Central Firearms Registry progress report; SA Hunters Association court case & Firearm Appeal Board recommendations

This premium content has been made freely available

Police

20 May 2016
Chairperson: Mr F Beukman (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Central Firearms Registry provided a progress report on its past year concerning applications and renewals for firearm licences. The Central Firearm Registry (CFR) Turn-Around Strategy was developed to address challenges impacting negatively on the performance of the CFR. Implementation is driven through the an action plan managed by the Divisional Commissioner of Visible Policing. One of the big challenges within the Central Firearms Registry is its very low staff levels.

SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association mapped out a dismal history of poor performance by the Central Firearms Registry since the implementation of the Firearms Control Act in 2000 and the reasons the Hunters Association had brought a court application against the CFR. It identified the problems experienced in detail. These included no reason or inappropriate reason given for refusal of applications; problems with renewal of licences; inconsistent methods between provinces and police stations; delays in processing permits, problems with barrel replacements and other technical matters; poor service delivery such as firearms sold were not removed from name of person; licence cards were not printed or printed long after approval or the cards lost; the data provided on CFR website was outdated and contain the wrong information.

Due to these ongoing problems, a founding affidavit was filed on 16 March 2016. Before filing both the Head of the CFR and the Committee were informed.  SAPS had replied that the application would be opposed. On 3 May the State Attorney requested extension of time and suggested discussions to attempt to find “common ground”. SA Hunters is completely prepared to enter into discussion with SAPS with the objective to address the problems experienced and have changes made to the Act where required, thus avoiding court action.

The Firearms Appeal Board also identified similar systemic challenges within the CFR:     The failure to give refusal reasons for applications; long delays in submitting information; the IT system of CFR was outdated. It gave the example of where a person reported a lost firearm but after about a year the same firearm is reflected as being still licensed under that person’s name. It noted that there is no provision in the Act for undergoing mental health fitness checks prior to being issued with a competency certificate. There is no definition of what is self defence making it impossible to determine what factors to consider when considering an application in terms of this.

It made the following recommendations:
- The chairperson of the consideration committees for firearm applications should be legally qualified
- The presiding officers of unfitness enquiries must be properly trained on fair procedure for conducting enquiries
- Personnel who sit in consideration committees must be trained on administrative law and interpretation of statutes so they can give quality refusal reasons
- Appropriate records must be kept of unfitness enquiries
- The IT system of the CFR must be upgraded and updated regularly
- The CFR must invest in becoming a paperless institution to curb the loss of files
- The process looking at the review of the Act must be expedited
- CFR should appointing additional personnel to determine applications
- CFR should revise the turnaround time for finalising applications to factor the volumes of the applications.

Members were concerned about poor record keeping and asked when SAPS were going to move in to the new head office. Corruption was a major concern for members. They were concerned about CFR’s information technology (IT) system and how often it is updated or upgraded to curb corruption, as well as the filing system and how this can be changed to curb corruption. Members were dissatisfied that not all commanders within the firearms environment in SAPS had been vetted yet. Members suggested that the mental health of someone applying for a firearm licence or renewal should be confirmed.

The Chairperson was concerned about stakeholder engagement programme, as it was quite clear from the presentation from the SA Hunters Association that the head of the Central Firearms Registry (CFR) is not part of stakeholder engagements. He asked for the CFR to be included in these engagements and wanted a clear commitment from SAPS. He was also concerned about communication to the public and the different application processes that take place in different offices.

