Just days before Christmas, consumers were used as pawns by distributors of two essential services in disputes that must have been simmering for quite some time but which, very conveniently to them, reached boiling point at the height of the festive season. This is not the first time similar situations have arisen and the consumer is far from amused. All the parties involved in the disputes are supposed to be at the service of the consumer in a free and unfettered market. Yet, the market is not entirely free as the gas distributors claim they have exclusivity in the distribution of gas.

Whatever the arguments brought forward by the petrol station owners and the gas distributors, the point is it was the consumer who suffered most. And for this, the petrol station owners, the gas distributors, their association, the companies involved and the regulatory authorities and the government ought to share the consumer’s well-justified wrath. Regardless of the nuances of their arguments, and whoever is right in their respective dispute, the end result is many consumers ended up inconvenienced in the few days before Christmas.

Motorists did not rush to fill up the tanks of their cars this time. They realised it was just a show of force that would come to an end in no time, as in fact it did. Petrol station owners wanted a rise in their profit margin but after talks there was agreement on terms of how to reach a final deal. According to their association, the terms included the appointment of a private firm of auditors to assess the claims. This sounds quite a simple solution. So, why did they not reach agreement before the peak of the festive season? The Consumers’ Association accused the petrol station owners of acting like a cartel and feared that any increase agreed upon would be passed on to the consumer. But the Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises – GRTU chose to describe its accusation unethical and ridiculous. Is it?

Consumers would sympathise with petrol station owners in their claim but only if they act correctly and desist from using them as a pawns. Likewise, consumers are not against gas distributors but does their distribution exclusivity work in their interests? Should not the distribution market be liberalised as well? Does not a company have a right to distribute its own product, as Liquigas is claiming?

The dispute over distribution erupted when a new company, Easygas, came into the market. Liquigas refused to supply the distributors with gas unless they declined to sell gas provided by Easygas but the distributors argued they had an exclusive right to distribute gas. So, they argued, they were either allowed to operate in accordance with their own licence terms or be compensated. Liquigas was then issued with a “cease and desist” order by the Office of Fair Competition, which meant the distributors were back in business.

There are quite a number of issues involved in the dispute, with interested parties holding to their stands. Clearly, the dispute is not over yet and it would be a vain hope for consumers to believe their interest would be on top of the agenda. Indeed, what stands out is the need for consumers to have a stronger voice than they have now and to react when their interests are simply disregarded or when, as was the case in the two disputes that arose before Christmas, they are used as pawns.