Recently, in an unusually candid moment before Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Police, the director general of an oversight body of the South African Police Service (SAPS), the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service (CSPS), Thulani Sibuyi, let slip an inconvenient truth about South Africa’s proposed new firearm legislation: it is legislation first and diagnosis of the actual problem later. That admission should concern every South African.

Over the past few years, policymakers have moved to rewrite the fully adequate Firearms Control Bill without first establishing whether the real failure lies not in the actual Bill, but in the state’s chronic inability to enforce the legislation already in place.

During a meeting by Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Police at the end of last month, the CSPS was directly challenged on its approach to the Firearms Control Amendment Bill. Ian Cameron, the chairman of the committee, questioned why the department appeared to be pushing ahead with legislative changes while long-standing failures in the existing system remain unresolved. Those failures are not theoretical.

They include the well-documented dysfunction of the Central Firearms Registry, the loss of state-owned firearms, weak tracing capabilities, and limited enforcement against criminal possession of illegal firearms.

In the 2023/24 financial year, 741 SAPS-owned firearms were reported lost or stolen, with only 170 recovered to date. Over a five-year period, more than 3 400 police firearms have entered the system as lost or stolen. Yet despite this, the policy focus has remained firmly on further restricting lawful firearm ownership rather than fixing the state’s own systems and inability to enforce the current law.

Under pressure from the parliamentary committee, the CSPS conceded two critical points.

Acknowledgement

First, it acknowledged that the language used in its presentation before the committee –and specifically the phrase “to ensure enactment” of the Amendment Bill – was inappropriate and created the impression that the legislative process was predetermined. With the use of such language in its documentation, one is justified in thinking that the CSPS likely views lawmaking as a process of steamrolling, followed by rubber-stamping by Parliament. That is unacceptable.

Second, and far more significantly, the CSPS confirmed that a new internal research project has now been commissioned to determine whether the problems in South Africa’s firearm environment are in fact caused by legislative gaps or simply by failures in implementation.

Sibuyi said: “We have commissioned […] our research unit […] to start looking at whether or not the current legislation is implemented fully”, “what are the failures in terms of the implementation”, “we can’t rush to the amendment of legislation if […] it’s the failures of implementation”.

This presents a deeply troubling but inescapable question: why is the Amendment Bill being progressed through the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) in the absence of clarity on this most basic issue?

For people and organisations who have attempted to engage constructively in this process over several years, this is deeply frustrating. Despite repeated requests for transparency, access to underlying data, and meaningful participation, key industry participants have been excluded from substantive engagement since 2021.

Not Genuine

Consultation processes have often appeared procedural rather than genuine. The processes were given the outward form of engagement, without any open or cooperative substance. Now, with the department itself acknowledging the need to reassess the factual foundation of the Amendment Bill, and confirming in fact that the research is underway, it is fair to say that the legal process has effectively been reset.

Should this be the case, it is a welcome development, but it also confirms what many have argued all along: the issue is not a lack of regulation. It is a failure of administration and enactment. South Africa already has one of the most comprehensive firearm control frameworks in the world. What it lacks is consistent enaction, functional systems, and accountability within the institutions responsible for implementing the law.

If the newly commissioned research is conducted properly, it should lead to the simple conclusion that before changing the law, the system should be fixed. Until then, any attempt to push forward legislative amendments would not only be premature, but it would also be irrational and in all probability procedurally irregular.

The responsibility now lies with the government to ensure that this process, including the methodology and findings of the new research commissioned by the department, is transparent and based on evidence. They need to draw on the expertise and goodwill of those who want to assist in ensuring that South Africa is safer for all who live it in. Anything less will only deepen the growing crisis of confidence in how critical public safety policy is being developed.

Marco van Niekerk is the group chief executive of Outdoor Investment Holdings.