Meeting report

Central Firearms Registry progress report: April 2015 to March 2016
Major General Maropeng  Mamotheti, Head: Central Firearms Registry Turnaround, said the Central Firearm Registry (CFR) TurnAround Strategy was developed to address challenges impacting negatively on the performance of the CFR. Implementation is driven through the an action plan managed by the Divisional Commissioner: Visible Policing . Quarterly reports are provided to the Portfolio Committee on Police

She reported on the numbers for Competency Applications, Individual and Business Licences, Renewals for Individual and Business, Permits and Authorisations and the outstanding application numbers in the CFR and provinces over the past year. Performance enhancements included visiting 213 police stations and the setting up of an enquiry desk established in July 2015. On corporate governance, a policy to enable the vetting of members within the CFR is currently under development, scheduled for completion during 2016/17. CFR noted that 655 Designated Firearm Officers (DFOs) were workshopped on the Firearms Control Act, the Enhanced Firearm Registration System (EFRS) and anti-corruption sensitisation. CFR also discussed human resource capacity; immovable and movable resource facilities; information technology, communication and stakeholder engagement, and service delivery improvement initiatives.

There are a lot of challenges to the achievement of the 90 days turnaround time because of the lengthy process involved. Provincial, Cluster and Station Crime Combating Forms will monitor these applications. There will need to be a revision of the 90 days turnaround time.

Due to the challenge of a lack of standard application of the Act by provinces with renewals, a National Directive was issued to Provinces on the handling of renewal applications. There is insufficient capacity at station level so DFOs are unable to process applications timeously. Thus the National Management Forum will monitor the performance of Provinces. Interns have been enlisted for identified stations. System is very slow during normal working hours so SITA has been requested to investigate the cause of the problem and resolve this. On corruption within and outside the CFR, a CFR Security Plan has been developed and circulated for inputs. A project will be launched to identify DFOs with conflict of interest.

SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association
Mr Fred Camphor, Chairman of the SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association, mapped out a dismal history of poor performance by the Central Firearms Registry since the implementation of the Firearms Control Act in 2000 and the reasons the Hunters Association had brought court applications against the CFR. In June 2009, all firearm licences were to be cancelled and Hunters Association brought a court application to stop this.

One of the problems that the Hunters Association has experienced is that there is no reason or inappropriate reasons given such as: refused, lack of motivation, not convinced of need, no endorsement, no competency certificate, already own sufficient firearms.

Further problems concerned the renewal of licences that had lapsed. The Hunters Association started picking up differences between provinces and even between DFOs in the inconsistent ways in which licences were issued and renewed and they started speaking to the police about these differences. There were also delays in processing permits, problems about barrel replacements, pressure tests, and other technical matters where there was a lack of training. There was poor service delivery such as firearms sold were not removed from name of person; license cards were not printed or printed long after approval or the cards lost; the data provided on CFR website was completely outdated and contain the wrong information.

Due to these ongoing problems and lack of an avenue to address these, a founding affidavit was filed by the Hunters Association on 16 March 2016. Before this was served, Mr Camphor personally call the Head of the CFR and the Committee Content Advisor to inform them that the Hunters Association was bringing a court application. SAPS said the application will be opposed. On 3 May the State Attorney requested extension of time for response to end May and suggested discussions to attempt to find “common ground”. SA Hunters is completely prepared to enter into discussion with SAPS with the objective to address the problems experienced and have changes made to the Act where required, thus avoiding court action if possible.

Firearms Appeal Board presentation
Mr Patrick Mongwe, FAB Chairperson, said that 999 appeals were received during the months of January to April 2016. Of the received appeals 754 have been finalized.

Mr Mongwe identified these systemic challenges within CFR:
- The failure to give refusal reasons of applications
- The failure to submit requested information to the Board such as files to be considered for appeals application forms filled by applicants in applying for competency certificate and firearm license
- The failure to timeously forward to the Appeal Board appeals received from the public
- The reasons given for refusing applications appear in the majority of cases to be cut and paste and have no bearing to the substance of the application
- The IT system of CFR ought to be upgraded as in some instances it does not reflect the correct information about the firearms. An example of this is where a person has reported a lost firearm but after about a year the same firearm is reflected as being still licensed under that person’s name.

