Report on Firearms Amnesty; with Deputy Minister

This premium content has been made freely available

Police

16 February 2021
Chairperson: Ms T Joemat-Pettersson (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Police presented a report on the two firearm amnesty periods which had recently ended, with specific attention given to the statistics on the number of firearms surrendered, the marketing and communication of the amnesty programme, and the monitoring of compliance at the country’s police stations. 

In a virtual meeting, the police reported that both amnesties were declared for a period of six months and had commenced from 1 December 2019 to 31 May 2020, and again from 1 August 2020 to 31 January 2021. The number of firearms surrendered during the first amnesty period was 45 915, with a further 80 263 in the second period, which meant a total of 126 173 firearms were handed in. A combined total of 551 917 rounds of ammunition were surrendered.  A total of 44 195 firing test samples were received at the Forensic Science Laboratory, and 30 463 were captured on the Automated Ballistic Identification System (ABIS) system. 2 059 firearm amnesty applications were finalised for 2019/20, and a further 280 for 2020/21. 

However, Members raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the statistics included in the presentation, specifically as they related to previous amnesty periods. The backlog of up to a year relating to firearm licence applications at the Central Firearms Registry (CFR), and its apparent lack of capacity, was noted as a significant problem. The Committee requested accurate timeframes relating to application types, and stressed that proper communication with the public should have taken place. Clarity was requested about what constituted ‘illegal’ firearms, and whether this included licences that had lapsed. A sharp increase had been seen in the submission of firearms toward the end of both amnesty periods, and the Committee asked the Department for an explanation. It also sought details of the number of firearms that had been submitted that were identified as being involved in previous crimes. 

The Chairperson took a decision to suspend the meeting, requesting the police to present the Committee with a proper report. The report that had been presented was inadequate, and the monthly reports that the Committee had requested were never provided. She requested that the Deputy Minister and the National Commissioner pay a visit to the CFR and provide the Committee with a report on the situation there. 

Meeting report

Adoption of Committee minutes and reports

The Chairperson said various inaccuracies had been identified in previous minutes from last year, which had therefore been re-checked against the recordings. The Committee Members had received the re-drafted minutes for their consideration prior to the meeting.

Minutes dated 19 February, 26 February, 4 March,11 March, 29 April, 8 May, 13 May, 14 May, 22 May, 27 May, 3 June, 11 June, 26 June, 10 July, 15 July, 22 July, 31 July, 26 August, 4 September, 6 October, 14 October, 11 November, 18 November, 24 November and 25 November 2020

The minutes were adopted. 

Mr O Terblanche (DA) stated that the Democratic Alliance would reserve its rights 

SAPS briefing on Firearm Amnesty Report

Mr Cassel Mathale, Deputy Minister of Police, apologised for the absence of the Minister, and gave a brief introduction before handing over to the National Commissioner of Police, Gen Khehla Sitole, who made a few comments and handed over to his delegation to present.  

Maj Gen Maropeng Mamotheti, Head of Firearms, Liquor and Second-Hand Goods Control (FLASH), SAPS, presented an overview of the firearm amnesty situation. 

He said both amnesties were declared for a period of six months and had commenced from 1 December 2019 to 31 May 2020, and again from 1 August 2020 to 31 January 2021. The number of firearms surrendered during the first amnesty period was 45 915, with a further 80 263 in the second period, which meant a total of 126 173 firearms were handed in. A combined total of 551 917 rounds of ammunition were surrendered.  A total of 44 195 firing test samples were received at the Forensic Science Laboratory, and 30 463 were captured on the Automated Ballistic Identification System (ABIS) system. 2 059 firearm amnesty applications were finalised for 2019/20, and a further 280 for 2020/21. 

Outlining the SAPS’ marketing and communication strategy, he said the firearm amnesties were communicated and marketed internally and externally.  Branding materials and pamphlets (in the various languages) were procured and distributed to all provinces, and messages were placed on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Information, including a “Frequently Asked Questions” section, was uploaded on the website. Media statements were issued and awareness campaigns conducted on various radio and television platforms. Internal communication was intensified through screen savers, web banners, email footers, salary advices and daily messages through e- mails. 

Maj Gen Mamotheti said a National Firearm Amnesty Task Team had visited selected stations in all provinces to monitor compliance and the following interventions were implemented: 


Arrangements were made for firearms at smaller and isolated stations to be moved to bigger stations daily under armed escort; 
Stations with full storage facilities were directed to move amnesty firearms to the provincial central storage facilities; 
Stations were grouped together to enhance the ABIS testing of firearms; 
Additional members were activated on the Enhanced Firearm Register System (EFRS) to deal with amnesty firearm applications; 
National and provincial roving teams were established to oversee and ensure a smooth firearm amnesty process; and 
A task team consisting of SAPS’ finance management and administration, technology management services and visible policing (Central Firearm Register) divisions, was established to address the linkage of payments and firearm applications. 

