Chairperson, I introduce the report from the committee before the House. The Bill before the House was prompted by a Constitutional Court ruling that obliged government to bring in line the Dangerous Weapons Act of 1968 and various pieces of legislation that were used in the former Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, TBVC, states. The Dangerous Weapons Act was found to be outdated and necessitated the drafting of the Dangerous Weapons Bill before us today.
Many of the crimes committed in South Africa are not committed with conventional weapons such as firearms. It must also be noted that this Bill does not intend to criminalise the use of a weapon in an offence, as this is already criminalised through offences such as assault, attempted murder, murder, etc. In fact, in existing legislation the use of a weapon and causing wounds are taken in consideration in the sentencing of an offender. The Bill before us addresses the carrying of an object that can be used as a weapon under certain suspect circumstances. In other words, the object can be used for the commission of an offence.
The Bill seeks to repeal all existing legislation regulating dangerous weapons in the Republic and replaces the legislation with a single piece of uniform legislation. It prohibits the possession of dangerous weapons with the intention to use them for an unlawful purpose, and it prohibits the carrying of objects that are likely to cause injury or damage to property at a demonstration or gathering.
Another change was the removal of reference to a firearm, as firearms are dealt with by the Firearms Control Act, Act 60 of 2000.
The Bill provides for discretionary powers for police officers. This is, however, limited and directed by clause 2 of the Bill, which indicates that the circumstances must raise reasonable suspicion that the person intends to use them for unlawful purposes. An example here would be that the police would now be able to arrest someone if they find that person at three in the morning on the private premises of a citizen, carrying an axe or a spade or something that can be used as a weapon.
This includes the place and time where the person is found; the general behaviour of the person, including the making of a threat or intimidating behaviour; the manner in which the dangerous weapon is carried or displayed; whether the carrying of that dangerous weapon was in the context of drug dealing, gang association or any organised crime activity; and whether the person in whose possession the dangerous weapon was found at the time, proved to be part of a group of persons who were also in possession of dangerous weapons. The committee added a further criterion, and that is whether the person in whose possession the weapon was found can give a reasonable and lawful explanation.
The Bill does not apply to religious, cultural and legal sports activities or to the pursuit of any lawful employment, duty or activity. The legitimate collection, display and exhibition of weapons are also excluded from this Bill.
The committee held public hearings and took into consideration the input from those who came to the portfolio committee, and this resulted in many of the changes that the committee has incorporated into the Bill before the House. One of those amendments is the very definition of a dangerous weapon. It is now defined as any object, other than a firearm, capable of inflicting death or serious bodily harm if it were used to commit an assault.
We must make it very clear that this Bill is not aimed at disarming South Africans from their choice of self-defence weapons. Prior to this Bill being introduced, there was a draft version that could have created that impression. This Bill took into consideration all the various public inputs that were received at that time and is a completely new piece of legislation without the previous restrictions.
The Bill also empowers the SA Police Service at gatherings and protests, in so far as it now includes the definition of dangerous weapons and the prohibition of those at gatherings and protests. This is in line with the Constitution, in terms of which unarmed protests and demonstrations are recognised. Already the gatherings Act says that a person cannot carry firearms, imitation firearms or muzzle-loaders at gatherings. What this Bill does is put a further obligation on the organisers and the participants at such protests and gatherings.
This legislation must also be seen as a proactive crime-fighting measure in so far as, when used properly, the SAPS can prevent crime from happening and does not have to wait for an offence to take place.
The committee has asked the SAPS for a proper implementation and costing plan for the Bill. This was necessary as the Bill relies heavily on the proper training of members of the SAPS, not only new recruits, but also those members of the SAPS who have been in the service for a while.
The committee was not satisfied with the implementation plan of the SAPS as it reflected only on starting dates and not on completion dates. The committee has instructed the SAPS that this needs to be corrected and that the SAPS must provide feedback, in writing, at every phase of the implementation plan to Parliament. The committee will scrutinise that very carefully. All parties in the committee were in agreement with the Bill before the House and, as such, we support the passing of this Bill into law.