Despite the intention that the Act must curb the proliferation of firearms there are certain sections of the Act that works against this purpose:
- The purpose section of the Act only refers to curbing proliferation of illegally possessed firearms and not firearms in general
- There is no provision for undergoing mental health fitness checks prior to being issued with a competency certificate
-There is no definition of what is self defence making it impossible to determine what factors to consider when considering an application in terms of Section 13 (self defence)
-Section 14, Section 16, 16A and Section 17 allow individuals to possess restricted and prohibited firearms
-Section 16, 16A and 17 allow certain individuals to acquire an unlimited number of firearms.

He said the FAB made the following recommendations:
- The chairperson of the consideration committees for firearm applications should be legally qualified
- The presiding officers of unfitness enquiries must be properly trained on the fair procedure for conducting the enquiries
- Personnel who sit in consideration committees must be trained on administrative law and interpretation of statutes so they can give quality refusal reasons
- Appropriate records must be kept of unfitness enquiries
- The IT system of the CFR must be upgraded and updated regularly which in turn will limit the perceived the corruption within CFR
- The CFR must invest in becoming a paperless institution to curb the loss of files
- The process looking at the review of the Act must be expedited
- CFR should consider appointing additional personnel to determine applications
- CFR should revise the turnaround time for finalizing applications to ensure it factors the volumes of the applications.

Discussion
The Chairperson started the discussion by asking SAPS about their stakeholder engagement programme. SAPS had listed a lot on engagements in its CPR submission, but it was quite clear from the presentation from the SA Hunters Association that the head of the Central Firearms Registry is not part of those engagements. He asked for the CFR to be included in these engagements and wanted a clear commitment from SAPS on this. He realizes that there are a lot of complaints about a shortage of staff this last year, but the Committee wanted a commitment from SAPS that it would maintain regular and proper interaction with the CFR. The Committee needs to get a clear game plan from SAPS on how it is going to deal with stakeholder engagement effectively, as this is a very important issue. He asked about communication to the public.

A concern that he had noted was the public not renewing their licences because they are late in applying for their renewals. He had visited some of the Designated Firearms Officers (DFO) in one province and had raised the issue of members of the public applying for a renewal of their firearm licence 90 days before their firearm licence is due to expire. These DFOs had told him that some people are hesitant to apply for a renewal of their firearm licence because they are late in applying. This means that there is now an additional pool of illegal firearms in the country, and he wanted to know what the strategy of SAPS is to deal with that. He asked one of the DFOs what he would propose to curb this and the DFO said that there must be at least a situation where people can go forward with an application for a renewal or pay a fine, because currently people are hesitant to apply for a renewal if they are late in applying for it. The Chairperson said that if the 90 day notice period is not working it means that there must be an amendment to the Act. He asked for an indication from SAPS on what they were going to do on this matter.

The third issue related to head office and when SAPS is going to move into the new building. He said there is also the concern about staff levels. When the Committee visited the Free State there were only twelve staff members within the firearms department, when previously there were 45 staff members and there are also staff members that are not properly qualified. He asked for a status report on this.

Ms A Molebatsi (ANC) said that she is greatly disturbed when someone speaks about going to court before exhausting all of the other available avenues. South Africans are responsible citizens and should therefore discuss and negotiate before going to court. She said that Mr Camphor reminded her of Members of Parliament who talk of going to court every time they open their mouths. She asked if there was no way that the issues between SAPS and the Hunters Association could be resolved without having to resort to court.

Her second question was to SAPS about record keeping which has been problematic for quite some time. She asked if SAPS was considering other record keeping methods that would also help to curb corruption, such as paperless record keeping methods. She asked SAPS how often it upgrades or updates its information technology (IT) system in order to curb corruption.

Ms Molebatsi also about the possibility of banning SAPS’ use of R5s for public order policing.

Mr Z Mbhele (DA) commented about the understaffing, which are both quantitative and qualitative. He asked Lt Gen Masemola to explain what it means when SAPS speaks of “monitoring performance at the stations on the circulation of stolen and lost firearms” as he was not sure what this meant.

