Firearms Control Amendment Bill deliberations; Prohibition of Mercenary Activities & Regulation of Certain Activities in Country
NCOP Security and Justice
01 November 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT
COMMITTEE
1 November 2006
FIREARMS CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL DELIBERATIONS; PROHIBITION OF MERCENARY
ACTIVITIES AND REGULATION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES IN COUNTRY OF ARMED CONFLICT
BILL ADOPTION
Chairperson: Kgoshi L Mokoena
Documents handed out:
Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities
in Country of Armed Conflict Bill [B42B-2005]
Firearms
Control Amendment Bill [B12-2006]
Firearms Control
Amendment Bill Presentation on Public Input
SUMMARY
The Department of Defence and the South African Police
Service briefed the Committee on the Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and
Regulation of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict Bill and the
Firearms Control Amendment Bill. The Committee, after addressing some of the
outstanding issues related to it, adopted the Prohibition of Mercenary
Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict
Bill. The DA did not support the Bill, and FF+, although supporting the motion
of desirability, did not support the amendments proposed.
The South African Police Service took the Committee through some of the
comments and suggestions that had been made during the public hearings on the
Firearms Amendment Bill. They detailed in particular the provisions relating to
muzzle loaders, the concerns over defunct security companies, the new
definitions, the protection where applicants for licences were subject to
orders under the Domestic Violence Act, and the distinction between audits and
relicensing procedures proposed. Members of the Committee were particularly
anxious about the requirements of the competency certificate and the long time
it took to finalise applications for new licences as well as for renewals,
which might cause people to opt rather for illegal obtaining of firearms.
Questions were raised on firearm-free and gun-free zones, the number of
outstanding licence applications, inherited firearms, and imitation firearms.
The requirements for competency certificates, the training process, and the
procedure to obtain a licence were clarified and the Department assured members
that provided there were no delays, the application process could take as
little as six months. The Bill would be debated finally on 15 November and the
Members agreed to formally adopt it during their forthcoming visit to the Free
State. The DA indicated that it would not be supporting the Bill, and the FF+
indicated that although they supported the certificate of competency, they did
not support other provisions of the Bill.
The Committee discussed the forthcoming provincial visits, and would try to set
them for the week of 20 November.
MINUTES
Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities in
Country of Armed Conflict Bill: Adoption
The Chairperson noted that at the last meeting on the Bill the Freedom
Front Plus and the Democratic Alliance had indicated that they would return to
their parties to caucus. He opened the floor for comments and proposals for
amendments.
Mr J Le Roux (DA Eastern Cape)) said that unfortunately the DA did not have a
mandate to support the Bill due to the fact that people who had lost their jobs
and livelihoods would now have difficulty or perhaps find it impossible to sell
their skills in armies across the world. He added that obviously the DA did not
support mercenary activity and would assist to stop such activities. It was
unfortunate that the proposed legislation would impact negatively on the
livelihoods of some South Africans.
The Chairperson said that although there were differences in opinion the DA’s
view would be respected.
Dr F van Heerden (FFP Free State) said that at the last meeting he had agreed
to the motion of desirability because like the DA his party too were against
mercenary activity. His party’s amendment related to Clause 4, which proposed
the prohibition and regulation of enlistment of South Africans in armed forces
through a process of authorisation. Freedom Front Plus felt that a process of
registration was preferable to one of authorisation. They felt that this
proposed amendment was viable. He gathered from the last deliberations on this
point that this amendment and the consequent amendments were not acceptable. He
explained that FF+ did not agree with the principle that authorisation was
needed to perform an occupation. They
based their objections on the Constitutional provision regarding the freedom to
follow a particular occupation. They proposed a registration process similar to
the one that applied to lawyers, accountants, engineers, and other professions.
The FFP although they supported the motion of desirability, would vote against
the proposed legislation.
The Chairperson said that this view would also be respected. He asked whether
the members from the ANC had any comments.
