Whoops! Presidency backtracks on info stating that leisure travel is allowed
But the posts have now been deleted.
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s office says the posts were made in error.
In an updated post on Saturday afternoon, the Presidency says "We picked up an error in the previous graphic which suggested that accommodation for leisure travel was permitted. This is not the case."
In the new post, the Presidency refers to a statement by Tourism Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi-Ngubane dated 30 May 2020.
"Accommodation activities are allowed except for leisure and establishments will no longer require a letter from Minister of Tourism to operate. They are required to ensure that they accommodate those in the permitted services and keep records for inspections by the department", the statement reads.
Here are the activities that are now allowed at Level 3. We picked up an error in the previous graphic which suggested that accommodation for leisure travel was permitted. This is not the case. See this statement for more information: https://t.co/hQnwYUNN6s #StaySafe pic.twitter.com/7t4Q7vxCKl— Presidency | South Africa 🇿🇦 (@PresidencyZA) July 11, 2020
There's been some major confusion surrounding leisure travel and Level 3 tourism regulations in recent weeks.
Tourism Business Council of South Africa (TBCSA) has interpreted the gazetted industry regulations to mean that intra-provincial leisure travel is allowed.
However, the Tourism Minister has been clear that leisure tourism remains closed.
At the same time, TBCSA CEO Tshifhiwa Tshivhengwa has told Business Insider SA that the now-deleted posts confirm the industry's interpretation of the regulations.
Like we have saying before, accommodation for intraprovincial is allowed for leisure. https://t.co/b5wdSBeEF4— Tshifhiwa Tshivhengwa (@TTshivhengwa) July 10, 2020
Source : https://www.123rf.com/photo_111082397_hotel-room-abstract-interior-lamp-near-the-bed.html
Mkhwebane didn't have kind words for her successor, Kholeka Gcaleka for her role in Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala saga, criticised the NPA’s handling of state capture cases, and accused the SIU of duplicating the work of the Public Protector’s Office.Read More