He asked who at the provincial level is ultimately responsible and accountable for managing and supervising the processes around the firearms environment, and what happens to them in those provinces where there are cases of very poor performance.

He asked if certain functions within the applications and renewals process could be decentralized. He asked about the difference between approved and finalised applications.

Mr A Shaik Emam (NFP) said he wished to reiterate the point he had previously made, that as long as there are guns in the country, our people will continue dying mercilessly as most guns are freely available. He asked why, in 2016, there would be almost 600 000 new applications for firearms. He said that this is really very frightening.

Some of the challenges that the Committee has noted about firearm outlets that sell them was there were instances where gun dealers were selling guns to other countries, to gangs and drug dealers. A country could have the best possible system for controlling gun use, but the moment there are guns available in a country, there are problems. He is however aware that there are challenges being addressed by SAPS regarding gun control, perhaps not sufficiently. However, a lot of the problems created by the availability of guns are not going to disappear even if these challenges are addressed. He said that when a person hears the word ‘gun’, there is immediately a sense of fear. To emphasise this point he gave the example of residents in areas like Bonteheuwel in Cape Town, who say that they do not go out after dark because they will be shot.

Response from SAPS
Lt General Fanie Masemola, Deputy National Commissioner: Policing, said that after listening to what has been said he felt that it was necessary to acknowledge that the firearms environment is a challenging environment, and that SAPS at the end of the day, find themselves in a position in which they have to create a balance between people who want guns and lowering the levels of gun related crime. He said that there seems to be some gaps in certain areas of legislation on gun control and gun ownership and that there are certain challenges within the environment.

Regarding the IT system of the Firearms Central Registry, there is currently a manual record keeping system which includes a paper trail of applications, and a computer system, but at the rate at which the paper is coming in, SAPS will end up having no space for more applications within the manual system. Currently SAPS has to create space to keep this paper. Going forward it needs to look at instituting an information technology (IT) system that allows for registration and applications to be done on computer. He commented that the current firearms registration system is not at the stage where SAPS would like it to be, although it has been upgraded. Ultimately SAPS would like to have a paperless application system.

With regard to the safety of the current building, files have been moved to containers to alleviate the weight on the upper floors, which renders the building much safer.

On the staffing of personnel at police stations, he said that it is going to be a case of ‘borrowing from Peter to pay Paul’ because staff are currently being taken from some divisions within the police to make up for the shortfall of staff in other divisions.

On the record keeping raised by Ms Molebatsi, a big issue was the lack of space, but now that containers have been procured for storage of files, this problem will be alleviated.

On Ms Molebatsi’s question about R5s, he was not sure what the context was of her question and whether she meant the banning of R5s within SAPS. This is something that SAPS can discuss amongst itself. One of the reasons SAPS needs to have R5s is that SAPS needs to have firearms that have the same capacity as those that criminals might have. SAPS has decided that it does not need R5s in the area of crowd management and in normal day to day policing. The challenge is that when there is a need for the capacity of R5s, then the police need to be able to use these. If the use of R5s by the police is prohibited, but the army still uses them, then if those firearms are lost by the army and land up in the hands of criminals, the police are not going to be able to combat these criminals as they will lack the necessary firepower.

He explained to Mr Mbele that every firearm that is lost or stolen needs to be reported so that it can be accounted for in the system.

Major General Mamotheti replied that the finalised approvals refer to the approved and reviewed applications. With regard to the decentralization of some of the functions, she said that a problem is created here with regard to the competency certificates, because before one can finalise a competency certificate, one has to submit fingerprints to the criminal record centre for a background check on the applicant and SAPS needs to get approval from the criminal records centre before it can continue with the competency certificate. She said that SAPS is looking into the possibility of decentralizing some of the functions, but it realizes that before these functions can be decentralized, there needs to be need to sufficient capacity at the provincial level to cater for these functions. Currently, provinces do not even have the capacity to carry out the functions that they already need to carry out, without even considering if they can carry out other functions. A task team is currently researching the possibility of decentralizing certain functions and which ones can be decentralized.