Mr S Shiceka (ANC Gauteng) said that the ANC supported the Bill because it
advanced South Africa’s foreign policy and would ensure that South Africa spoke
with “moral high ground” in multi- as well as bilateral forums. He said that
this was particularly important now that South Africa had been elected as a non-permanent
member of the United Nations’ Security Council. The ANC believed that the
legislation would also assist in mitigating against
situations whereby South Africans would stand on different sides, killing and
maiming each other, in the pursuit of money. He added that the ANC had raised
one particular concern related to the possibility of improving the confiscation
of the proceeds of mercenary activities.
Mr A Moseki (ANC-North West) said that Mr Shiceka had adequately covered the
ANC’s position. The party’s view on the legislation was very clear. South
Africa was a developing democracy and needed to make a contribution to ensure
that peace prevailed not at home but on the entire continent, and the world.
The ANC felt that the concerns raised by the other parties were adequately
provided for in the proposed legislation.
The Chairperson requested Mr Siviwe Njikela, Legal Drafter, Legal Services,
Department of Defence (DOD:) to speak to the concerns
raised.
Mr Njikela said there was no reason why the money, or proceeds, accrued through
mercenary activity could not be confiscated within the context of the
Prevention of Organized Crime Act (1998). The State Law Advisors also agreed
that the definition contained within the proposed legislation was broad enough
to cover all proceeds including money. She was meant to give a definitive
opinion that day but unfortunately she had a previous commitment. He requested
Assistant Commissioner Jacobs, who had been part of the Departmental task team
that was involved in the drafting of the legislation to give his
interpretation.
Dr Philip Jacobs, Assistant Commissioner: Chief Manager of Legal Division,
South African Police Services, agreed that the aspect of forfeiture of assets
and the issue of gains from criminality were addressed in the Prevention of
Organised Crime Act. He imagined that in most, if not all, cases the
recruitment of any persons to participate in mercenary activities would fall
within the definition of an organised criminal activity. It was an illegal
action and the gains made from it were therefore illegal proceeds. People were
being paid very large amounts to become mercenaries. He believed that the asset
forfeiture provisions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act should be
applicable in this case.
The Chairperson requested clarity on the difference between authorisation and
registration.
Mr Njikela said that Dr van Heerden had suggested that Clause 4(1) be amended
to provide for registration rather than authorisation. The Member felt that
soldiers should only be required to register and thereafter be free to take
part in any activity in any country. Mr Njikela had then responded that the
proposed legislation tried to ensure that for each and event mission rendered
in a country of armed conflict or a regulated country the circumstances in that
country should be assessed at that particular time. If one merely provided for
a registration system South Africa would not be able to account for its own
people because one would not know where they were rendering a particular
services or even what kind of services they were rendering. The current wording
gave the DOD the leverage needed to assess each service in respect of the
country in which it would be rendered. Registration would mean that there was
very little control over the activities South African soldiers were involved
in. He felt that Dr van Heerden’s proposal would seriously weaken what the DOD
was trying to achieve through the legislation as the DOD would then still have
no control over the kind of services people were rendering or the countries in
which they were operating.
Dr van Heerden said that he would not reopen the whole debate. His view was
different from one held by Mr Njikela and he did not predict that they would
see eye to eye in the matter.
The Chairperson recalled that that a number of South Africans who had been on
their way to Equatorial Guinea were arrested and detained ion Zimbabwe on
charges of mercenary activity. That incident had taught South Africa a lesson.
Some of the people who had been arrested had embarked on the journey innocently
in the hope of getting a job. When they found themselves in prison South Africa
did not know what to do as it had no idea of where the men were headed or what
they were going to do there. If the men had been authorized South Africa could
have done more to facilitate their release.
The Chairperson felt that Clause 15 allowed for 6 months in which people could
ensure that they fulfilled the requirements of the new legislation. This
provision should address fears that people might lose their jobs. People
involved in humanitarian activity could apply for an exemption.
