Chairperson, I will gladly speak on behalf of the hon Sibuyana and we have duly notified you thereof. Nevertheless, the core objective of this Bill is to incorporate the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects into domestic law, as our country signed and ratified the convention.
Passing this Bill will therefore mean that we have executed our obligations in terms of the convention. Conventional weapons of war have in recent years developed to the point where they are more destructive and lethal than in the past.
Furthermore, despite sophisticated targeting systems conventional weapons still take a disproportionate toll on noncombatants such as civilians, especially when deployed indiscriminately. In terms of this law and in terms of international humanitarian law, it is therefore appropriate that the use of certain conventional weapons should be prohibited or restricted.
When the Bill was first tabled, the IFP was concerned about two major issues. The first was the effects the original Bill would have on South African forces which were deployed in international peacekeeping forces that included foreign forces that had not signed the convention and had all of the relevant weapons in their arsenals. We asked whether this meant that our force could not be deployed with such foreign forces or whether it meant that we would be breaking our own laws if they were so deployed.
Civil society has also raised this practical problem, and we are satisfied that during the consideration of this Bill the portfolio committee and the department took our concern seriously and decided that the UN or AU mandate for any peacekeeping mission would take into account the convention and the prohibitions or restrictions on certain weapons. We need therefore not fear that our forces will break our own laws.
The second concern was the extraterritorial application of the Act and jurisdiction. The IFP felt that domestic law should apply to South Africans but that it would be very difficult practically to claim jurisdiction over foreigners who committed offences in terms of the Act outside the territory of the Republic. In the end, a compromise was reached, to our satisfaction, that such persons would be tried if the offence could be tied to an intention to affect a public body, business or any other person inside South Africa.
Finally, the IFP would like to thank the chairperson and the portfolio committee, the department and civil society for continuing to contribute to a more polished and practical final Bill. The IFP will support the Bill. Thank you.