Lt General Masemola said that Brigadier Mabule would talk about the Free State because he was busy with the intervention there.

Brigadier Lucky Mabule, Section Head: Central Firearms Registry, said that before he answered the questions raised by members he wanted to refer to something that Mr Camphor had said earlier on in his presentation about the concurrent submission of applications and competency certificates and he wanted to explain exactly what is happening in that regard. Mr Camphor was referring to two different forms for application, form SAPS 571 and form SAPS 271. Form SAPS 271 is an application for a licence, not for a renewal, and form SAPS 571 is an application for an original competency certificate, not a renewal. He said that SAPS is quite aware of Section 10A of the Firearms Control Act that speaks to the double submission of both the competency certificate and the renewal or application.

The Chairperson asked about the different processes that were followed in different provinces regarding late applications. Committee members had heard that different practices were being followed in different provinces and he asked if what they had heard was in fact true. If this is true he wanted to know what SAPS are doing to ensure that there is uniformity in these practices throughout the country because it cannot be the case that in one province a late application is processed whereas in another province someone who is late in applying has to hand in their guns. Do SAPS even have storage facilities at the various police stations to store those firearms safely? He wanted to know from a practical point of view how this was happening. Committee members were hearing these rumours ‘on the ground’ and he therefore wanted to know if the practices were being applied uniformly across provinces.

Brigadier Mabule replied that the reason these directives were issued in the first instance was because when meetings were held with stakeholders, stakeholders were complaining about this very fact, that provinces are not implementing the practices uniformly, particularly when it comes to renewals. SAPS therefore agreed to issue a circular to standardize all the practices within provinces. SAPS is drafting plans to create space for firearms coming into police stations.

The Chairperson asked when a communication would go out in this regard.

General Masemola replied that the storage capacity in the country is not sufficient to enable SAPS to carry all those firearms that people may want to leave with the police while their licence is being approved. This was discussed in the meeting that he had had with the Acting National Commissioner the previous week. A task team has been appointed that includes legal experts, which is looking into the issue of the directives issued, to see how SAPS can move forward. He therefore did not want to comment on this as he did not want to give the Committee information until the task team had gathered their findings. There will be communication within a week discussing how to go forward.

Ms Molebatsi asked if SAPS had increased the number of personnel in the Free State firearms environment because as far as she could see there were still only twelve staff members there.

The Chairperson said that he agreed with Ms Molebatsi and wanted to know what the current staff levels and the factual situation is in the Free State now.

Brigadier Mabule replied that in the Free State, SAPS is conducting training of DFOs, and from the statistics that it has, in the Free State there are currently 149 trained DFOs. These DFOs perform functions at station level as well as at provincial level. He said that there are twelve staff members in the Free State.

The Chairperson said that this is not acceptable and that there must be movement within this environment or else the backlogs that SAPS had discussed in their presentation were simply going to get worse. However the Committee is hopeful that things will happen in this environment and that there will be positive movement, because the Free State had already highlighted staffing level concerns last year. It is unacceptable that this is still such a huge problem now. The Committee cannot in this instance wait and wait and see no movement.

Major General Mamotheti said that she had specifically instructed the Deputy Provincial Commissioner (DPC) of the Free State to identify, by the end of this month, people who can be used to increase staff levels within the firearms environment in the Free State, to add to the twelve staff members that they currently have. These people will be trained if they have not already been trained.

Ms Molebatsi asked if the Committee could get a written response by the end of the month, regarding what SAPS had just said.

The Chairperson asked what other provinces are of concern to SAPS in this regard.

Major General Mamotheti replkied that there are other provinces that are having similar problems; one of them is the Western Cape which is receiving a lot of applications.

Brigadier Mabule said that there are two database systems but they are being integrated.