The Chairperson said that he respected the views expressed by opposition
parties. The Bill might be debated in the Free State. The Chairperson thanked
the Department for taking time to go through the Bill with the Committee and
hoped that the coming debate would reflect what had been discussed in the
Committee.
On a vote, The African National Congress Members unanimously supported Bill
while the DA and the FFP members rejected it. Those supporting the Bill had a
majority vote.
Firearms Control Amendment Bill
The Chairperson reminded the Committee that Members had at a previous meeting
requested Dr Jacobs to give them a glimpse of what stakeholders had said during
the public hearings. The Committee would then consider whether they could
accommodate stakeholder inputs or not.
He said that he had read something in the PMG minutes of 18 October 2006, which
he feared could be misunderstood due to the way it had been captured. He was
not sure whether the minute was a true reflection of what Dr Jacobs had said in
that meeting.
Dr Jacobs explained that when answering a question related to whether the
proposed legislation disarmed people, he had responded that during the initial
drafting of the Act the British example had been considered as an option, but
that Parliament had opted for responsible firearms ownership instead. He did
not believe he had said that “disarmament” was necessary in South Africa, but
had instead tried to point out that one of the objects of the Bill was to
reduce the number of firearms within the country. He had also pointed out that
it often happened that legal firearms became illegal through theft.
He said that he had already raised the issue with the PMG, who had undertaken
to rectify their records. He realised that the PMG minutes were not the
official records of the Committee, but felt that since the minutes were
available to the public the misperception needed to be corrected.
The Chairperson said that PMG was the Committee’s friend and that the situation
would be simple enough to rectify.
Firearms Control Amendment Bill Presentation
Director Jaco Bothma, Head of the Central Firearms Registry (CFR) accompanied the
Assistant Commissioner, Dr Philip Jacobs. Dr Jacobs explained that the
presentation would focus on those points that were representative of the 160
submissions made to the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security. The
submissions were very much based on the initial draft of the Bill and some of
the concerns had already been addressed in subsequent amendments to the initial
draft.
The presentation highlighted the major concerns that arose from the public
hearings. Some submissions had asked for an audit and others for an audit with
a competency test. The drafters felt that an audit would be couter-productive
and disruptive. It was therefore proposed that relicensing be retained. An existing firearms would be relicensed subject to the
requirements of the Act.
The proposal that “silencers” be included in Section 94 of the Act was agreed
to.
The suggestion that primers not be regarded as ammunition was not supported, as
they had already been so included in a repealed Act.
The definitions of “dispossession”, “calibre”, the new category of professional
hunters, and “muzzle loaders” were outlined and explained.
The suggestion of provisional licences had been dealt with through a provision
that approval could be given but the final license issued only once certain
conditions had been met.
The renewal of competency provisions were outlined.
Brokerage was covered in the National Conventional Arms Control Act.
The suggestions on age limits were not necessary to follow because the firearm
loaned out would remain the responsibility of, and must be used under the
immediate supervision of the owner.
SAPS acknowledged that there was a problem with the issuing of certificates by
the sector training authority (SASSETA) and that this would be taken up with
the SETA and the Department of Labour.
The principle relating to admission of guilt fines not automatically acting as
a disqualifier for fitness to hold a firearm licence had been confirmed in a
recent court decision. Section 103 of the principal Act should therefore
remain.
The presenters discussed the perception that all exports be channelled through
the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NACC). They also clarified
that there was no problem in the storage of firearms by a licensed dealer, nor in the testing of firearms by a dealer or at an
accredited range. In addition the proposals in relation to household firearms,
where spouses held licences in respect of the same firearm, were already
adequately dealt with.
Extensive discussion had been held on muzzle loaders, but SAPS had decided that
there was not sufficient merit in suggesting that muzzle loaders should fall
under other competency certificates. The presenters also discussed the new
provisions in relation to collectors and indicated that the regulations would
be drafted in consultation with collectors. Imitation weapons were already
covered under the Dangerous Weapons Act but it was also proposed that
amendments be made to the provisions of the Firearms Control Act
A new Section 6(4) was to be inserted into the Act to cater for situations
where the applicant was the subject of a temporary protection order under the
Domestic Violence Act and the provisions were discussed.
