Firearms Amnesty Extension, with Deputy Minister & SAPS, IPID, CSPS and PSIRA Budget: Committee Reports

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the meeting and stressed the time pressures created by the plenary sitting of the National Assembly. She took questions on agenda items.

Dr P Groenewald (FF+) reiterated the lack of time, and proposed beginning the agenda with the firearms amnesty, given its importance.

Mr O Terblanche (DA) had a different view, and proposed that there was not enough time to discuss both firearms amnesty and adopt budget vote reports, and noted documents on the amnesty had been submitted late. The complexity of the issue called for more time. He proposed dealing with the amnesty application at a later stage.

Mr K Maphatsoe (ANC) did not think the firearms amnesty issue should be postponed, highlighting the need to finalise the extension before the 31st of May.

Mr A Whitefield (DA) agreed with Mr Groenewald’s proposal, and did not support shifting the discussion on the firearms amnesty to another day.

Ms J Mofokeng (ANC) agreed with Mr Whitfield.

The Chairperson agreed to begin the meeting with the firearms amnesty extension discussion, given its pressing timeline.

She ceded to the Deputy Minister, Mr Cassel Mathale, for the presentation on the firearms amnesty extension.

Firearms Amnesty Extension briefing

The Deputy Minister introduced the National Commissioner Gen. Khela Sitole and Deputy National Commissioner for Policing, Lt Gen. S Masemola. He requested the National Commissioner to be brief in his presentation.

Gen. Khela Sitole, began the presentation by introducing the SAPS delegation.

The presentation would be led by the head of the Firearms, Liquor and Second Hand Goods (FLASH) division, Maj Gen M Mamothethi.

Maj Gen Mamotheti began her presentation by recalling that the Firearms Amnesty was approved by Parliament in terms of Section 139 of the Firearms Control Act for a 6-month period until 31 May 2020. Experience from previous amnesties had shown that the concluding month witnessed the highest participation. The restrictions on public movement during the Covid-19 lockdown had affected the remaining period of the amnesty.

There were many firearms currently in circulation, and SAPS wished to extend the amnesty to attempt to gather more firearms if possible. SAPS had received a number of requests from the community for an extension given the limits on movement during the lockdown.

Gauteng, the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal were hotspots of violence and crime, and SAPS was targeting these areas to receive more firearms, despite the indication of a decrease in crimes during the lockdown.

The other objective for SAPS was to address the fundamental causes of crime. Environmental design remained a problem in the country. Unoccupied buildings were a major centre of circulation of firearms. Firearms continued to be the major implement used in the commission of crime.

With the previous amnesty, SAPS had received roughly 33 000 firearms and 46 000 pieces of ammunition in 6 months.

The current amnesty had begun in December 2019 with 1523 firearms surrendered, peaking at 5154 in March 2020, significantly reducing to 385 in April due to the lockdown and climbing to 3194 in May. The current firearms amnesty had not been as successful as previous ones, as it had only yielded 19 500 firearms compared to the mid-30 000s achieved previously.

Of these 19 500, 16 564 were amnesty-related, 2141 were voluntarily surrendered and 795 were estate firearms.

The provinces leading in surrendered firearms were Gauteng and the Western Cape, followed by KwaZulu-Natal. The same trend was present in ammunition surrendered.

2739 firearms were surrendered during the lockdown.

6891 cases were sent for analysis by the Integrated Ballistic Information System (IBIS). 33 analysis reports were generated.

A total of 10 704 applications for firearms licenses were received.

Both physical and online marketing communications strategies were adopted, as well as the use of radio and television.

The amnesty was monitored by teams at provincial level.

SAPS proposed that the amnesty be extended until the 30th November 2020 under Section 139(2)(c) of the Firearms Control Act, while exempting 28 stations due to the risk of reception of firearms.

SAPS believed that an extension could allow it to receive many more firearms and help curb the proliferation of illegal firearms.

Gen. Sitole added that SAPS’ motivation for the extension of amnesty was based on the set objectives outlined when the amnesty was approved by the Minister. The top 30 murder stations contributed 19.8% of national murders, and firearms constituted 36% of instruments used to commit murder. The public raised Covid-19 as a motivation for their request for an extension. Covid-19 was a complementary factor, but SAPS’ extension request was motivated by the set objectives.

Discussion
Dr Groenewald wanted to know whether the Committee would receive the notice for an extension request; given this was a legal requirement. He argued the need to see the notice itself, and asked whether the recent court case and settlement reached with the National Hunting and Shooting Association would be part of the amnesty. He recalled that 46 stations had been exempted from receiving firearms in the initial amnesty, which had diminished to 28 in the extension. What had changed to allow this?

The Chairperson informed the Committee that she had requested the extension request notice be sent to all members and had been assured it had been sent.

The Committee Secretary confirmed that the notice had been sent to all members.

Ms Z Majozi (ANC) raised that she had not received the notice either. She requested clarity on what the process was for those who had failed to renew their firearms licenses and wished to renew them.

The Chairperson was disturbed that members had not received documents.

Ms P Faku (ANC) proposed it would be unfair for the Committee not to grant the extension, in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. She stated her worry about the underperformance of the amnesty period. She requested more detail on how SAPS planned to strengthen the marketing strategy to improve the amnesty’s performance. She echoed Dr Groenewald’s question on the change in exempted stations.

Mr Whitfield supported the request for the extension request notice, stating that he had not received the notice either. He requested clarity on whether the Committee or the National Assembly was responsible for assent. He echoed Ms Majozi’s point on those whose licenses had expired during lockdown. He noted the decline in IBIS performance since Q3 2019 and asked for SAPS to explain this.

The Chairperson explained that the Portfolio Committee proposed the notice, but the House was required to adopt it. She remarked that the Committee seemed to broadly support the extension, but required a longer session for discussion.

Mr Terblanche maintained that the documentation was received too late and in incomplete form. He noted the difference in the application from the existing amnesty and requested an explanation. He proposed that the Committee did not have enough time to properly cover the amnesty application. He wondered if it was necessary to extend the amnesty for another 6 months. He argued that the police had not been very successful in the amnesty so far. He was concerned that only 29 firearms received had been finalised.

Ms Mofokeng agreed with the Chairperson’s proposal, and also asked why a 6-month extension had been requested.

Mr Maphatsoe noted that he had received the documents but only late in the previous evening. He argued that the slow reception may have been due to Covid-19 and that the manpower of the police had been devoted to street policing during the lockdown, and wondered if the police would have capacity to execute the amnesty given these pressures. He supported the Chairperson’s proposal for an extension and further discussion at a later stage.

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) wanted to know the impact the lockdown had had on the amnesty, arguing that people should not be stopped from bringing guns into police stations as gun circulation contributed to more crime.

Mr E Shaik Emam (NFP) noted the point of the amnesty was to reduce firearms in circulation and agreed with an extension. He recognised the challenges in terms of capacity and mobility posed by the Covid-19 lockdown. He proposed that alcohol sales would add to the burden on SAPS. Given that many crimes in South Africa were linked to firearms, he argued that extending the firearms amnesty was the right thing to do. He stressed that citizens should extend their licenses timeously and should be punished if they did not. His preference would be for the complete absence of firearms in the country.

Dr Groenewald argued that the notice was insufficient and could not be agreed to. He raised the issue of the out-of-court settlement with the National Hunting and Shooting Association, whose provisions had to be included in the notice. He noticed that nowhere in any lockdown regulation did it say that citizens could not go to police stations. His question was why regulations had not been clear that police station visits for firearm amnesty purposes were allowed. Designated firearms officers had not been informed properly, and did not all know about the amnesty procedure. It was important that the Committee wait for the Supreme Court of Appeal finding on the Gun Owners of South Africa court case. No criminal that committed a crime with a firearm handed it in. Those taking advantage of the amnesty were good people whose licenses had expired. Dr Groenewald proposed the Committee should wait for the SCA finding in this matter. He was sure the SCA would put in place, should SAPS win its court case, a time in which people could regularise their licensing status. He understood the time shortage, but asked whether a time shortage was really pressing given the lockdown.

The Chairperson ceded to the Deputy Minister and National Commissioner.

Gen. Sitole accepted to broaden the SAPS presentation if another meeting was scheduled.

Regarding the impact of the lockdown on the amnesty, Gen. Sitole recalled that, when the amnesty was submitted for approval, 5 objectives were outlined. The motivation for SAPS to ask for an extension was solely based on the 5 main objectives. The lockdown was an added motivation but originated in requests from the public.

He confirmed that SAPS had been focused on street policing, but police stations were ready to accept firearms.

Some of the police stations no longer exempted had undergone renovation or had their security status changed.

IBIS was going through a corporate renewal for recapacitation.

The six month extension request was motivated by the processes involved in the amnesty SAPS had to go through, including crime perception and victim support surveys.

All of the legal questions posed by members could be answered by the SAPS legal team in writing if so required.

The Chairperson asked why the extension request had been brought at such a late time. She noted that the House still had to approve the extension, meaning that the deadline of the 31st of May was not possible in any case. She asked the Commissioner what the implications would be of the deadline not being met.

Gen. Sitole apologised for the time pressure. He agreed to allowing the Committee more time to decide on the extension.

Deputy Minister Mathale thought the members had agreed to an extension but required certain considerations. For instance, in terms of Dr Groenewald’s argument on legal issues being included in the extension, if the Committee agreed to support the SAPS request its recommendations would be considered and included in the notice. It was within the right of the Committee to amend the notice. MPs also had a responsibility to ensure that whatever resolution taken would be successful. He recommended that the Committee accept the extension and make whatever amendments it thought appropriate before submission to Parliament. He agreed with Dr Groenewald’s point on not criminalising gun owners who needed to renew their licenses, and Ms Majozi’s request to speed up the process. SAPS should take members’ recommendations on board. If the amnesty expired it would create a problem.

Ms Faku proposed an extension should be granted, but asked whether the 6-month period was viable. She requested clear timeframes from SAPS for implementation. She also stressed that SAPS had to strengthen its communication strategy.

Ms Mofokeng wanted SAPS to come back and address the issue of the length of the extension.

The Chairperson proposed the Committee should agree to an extension, and that the following Tuesday, the Department and SAPS would return and answer the Committee’s questions.

Dr Groenewald did not agree with the Chairperson, and argued that it was illegal to approve an extension without a notice that should be submitted to the House. He proposed that the Committee was opening itself to legal action. In principle he had no problem with an extension, but the proper documentation was required. He objected to taking a decision before this was satisfied. He argued that the notice was not acceptable.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would record Mr Groenewald’s dissent and concerns in its approval of an extension.

Mr Terblanche registered his dissent on the grounds of the legal issues covered by Mr Groenewald.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee had agreed to an extension with objections noted, and continued to the matter of reports on budget votes.

Budget Report Votes

IPID Budget Report

The Chairperson asked members for input. Ms Mofokeng moved for adoption, seconded by Mr Maphatsoe. The reported was adopted without amendment.

SAPS Budget Report

Ms Faku noted that the recommendations section did not include Committee input on the Community Policing Forum. Her suggestion was an investigation into the budget of CPF members. The Chairperson noted this recommendation would be included.

Ms Mofokeng moved for adoption, seconded by Ms P Peacock (ANC).

PSIRA Budget Report

The report was adopted without amendment. Ms Faku moved the report, seconded by Ms Majozi.

Civilian Secretariat Budget Report

The report was moved by Mr Maphatsoe without amendment, and seconded by Ms Peacock.

The Chairperson noted the adoption of all the reports.

Deputy Minister Mathale thanked the members for their engagement.

Ms Mofokeng noted connectivity issues related to the virtual parliament.

The Chairperson agreed, raising the issue of technical glitches and committed to better performance in future. She thanked General Sithole and reminded him of the meeting the following week to continue the Firearms Amnesty discussion.

The meeting was adjourned.