A representative from the Firearms Appeal Board said that members had not asked them any direct questions in the first round of questions and they therefore were not going to comment at this stage.

Mr Camphor replied to Ms Molebatsi’s comment about the Hunters Association just wanting to go to court, his response was twofold. Firstly, he said that in the conclusion of his presentation he had said that the Hunters Association wanted to avoid going to court if possible, as going to court costs the association money that it has to pay for out of its own pocket. The Hunters Association had indicated in writing via its lawyers that if there are proposals from SAPS that the Hunters Association is completely prepared to discuss but as yet nothing has happened. Secondly, he needed to be honest and say that the Hunters Association has been talking to the police about the implementation of the Firearms Control Act, since 2004, and he had personally been involved since 2008 on some of the problems indicated in his presentation. The Hunters Association had specifically had dealings and discussions with the police on applications and renewals since 2011 but the police have done nothing about the problems that the Hunters Association is experiencing. Eventually one gets to a point where one loses their patience and thinks, “talking does not help so let’s approach the court and see if we can get a conclusion to these matters”. If talking does not help, the Hunters Association felt that it was justified in approaching the courts.

On the question by Mr Shaik Emam about the rationale for having more than one firearm: specific firearms are used for specific purposes. If you have a single rifle it limits you to hunting particular kinds of game. There are also different firearms that are needed for different disciplines within sport shooting.

Mr Shaik Emam said that given the serious challenge of controlling firearms in the country, would it not be prudent, in terms of hunting and sport shooting, to only allow certain organisations to have gun licences, and individuals can then hire guns from those organisations and use them within a controlled environment.

Mr Camphor replied that there are challenges with going that route as well. What would happen if the country were to go that route is that it would concentrate firearms in a small number of localities, which would be much more desirable to the criminals, as they would then only have to break into one place to get 40 or 50 firearms at a time. So there are some risks to going that route and he suggested that one would have to consider these risks very carefully.

In addition to this, the disciplines of sports shooting and hunting has become so sophisticated that if one were to say that multiple people have to use one firearm, it is going to become extremely difficult for these disciplines to uphold their standards, and the risk of bad shooting is just going to become worse. By way of example he said that just the way in which one holds a rifle when one shoots may have the effect that the impact of that bullet might shift by something like three inches over 100 meters. So even if one person and another person were to use exactly the same rifle and the same ammunition, when the one person shoots with it and the other person shoots with it, they would both get a perfect group at 100 meters, but that group would vary by as much as three inches which means that those two people do not necessarily shoot at the same point of impact. He said that this could be proved very easily.

The last matter he wanted to indicate is that the moment one starts looking at competing in shooting internationally it is going to become extremely difficult to have people use firearms licenced to particular organisations. Whether one goes to compete in the UK or Australia or America, they would now have to use someone else’s firearm, a firearm that is licenced to an organisation to go and participate, which is going to become extremely difficult for the competitors.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee could get an update on the vetting of key staff in the CFR. He wanted to know if all of the staff have been vetted, and if not, could the Committee get an update on the numbers and the key positions that have been vetted. He also wanted an update on the Waymark firearms control system contract.

Mr Mbhele asked what happens when it is found that a firearm that was lost or stolen was not reported and/or the information circulated. He wanted to know if there is culpability in such cases. He asked if SAPS have any recent figures on the number of lost or stolen firearms that had not been reported because the Committee is aware that part of the problem is legal firearms entering the illegal pool, and it does not help if the compliance mechanisms that should be adhered to do not happen. So he asked who is held accountable when a lost or stolen firearm is not circulated.

Regarding staffing shortages, he noted the point around the intake of interns, if only on the administration side of things, but he asked if it would also help to get more police reservists on board, because they would have had some experience in the policing environment, to assist with administration on firearm applications and renewals.

Ms Molebatsi said that one of the Farlam Commission’s recommendations was for additional training in basic first aid skills for SAPS members, to deal with gunshot wounds. She asked what the progress is in this regard.