The presenters detailed the position of security companies who ceased to exist,
as this had also been of some concern.
Discussion
The Chairperson recalled that during the last meeting Mr Daryl Worth had asked
how the South African Police Service (SAPS) would improve the tedious
relicensing process.
Mr Bothma explained in many cases all information except an applicant’s
initials, surname and ID number had changed. Recapturing all the new
information made the initial relicensing such a tedious process. Subsequent
renewals would be much quicker. The Department had in the meantime established
what the shortcomings of the process were. A person would now be able to apply
for a competency certificate through any accredited service provider and would
not necessarily have to wait for long periods on Safety and Security Sector
Education and Training Authority (SASSETA) certificates. This process should
take no longer than four to six months.
Applicants needed two colour passport photos and the Department would use
digital cameras in cases where people had neglected to bring their photos. It
was also looking at how it could shorten the fingerprint process. Although
decisions on competency were taken at the central firearm registry, renewals
could now be granted at provincial level and it was up to provincial
commissioners’ to fast track the process. Mr Bothma reiterated that the next
renewal should proceed faster because the Department would have all the
accurate information. The legislation required that any changes in firearm
owners’ details should be reported within a 14 hour period of those changes
coming into effect.
The Chairperson said that he had been told that it was necessary to do the
renewal in the month in which a person had been born. He was concerned about
those people who urgently needed renewals and could not necessarily wait until
their turn came.
Dir Bothma explained that the entire implementation and transitional
arrangements would be phased in over a period of five years. Within the first
four years people would be required to apply for the renewal of their firearms.
In the first phase, which had lasted from 1 January 2005 until 31March 2006,
everyone with a date of birth between 1 January and 31 March had to apply for
renewal. The current phase would last up until the 31 March 2007 and required
those whose birth dates fell between 1 April and 30 June to apply for the
renewal of the licenses. This routine would continue until 31 March 2009. It
was important to bear in mind that the legislation guaranteed the right at any
time to apply for renewal or competency certificates irrespective of date of
birth. In exceptional circumstances a person could apply after the period had
expired. The SAPS would be obliged to consider that application. If, however. a person failed to apply through negligence that would
constitute an offence.
Mr Shiceka agreed with the sentiments raised by Mr Ntuli at a previous meeting.
He supported the drive towards a gun free society. He felt that in order to
achieve this, a phased approach should be used. Certain buildings and areas
should first be declared gun free zones.
Dir Bothma explained that there had been a number of calls for firearm free
zones. The SAPS was in discussion with a number of departments so that some
buildings could be declared firearm free zones. He pointed out that a gun free
zone could be declared by anyone but a firearm free zone could only be declared
by the Minister. There were a number of requirements that the Department, as
well as the owner of the prospective firearm free zone, had to comply with
before the Minister could make such a declaration in the Government Gazette. He
was hopeful that the first firearm free zone would still be declared in 2006.
Mr Shiceka had been informed that the process to receive a certificate could
take five to six months. A competency certificate took 12 months. This meant
that one could apply for a weapon only after 18 months. He wondered if the
process could not be shortened through a one stop shop.
Mr N Mack (ANC – Western Cape) sought more information on what the competency
requirements were. Such information would enable him to give his constituency
accurate information whether they would qualify for a license or not. He said
that he had a firearm and that due to the disability he had in his hands the
process had been difficult for him. A disabled person was perhaps in greater
need of a firearm than an able bodied person. He concurred that 18 months was
too long a period to wait on a license.
Dir Bothma said that the legislation stated very clearly that before a person
could apply for a new firearm license he or she had to apply for a competency
certificate. The SAPS, in November 2005, with the approval of the Minister, had
decided that one could apply for the license and the competency certificate
concurrently. The competency certificate would be considered first and
thereafter the license. All of this had been done in an attempt to fast track
the process.
