Boss Carol, leader of the Hairdressers for ED affiliate, yesterday struck a delicate balance between gratitude and frustration as she applauded ongoing empowerment efforts, while sharply criticising the regulatory environment that continues to suffocate small beauty businesses.
Representing Hairdressers for ED, she explained that their members have been empowered through the Presidential Empowerment Fund, which has been channelled to them via Presidential Advisor Dr Paul Tungwarara. She said this support and other empowerment programmes within their affiliate have helped many hairdressers to be empowered and equipped, gaining tools, training and confidence to grow from informal survivalists into structured businesses. In her view, this backing has affirmed the beauty industry as a serious economic player, not just a side hustle dominated by women in back rooms and street corners.
Yet, beneath the appreciation lies a growing sense of injustice. Boss Carol highlighted that while empowerment initiatives have opened doors, the lived reality on the ground is still harsh because of high taxes and what she described as constant battles with the city council over licensing and compliance. Hairdressers, nail technicians and makeup artists, she argued, are caught in a policy contradiction, they are encouraged to formalise, register and grow, but once they do, they face layers of licence fees and tax obligations that are not aligned with their income levels.
The core of her concern lies in the licensing structure. According to Boss Carol, authorities have created a demarcation that forces beauty practitioners to pay for separate licences for hairdressing, nails and makeup. In simple terms, one small salon that offers braids, manicures and makeup services is treated as three different businesses on paper and billed three times, even though it is the same premise, the same owner and often the same clients. She views this as an unfair and unrealistic model for a sector built on integrated services in which customers expect to access multiple beauty services under one roof.
From an economic perspective, her argument speaks to the broader tension between revenue collection and enterprise growth. Overlicensing and fragmented fee structures can push microentrepreneurs back into informality. Instead of encouraging compliance, multiple licences risk creating a culture where operators either under declare services or avoid registration altogether. Boss Carol’s position is that a single, unified licence covering hairdressing, nails and makeup would be more logical, more affordable and more supportive of business expansion, especially for young women entering the industry with limited capital.
Her call is not just administrative, but developmental. She is effectively asking policymakers and city fathers to align the licensing regime with the spirit of empowerment that has seen the Presidential Empowerment Fund reach grassroots affiliates like Hairdressers for ED through Dr Tungwarara. If the state is serious about youth and women’s economic participation, she suggests, then policy must move from paperwork that punishes initiative to frameworks that recognise the reality of how modern salons operate, as multiservice hubs for personal care and beauty that contribute to local economies.
Boss Carol’s appeal for assistance therefore goes beyond her own affiliate. It speaks to hundreds of small operators who sit at the bottom of the urban economy but carry significant social and economic weight. The beauty industry creates jobs for young people, especially women, absorbs school leavers without formal qualifications, and keeps many families afloat. When taxes and licence demands rise without a matching increase in earnings, it is these families that feel the shock first, often forcing businesses to scale down or shut their doors.
Her remarks also expose the gap between noble empowerment intentions and local implementation. On one hand, affiliates such as Hairdressers for ED are being strengthened through targeted empowerment support facilitated by figures like Dr Tungwarara. On the other hand, city councils may still be working with outdated bylaws and rigid licensing frameworks that do not reflect emerging industries, new business models or the realities of the informal to formal transition. The result is a clash, members are encouraged to professionalise, yet the regulatory instruments they encounter were never designed with them in mind, creating friction instead of facilitation.
By calling for a single licence for hairdressing, nails and makeup, Boss Carol is essentially proposing a reform that could help simplify the business environment, reduce compliance costs and increase the number of legally registered operators. That, in turn, would widen the tax base over time while protecting struggling entrepreneurs in the short term. Her argument suggests that smart regulation is not about multiplying licences, but about designing one fair, predictable and affordable instrument that enables growth rather than stifling it.
In the end, her message is both an appreciation of empowerment and a warning on regulation. She acknowledged the impact of the Presidential Empowerment Fund accessed through Dr Paul Tungwarara, which has equipped Hairdressers for ED members with tools and confidence. But she also warned that without urgent attention to punitive taxes and fragmented licensing at city level, many of those gains risk being reversed. For Boss Carol, true empowerment will be measured not only by funds disbursed, but by whether hairdressers, nail technicians and makeup artists can operate under a single, reasonable licence and build sustainable businesses in a fair regulatory environment.