She asked about the reasons for refusing applications, do they vary from applicant to applicant, and could she get confirmation that there is no ‘cut and paste’ in this regard.

She asked how inherited firearms should be dealt with.

Mr J Maake (ANC) commented that SAPS and the Firearms Appeal Board (FAB) do not communicate with each other because when the FAB presented it sounded to Mr Maake that the FAB was blaming SAPS for various challenges. He understands that their relationship is set out according to the Firearms Control Act but he thinks that it is necessary for them to communicate. They both deal with the same work and the FAB has the legal background that might be required by SAPS as well. He therefore proposed that the FAB have standing meetings with SAPS and that the FAB could determine the frequency of those meetings, to explain to SAPS how they are actually making the work of the FAB very difficult, because simply blaming them is not going to help anybody.

He asked what the purpose is of having members of the public hand firearms in when their applications are late. He asked if these firearms would be destroyed or kept until the individual has been able to get their renewal sorted out.

Mr Shaik Emam said that there are allegations that committee members had heard that the Firearms Appeal Board is just there to rubber stamp the decisions of SAPS and that it lacks independence. He asked the FAB to elaborate on these allegations.

He said that SAPS had discussed the challenges in trying to reduce gun ownership, but what he asked is what the Committee can do in terms of amending legislation to make this easier for SAPS. He also asked for an elaboration of the conflict of interest as it relates to DFOs.

He also asked why the CFR has not responded to the requests by the Hunters Association.

The Chairperson said that the website should be updated about information the public needs to apply for a firearm licence or renewal, and at police stations, a booklet should be made available to members of the public detailing the necessary information to make the process more user friendly for the public. This would also help to make members of the public more sympathetic to the process and why it takes so long as they are not always aware of all the steps that need to be taken. This would also make it easier for the DFOs who currently have to explain all this information to the public when they come in to submit applications. He also thinks that the forms are outdated. There needs to be innovations and improvement in service delivery and outreach to the public.

Responses
Lt General Masemola replied about the vetting of staff, saying the current position is that SAPS has started vetting from the top leadership going downwards. Currently it is at the level of brigadiers. Not all commanders in the firearms environment have been vetted yet.

On Mr Mbhele’s question on what happens when somebody’s firearm is recovered by the police and it was not reported stolen or missing by the owner, a case is registered against the owner for failure to report the stolen firearm and there are quite a number of charges made against a person in that regard. At the end of the day, after the case has been concluded, the person will then lose his or her licence to possess a firearm. Those are steps that are being taken.

There was also a question about the use of reservists within the environment of the DFOs. The firearms environment is a very sensitive one, and SAPS in fact does not want even to use interns within that environment because they are susceptible to corruption. It is only full time employed staff that are used within that environment to reduce the risk of corruption.

He said that the training does include a first aid course but he did not have the numbers with him to comment on how many people have undergone the training and therefore asked to defer his answer to this question to the next meeting when he would have had a chance to obtain this information from the Operational Response Services.

On Mr Maake’s comment about the relationship between the FAB and the CFR, he said that they do meet but last week was the first time that they had met at a management level since he had been in his post. In that meeting there were eight Deputy National Commissioners and they all agreed it necessary to meet continually at such a level.

With regard to what the Committee can do to assist in the firearms’ environment, there are quite a number of gaps in the legislation and these needed to be amended.

Major General Mamotheti said that a question had been asked about DFOs colluding with criminals and she said that, indeed, they had found some cases in which this had happened.

Mr Shaik Emam asked about collusion between the DFOs and firearm institutions.

Major General Mamotheti said that the reasons given for firearm applications and renewals being refused are decided on a case by case basis. SAPS had identified a gap in this regard in which sometimes a ‘copy and paste’ refusal reason was given that was not actually supposed to appear on a specific application. Within the firearms environment there are functions that have to be performed and performed correctly, and over and above the lack of sufficient staff there is also a lack of training.