Dir Bothma said that the SAPS did not discriminate against disabled persons.
The legislation said that as long as a person could prove that he or she could
handle a firearm and that they had undergone the necessary training their
application could not be declined.
He added that if a person applied for the renewal of a license he or she
already possessed a firearm and a ‘green card’ in terms of the Firearms and
Ammunition Act. To qualify for a competency certificate a person needed to
undergo the necessary training, after which they had to go to the nearest
designated firearm officer, provide two passport photos and an ID document. The
competency certificate cost R70.00. For a renewal, safe inspections were also
performed. Once the SAP517 form had been completed, the CFR did a background
check and then the documentation was submitted. The process could be quite
simple, provided there were no shortcomings such as the ones he had mentioned
right at the beginning.
Dr Jacobs said that the transitional provisions of the Act also provided that a
person who was a license holder under the repealed Act need not undergo the
training in respect of the firearm he had already been issued. He only needed
training in respect of the legal issues, being the the provisions of the new
Act and the circumstances under which one was allowed to use the firearm. This
concession was built into the act to make it easier for existing firearm owners
to renew the licenses.
Mr Shiceka had also heard that there were many outstanding licenses and appeals
in terms of the old Act. He wondered whether this was a result of the Firearms
Registry being understaffed or ill equipped and still using old technology. He
said that when citizens approached Government to request a particular service,
that service had to be provided speedily.
Dir Bothma responded that his office was not under equipped. 85% of the people
working at the CFR were not functional police officers. It was only at those
stations where there were functional police officers that certain additional
services were also rendered and people could be issued with firearms.
He explained that the appeal board worked very hard to address appeals. It was
important to bear in mind that two processes were being run concurrently - one
in terms of the new Act and the other in terms of the old one. Quite a number
of appeals had been dealt with and finalised.
The Chairperson said that people were also complaining that while SAPS
officials were well armed, citizens were being unnecessarily delayed when they
tried to acquire firearms so that they too could be protected.
Mr Worth said that the DA’s position was that the Firearms Control Act was
dysfunctional and could not work. The Firearms Amendment Bill basically
represented a tinkering only. The DA believed that in a perfect world there
would probably be no need for arms and that firearms
should be done away with completely. He said that if guns were prohibited South
Africans would probably find other ways of killing one another. Unfortunately
South African society was violent and crime was on the increase. The State had
held the view that there legal and illegal firearms.
He agreed that the process of acquiring a legal firearm should be onerous to
ensure that all safety measures were taken. The DA had, from the beginning,
advocated for an audit to determine how many legal firearms there were in the
country.
Dir Bothma explained that the processes currently followed for the renewal were
similar to the ones that would be followed in an audit.
Mr Worth said that according to his figures there were 2, 5 million legal
firearms in the country. The SAPS’ annual report for 2005/06 indicated that for
the period 1 January to 31 March 2005 (the first phase of registering the
firearms) 200 000 applications were received. This meant that slightly over 600
000 firearm would have to be registered from 1 January 2005 to 1 January 2008
to provide for all the legal firearms. He wondered how many of the 200 000
applications had actually been granted.
Dir Bothma assured Mr Worth that far less than 2,5
million people would renew their firearm license. If a firearm had been
reported lost or stolen one did not have to renew that license. Since 1948
hundreds of thousands of firearms had been reported lost and stolen.
Furthermore it was not necessary to renew the license for a muzzle loader, a
number one air gun or deactivated firearm. Firearms could also be sold to a
dealer or exported. Weapon holders had up until June 2009 to decide what they
wanted to do with their firearms. He felt that considering all the options open
to firearm owners the SAPS would not see anything close to 2,5
million applications for renewal.
Mr Worth said that one of the main arguments in the debate was that legal
firearms eventually became illegal firearms. This was usually through some
criminal activity. He said that Special Assignment had reported on how easily
accessible guns were in Soweto provided one had the money to pay for them. The
Auditor General, in the SAPS annual report, had stated that in the last
financial year over 2 000 firearms were stolen from the police. He also
mentioned that the police weapons were supposed to be audited twice a year but
that this was not being done. SAPS thus might also be contributing to the
spread of illegal firearms.
The Annual Report also indicated that during the amnesty period more legal than
illegal firearms were handed in. Obviously the intention of the Act was to
reduce the number of legal firearms, but he was concerned that no attempt was
being made to locate and confiscate illegal firearms. Most law-abiding South
African citizens who felt comfortable with owning a firearm were concerned
about the pressure placed on legal owners. If the process had been streamlined
and an audit had been done to establish exactly how many legal firearms there
were and to make it extremely difficult for people to register new firearms,
the SAPS could have concentrated on confiscating illegal firearms. The reverse
was happening. It was extremely difficult for firearms licenses to be renewed
yet illegal firearms abounded.
The Chairperson said that while he supported all Mr Worth had said he did not
agree that South Africans were living in a violent society in which crime was
on the increase.
Dir Bothma responded that long delays should be reported so that they could be
investigated. He said that over 70 000 competency certificates had already been
issued. There was a delay as far as the SASSETA training was concerned but the
SAPS expected that the process would proceed faster now.
He added that at the moment there were 100 new applications under the old Act
that had not been finalized because the applicants had criminal cases pending
against them. In the next week these 100 applications would be cancelled and
the applicants would be told to report back to the SAPS once their cases had
been finalised if they still wanted to continue with the process.
Dr van Heerden said that the FFP was also opposed to the original Act because
they felt that a person who had a license for a particular firearm, but failed
to comply with the re-registration period, would have to relinquish the
firearm. This amounted to a form of expropriation, albeit with some
compensation. For this reason the FFP, although in favour of the certificate of
competency, would definitely not support the Bill.
He added that if it was made difficult for a person to obtain a license and
thus obtain a firearm via the legal route, such a person might become
despondent and finally get a firearm through illegal means. He said that this
should also be taken into consideration.
Dr Jacobs said that there was a huge difference in being caught with a legal firearm
and being caught with an illegal one. People who opted to take the illegal
route should bear in mind what the consequences would be.
The Chairperson wondered what happened in cases where a disabled person applied
for a firearm but needed someone else to use it on their behalf.
Dr Jacobs felt that this question related to the circumstances taken into
consideration when a competency certificate was being issued.
Dir Bothma said that in addition to the primary firearm license holder applying
for a firearm license, a person staying on the firearm license holder’s
property could also apply for a competency certificate and an additional
license. Problems usually arose when one of the license holders moved from the
premises. In such cases the person had to go to the SAPS or to the designated
firearm officer to declare his status.
If someone decided to sell there were certain procedures that had to be
followed. If selling to a dealer the firearm had to immediately be placed on
the dealer’s stock. The dealer then had to forward a cancellation form to the
SAPS who would cancel the firearm from the applicant’s name and place it onto
the dealer’s name. If it was sold to another individual or a private business
the buyer had to apply for a firearm license.
If by the 30 June 2009 the firearm was still in the owner’s possession and no
renewal application had been made, the legislation was clear that the firearm
had to be handed over to the SAPS.
The Chairperson sought clarity on the statement that admission of guilt could
not be used as ground for a person to be declared unfit to possess a firearm,
yet if one had been accused of domestic violence one was considered unfit to
possess a firearm. He agreed that there were men who were violent and who
abused their partners. He also however knew of women who claimed that they had
been abused so that their partners could be locked away at weekends.
Dr Jacobs explained that under the current Act whenever a final protection
order was issued against a person he could be declared unfit to possess a
firearm. When a person was issued with an admission of guilt (normally for
minor offences) that person would not automatically be declared unfit.
Mr Le Roux sought clarity on the normal time frame in which renewal could be
finalised and the cost attached to it. He requested the same information
related to a new license.
Dir Bothma explained that a new firearm license cost R140.00. A person who
already had a competency certificate would only paid
for the license. A person who applied for a renewal paid R70.00 for the
competency certificate, and a further R70.00 for each renewal. If a person
applied for the competency certificate and the license or the renewal
simultaneously the process was shorter. Separate applications could take up to
18 months. The SAPS also had to do a background evaluation and safe inspection
which relied on the applicant’s availability. New applications enjoyed
priority.
Ms F Nyanda (ANC Mpumalanga) wondered whether the SAPS had adequately explained
to the public that applying for the competency certificate and the license at
the same time sped up the process.
Dir Bothma confirmed that officials were trained to inform applicants of the
difference in the duration of the two routes. He said that he would highlight
the matter to the designated firearm officers.
Mr Mack sought greater clarity on the details of the competency test. He had
had to submit a medical certificate confirming that he still had enough
flexibility in his hands to manage a firearm.
Dir Bothma explained that the form itself related to Section 9 of the Act. When
a designated officer did a background evaluation he or she had the right to
request a doctor’s or any other kind of certificate that would assist them in
their evaluation.
Dr van Heerden wondered what happened if someone had inherited a firearm that
he did not want.
Dir Bothma responded that if a person possessed a firearms license in terms of
the Arms and Ammunition Act, and passed away before he or she could renew the
license, the person who inherited it had to apply afresh for a firearm license.
If someone inherited the firearm and wanted to donate it to someone else the
SAPS required that the holder provide SAPS with a sworn statement confirming
their donation. The person who now received the firearm would have to apply for
the license. If a person did not want the firearm at all he could voluntarily
surrender it. In such cases the executor of the estate would come to the police
station to hand in the firearm and to indicate that the person who had
inherited it did not wish to keep it. The SAPS would then destroy that firearm
at no charge.
Mr Shiceka sought clarity on exactly how long it would take to obtain a
license. This information was very important and people were interested in
knowing.
Dir Bothma fully supported the notion that there should be a contract between
the community and SAPS. He said that it was difficult to give exact time
frames. Taking away all variables he said it should take no longer than six
months to get a competency certificate and no more than six months to get a
firearm license. If applications were made concurrently it should take no
longer than six months in all. He added that it normally took much less than
six months. He said that in many cases information had to be updated and that
often took time.
Mr Shiceka wondered how many new applications had been received and how many
had been declined. He wondered what the main reasons for declining them were.
Dir Bothma responded that there has been quite a decrease in the number of
people applying for new firearms. Up until November 2005 people had to apply
first for a competency certificate and then for licenses. This way of doing
things resulted in a backlog. So far over 5 000 licenses had been issued and nearly
1 000 had been refused. Another 3 500 had been processed but due to the
problems with either the firearm or the individual these had not yet been
issued. Country-wide, nearly 20 000 applications were in circulation. One of
the reasons why applications could be denied was if the applicant could not
adequately motivate that the firearm was required for self-defence. The Act was
very clear that there had to be a need for self defence, and evidence that
there was no other means other than having a firearm of addressing that need.
The onus was on the applicant to provide the SAPS with the motivation and
substantive documentation. He said that in most cases applicants simply did not
comply with the legislation or failed to give adequate motivation for why they
needed a firearm.
The Chairperson confirmed that the maximum time to wait for a weapon is six
months. He asked the presenters to note Members’ concerns around the time it
took to finalize the application process. He asked what a person had to do to
obtain an inoperable or imitation firearm and asked if such firearms had to be
licensed.
Dr Jacobs replied that in terms of the present Act a person was not allowed to
be in possession of an imitation of an automatic firearm.