There was no debate.
Declarations of vote:
Chairperson, there should have been a Second Reading debate, and I have been forced to do this three-minute declaration against my and the DA's will. As determined as our parliamentary portfolio committees are to work through apartheid-era legislation, bringing it into line with our democratic Constitution, much still remains to be done, such as the National Key Points Act as constructed during that dark time.
This Dangerous Weapons Bill should have been completed by 8 November 2011, according to the Constitutional Court. However, those who drew up the 2011 version misread the levels of fear South Africans live with 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The state lawyers and Secretary of Police drew up a Bill that limited people's ability to defend themselves - no tasers, no pepper spray; nothing. The public outrage was monumental, with 2 300 complaints sent to Parliament. Chastened, they went back to the drawing board and began again. I have yet to ascertain the cost of this massive miscalculation. Finally, on the 12th of last month we began processing a fresh draft, which was a vast improvement on what had initially been presented. It will go a long way towards dealing with the thorny issues around carrying dangerous weapons during protests, other gatherings or even for self-protection.
As the Bill now stands, a dangerous weapon is created by intent. We took any reference to firearms out; so basically this is any object capable of producing death or serious bodily harm.
The determination of whether or not the item being carried is a dangerous weapon to be used for unlawful purposes covers the time and place where the person is found, the general behaviour of that person, the manner in which the weapon is carried, or whether the possession of the weapon is in the context of drug dealing, gangs or organised crime.
We had a number of representations from sporting bodies, who pointed out that this new Bill would have a massive impact on their games, sport shooting - all sorts of entertainment - and we came to realise that exemptions were in order. We considered them and duly inserted these, taking every single representation into consideration.
What we have shown throughout the processing of this legislation is that public opinion must always be taken into consideration when legislating; that the citizens of South Africa have power over Parliament; and that if a country speaks out against the impact legislation will have on their lives and their freedom, it is our duty to listen and to act on their wishes.
We got here today despite the Department of Police, which treated us with utter contempt as we had to demand the implementation plan over and over. I trust this Bill will not take as many months as other Bills we worked day and night to pass for them to come up with the regulations. The DA will today be voting in support of this Bill. Thank you.
House Chairperson, let me say from the very onset that Cope accepts and supports this Bill. We believe that this Bill is very important. However, we also want to emphasise the importance of training police officers. If the police are not properly trained, especially when they have to make a judgment call to deal with the issue of intent, many South African citizens could find their rights being violated. We support the Bill.
Hon Chairperson, the IFP approached this Bill from various fronts. This is a very important Bill in the aftermath of the destruction that took place during the protests. People were venting their anger about local government service delivery which, according to the Constitution, communities are supposed to receive.
This Bill is aimed at those who organise these protests and marches, to ensure that these protests are within the confines of the law and conform to the laws of the country. The Constitution gives rights to the people to protest peacefully, unarmed and without destroying any facilities. This is especially relevant to the country and is a desperate need for the country.
According to the Bill, there are exceptions that must be adhered to. Every member of the SAPS must be fully informed about these and know when and how to act accordingly when faced with these protest actions. If the police do not know the correct procedures, the department will fall foul of the law, because they will find themselves in court every now and then.
It is vital for the department to train every police member on the correct procedures. Police who do not follow the regulations will find themselves answerable in a court of law for using their own discretion, instead of following procedure.
Trade unions and organisers of marches, both political and nonpolitical, must understand the consequences of what will happen to them if the Bill is not implemented promptly and correctly when organising such marches. The IFP supports the Bill. Thank you very much.
Hon Chairperson, I just want to thank all the political parties for their support of this Bill. I think that in reality democracy determines that we listen to the voice of the people. This is exactly why the Bill that came before Parliament this year was different from the Bill that was worked on during 2011. This is because the department took into consideration the public input that was received at that time. For that reason, we dealt with a Bill that all political parties felt comfortable with. The committee will do its bit in order to ensure that the implementation of this Bill by the Department of Police is done properly. Thank you for all the support. [Applause.]
Bill read a second time.