Brigadier Mabule replied to the question about the forms SAPS 271 and SAPS 571, in an application for a firearm, a renewal or new application and the competency certificate both start accumulating days within the 90 day window. So even though the competency certificate needs to be dealt with before the application or renewal, if both of these are submitted on the same day, the turnaround time SAPS has to comply with is still 90 days.

A Firearms Appeal Board representative responded to a question asked by Mr Mbhele about whether more new applications are appealed than renewals. He replied that indeed Mr Mbhele’s analysis is correct, appeals for new applications exceed appeals for renewals. The reason for this is that the number and type of applications that the CFR receives influences the work of the appeals board, and there are many new applications that are flooding the CFR and being considered by the CFR, compared to renewals.

Mr Maake said that it appeared that the Firearms Appeal Board and the CFR are not talking to each other. He suggested that in order to try and streamline the necessary work, SAPS and the CFR should advise each other when there is a need to do so, in order to correct some of the challenges that had been discussed in the meeting. However, he said that he is also quick to indicate that what he had said in this regard contradicts what Mr Shaik Emam said about the FAB simply rubber stamping the decisions of the CFR. If the FAB is simply rubber stamping the CFR decisions then there would be no need for the two to have regular engagements. Members could also see from the presentation given that the FAB is an independent body and has never received a call from any SAPS General asking them to approve or refuse a particular application. The FAB is a fully independent body and in line with the Firearms Control Act, it reports to the Minister.

Mr Maake asked if it would be the responsibility of the police or the individual to confirm that they are mentally fit to own and possess a firearm.

Major General Mamotheti said that a task team was investigating what should be done with weapons handed in by individuals whose applications for renewal of their licences were late.

The Chairperson asked SAPS to also respond to the question that was asked about mental health.

Lt General Masemola said that the suggestion made by Mr Maake is one that can be explored to determine how it can best be implemented. He said that what could happen is that the process could be similar to the one that is followed when an individual applies for a disability grant. The procedure there is that an official statement is given by a doctor, under oath, who has examined a particular individual, to say that he or she has indeed examined the individual and has diagnosed that they need to be put on early pension due to a particular sickness or injury. So there is a particular form that is used in such an instance. A similar kind of process could be followed with regard to the mental health of individuals applying or renewing their firearm licences, to confirm that they are capable of owning and using a firearm.

Major General Mamotheti said that most of Mr Camphor’s requests had or were being dealt with. Most of them were about the reprinting of the cards, and some of SAPS’s printers were sometimes not working, but SAPS is in the process of addressing that challenge.

On the question asked by Ms Molebatsi about inherited firearms, Mr Camphor said that he presumed that she was referring to firearms that are still in estate. This is a problem as the executor of an estate is required to keep firearms in a safe place until an estate has been finalised and this could take many years.

Ms Molebatsi said that regarding record keeping and the two record keeping systems, SAPS has said that it will be integrated soon, but ‘soon’ is not enough, as the Committee have been hearing that this will happen ‘soon’ for the past five years.

The comment was made that on the Gumtree website, a whole lot of people are advertising their firearms, and one wondered how firearms could be so easily available.

Brigadier Mabule said that the reason why there are two database systems is because in some instances the ‘old green licences’ are still valid. Some requests can only be done in the old registration system as the new system is not designed in such a way that it is be able to cater for the ‘old green licences’.

Major General Mamotheti said that SAPS has identified a gap with regard to printing and has done a study for the purpose of sourcing the printing of the licences. The study is at a final stage where SAPS is actually benchmarking practices and it will be Government Printers that will be assisting us with the printing. In the meantime, until the new printers are used, SAPS will still be using the same printers. She mentioned a case in which a woman had been caught trying to sell an AK47 on the internet and this was being investigated. SAPS was also investigating whether there are a lot of such adverts on the internet.

The Chairperson thanked the presenters and Committee members and adjourned the meeting.

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: