke of a pen that will turn ordinary, law-abiding citizens using
mouthwash or cough medicine into criminals, while doing absolutely nothing to stop
the actual carnage on our roads.

The reality is that the drivers causing the fatalities on our roads are not the 
ones hovering between 0.00% and 0.05%. They are the ones blowing three, four, or
five times over the current legal limit. These drivers already ignore the current
law. They will ignore the new one, too.

To understand how disconnected this proposal is from reality, we only need to look
at the government’s own statistics regarding arrests versus actual convictions. 
Every festive season, the Department of Transport proudly announces massive arrest
numbers. During the 2024/2025 festive season alone, nearly 10,000 motorists were
arrested for drunk driving. Yet, the follow-through is a systemic failure.

According to organisations like South Africans Against Drunk Driving (SADD) and 
legal monitors, the actual conviction rate for drunk driving in South Africa hovers
around a dismal 2% to 7.5%.

Why? Because our enforcement and judicial pipelines are fundamentally broken. Blood
samples are botched or expire due to massive backlogs at forensic laboratories. 
Dockets routinely “disappear” from police stations. Cases are thrown out of court
due to procedural errors or corrupted evidence. Lowering the legal limit to zero
does not fix a single one of these structural failures. In fact, it will only overwhelm
an already collapsing system by flooding it with false-positive arrests of people
who consumed homeopathic remedies, further delaying the prosecution of the severely
intoxicated drivers who are actually killing people.

Proponents of this zero-tolerance bill often attempt to justify it by citing “international
best practice,” frequently pointing to nations like Norway, Japan, and Venezuela
as success stories. This comparison is factually incorrect and deeply misleading.
Norway operates with a 0.02% limit, Japan enforces a 0.03% limit, and Venezuela’s
limit is set at 0.08%—which is significantly more lenient than South Africa’s current
law. These nations recognise the biological necessity of a scientific buffer to 
account for common medications, natural endogenous ethanol production, and breathalyser
calibration margins.

Are there any countries on this blue planet that actually enforce an absolute zero
policy? Yes. A handful of nations—including the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania,
Slovakia, and Brazil—enforce a 0.00% limit, alongside certain Islamic states where
alcohol consumption is strictly banned. However, the European and South American
nations that enforce this limit pair it with constant, visible, corruption-free 
policing and comprehensive public transport infrastructure. South Africa is attempting
to copy the most punitive aspects of these systems without possessing the basic 
enforcement capacity required to back them up.

We cannot legislate our way out of an enforcement crisis. Criminalising trace amounts
of alcohol from homeopathic remedies will not save a single life. Fixing the forensic
laboratories, eliminating bribery at roadblocks, and ensuring that the habitual 
offenders actually go to jail will. Minister Creecy must abandon this irrational
legislative distraction and focus the state’s resources on the hard work of actual
policing and prosecution.