Dir Bothma explained that a person had to apply for a firearm license before
there could even be talk of making it inoperable. In terms of the Amendment Act
a person had to have a license for prohibited or restricted firearms which then
needed to be made inoperable. There was a difference between making a firearm
inoperable and deactivating it. No license was needed for a deactivated
firearm, as it was immediately obvious that it had been deactivated. An
imitation firearm, on the other hand, looked exactly like the original one.
There had been an increase in crimes that were being committed with imitation
firearms. As a police officer he predicted that people would move towards using
imitation firearms in crimes if care was not taken in legislating
their use.
Mr Shiceka wondered how urgently the Bill was needed. He said that he had ten
pages of proposed amendments. If the proposals were to be taken seriously much
more time would be needed. The best option would probably be for him to forward
the proposals to the SAPS for consideration.
Dr Jacobs said that there were numerous issues in the Bill that could speed up
the process of relicensing, and he felt that those amendments were quite
urgent. At present muzzle loaders could be imported and sold to minors, or sold
by any business, not necessarily only a licensed dealer. These firearms were
increasing in number all the time. Regulating muzzle loaders would also place
an additional burden on the police in that they would now require a competency
certificate despite the fact they would not be licensing them. He pointed out
that not the whole of the Act need necessarily be put into force. It was
possible that part of it should come into force, and then another part at a
later stage. The whole scenario around muzzle loaders had changed. When the
legislation was drafted there was talk of antique firearms, but there were very
few at the time. The problem was that imitation muzzleloaders could also be
imported and that had led to thousands being imported. The Act provided for a
one year grace period in which persons who were in
possession of muzzleloaders had to obtain competency certificates. This would
also impact on the implementation of the new Bill. He emphasized that it was
not necessary to put the entire Act in operation straight away.
Other issues such as the provisions relating professional hunters were
improvements on the old Act. The provisions would enable simplifications and
fast tracking of the relicensing process were very important.
Motion of Desirability
Mr Worth made it clear that the DA would be opposing the Bill.
The ANC unanimously supported the motion of desirability.
The Chairperson said that the Bill was scheduled for plenary in the NCOP on 15
November. The Committee could pass it during their visit to the Free State, or
members could return to pass it on 14 November so that they could
debate it on 15 November.
The Committee agreed to pass the Bill while on their visit in the Free State.
The Chairperson said that in the next meeting the Committee would go straight
into the Clause by clause discussion. He was pleased that the Committee had now
received an idea of what had been discussed in the public hearings of the
National Assembly.
Other Committee Business
The Chairperson said that at a meeting of the programming committee the
previous week the Head of the Committee Section had complained that Committees
failed to use their allocations. There was a possibility that they would
forfeit what was left of their allocation and could face a cut in their
allocation in the next financial year.
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs’ budget stood at
R471 000 at the moment. The Committee had to ensure that it was utilised in the
best interest of the people. Due to changes in the parliamentary programme the
Committee had had to postpone all three of the provincial trips it had
scheduled. The visit to the North West Province scheduled for 13-17 of November
had now been approved. The Committee would visit the defence camps and army
base, prisons, magistrates and prosecutors. They would also meet with the
regional heads of correctional services. The week of the visit was
unfortunately also the week in which the two Bills would be debated in
Parliament.
The Chairperson said that there had been a suggestion to postpone the visit
until the week of 20 November. He reminded members that if the visit was not
undertaken in this year there was a possibility that the Committee’s budget
might be decreased.
Mr Shiceka proposed that the Committee should consider one of the two weeks
after Parliament had risen. The committees had undertaken to spend 70% of their
time on the ground and 30% of their time at Parliament. Programming however
militated against this undertaking. There appeared to be no coherence between
Parliament’s programming and the Committees’ activities.
The Committee agreed that it could undertake the trip during the week of 27
November.
Ms Nyanda said that there was a possibility that the Civil Union legislation
might be debated in the week of 27 November within the NA. After that the NCOP
might be required to consider it.
The Chairperson said that this development indicated that the Committee should
seriously consider the trip for the week of 20 November. He pleaded
with members to prioritise the work the Committee had to do.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee 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.