Discussion

The Chairperson was concerned that SAPS was presenting different figures for reporting periods previously presented to the Committee. She made reference to the previous report presented on the Firearm Amnesty of 2019/20, where SAPS had presented a figure of 27 600 firearms surrendered. The current presentation stated a figure of 45 915 firearms surrendered for the same period. How did they reconcile their figures of surrendered firearms in the amnesties? She had the 2005 and 2019 firearm amnesty reports in-front of her, and each report showed different figures for the previous period. She requested consistency on those figures. She highlighted that the minutes of the Committee meetings had become legal documents. They should anticipate a number of court challenges. 

She asked whether the Central Firearm Registry (CFR) had sufficient capacity. Did they need time to attend to the backlog? It seemed as if it had a tremendous backlog, as stated in the media. She asked which newspapers the advertisements had appeared in, and on what dates. She had not seen anything flighted on television. Which television stations did they flight this amnesty on? 

Ms Z Majozi (IFP) agreed with the concerns raised by the Chairperson. She was concerned about the firearms that were returned due to the expiration of licences, as she had received many complaints. People had returned their firearms for licence renewal almost a year ago, and they had not received any feedback yet. Others had applied for firearms and had not received any information. She requested that SAPS explain the length of time it took to renew a firearm license or to apply for a new licence. She suggested that SAPS were only focused on the firearm amnesty and had forgotten about people who were bringing their firearms in for the renewal of their licences. She requested accurate information to relate to those who had communicated complaints.

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) referred to the report of Gun Free South Africa and the so-called ‘court of appeal,’ where they had spoken about 450 000 firearms in the hands of owners whose licences had expired. In the presentation, it had been mentioned that about 44 000 firearms were handed in. He requested clarity about the difference, as there seemed to be many firearms in the hands of owners whose licences had expired. How should one regard these firearms? Should they be regarded as illegal? 

Police stations did not allow people to hand in firearms for safekeeping. How should one deal with situations where people needed to hand in firearms for safekeeping at police stations? What had happened in the two-month period between June and July? Were any firearms handed in? On what basis were they received? How would SAPS ensure that firearms with associated applications were kept safe, and not destroyed until the licence was granted or not? Why were the firearm amnesty management services not considered essential during lockdown levels three, four and five?

Mr A Shaik-Emam (NFP) suggested that the Committee and the National Commissioner needed to see the shocking crime situation in Durban. He asked whether there were any plans to extend the amnesty once again. He agreed with the points raised by other Members about the delay in the application process. What were they planning to do about this? It appeared that SAPS did not have the capacity to deal with the licence applications, nor the CFR, which had been found wanting in terms of its effectiveness. What additional measures do they plan to put in place? 

He referred to the difference between the firearm licence applications for surrendered firearms received and the number granted. What happened to the balance? Had any of these firearms been stolen or lost to police corruption, or by other means? What was the difference between previous amnesty periods and the amnesty that took place during COVID-19? He commented that he was in support of a ‘gun-free South Africa,’ and may therefore be conflicted. 

He asked for clarity about the process of destroying firearms. There were a lot of stories about firearms that were meant to be destroyed but were getting into the hands of criminals. He wanted to understand the process, as well as how they were ensuring that the correct procedures were being followed. 

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) noted that the two previous amnesty periods had undergone a sharp increase in people bringing in firearms towards the end of the respective periods. Was this because of poor marketing? What was the reason that the last two weeks of the amnesty period undergoes a spike in numbers? 

What was the average time it took to determine whether a firearm had been used in a previous crime? What was the average time between the ballistics testing and the licensing of a firearm? Many people had complained about the length of time it took to get feedback about firearms that had been submitted. There should be a system where a person was given confirmation of submission at the station when handing in a firearm. Had this been considered? If not, a loophole would be created in the system, where firearms were unaccounted for -- a loophole where firearms might be stolen by the police themselves. To ensure that there would be no such allegations, he asked that the General Commissioner consider the system previously described -- that a receipt should be given to hold the system accountable. 

How long did it take for a licence application to be approved? What were the two main reasons for not approving an application? Were applicants timeously informed, or were they just ignored? 

Mr Terblanche asked what SAPS were going to do now, having had the two amnesties running almost back-to-back. He was concerned about the figures the Committee had received. How could they trust the presentation? Someone needed to take charge there. He said there was a discrepancy between the status of firearms that had been handed in, the tested ones and those destructed. He reiterated that he did not trust the figures at all. The Committee received various questions from the public -- for instance, ‘how many of the firearm parts and rounds of ammunition handed in were legal?’ ‘How many were illegal?’ ’How many firearms did SAPS refuse to accept, and what were the reasons for refusal?’ ‘How many firearms owners are in illegal possession as a result of expired licenses?’ He did not think they could allow a follow-up amnesty in the very near future, as SAPS needed to sort out the backlog. He suggested that SAPS needed to go back, prepare properly and give another presentation. It was not acceptable that the Department presented incorrect information. The Department had wasted the Committee’s time. He expressed his disappointment. 

Ms P Faku (ANC) commented that as Members of Parliament, they needed to play their role in terms of oversight. Having looked at the presentation, she suggested that they reject the presentation and turn the Department away. They could not find themselves going around in circles about firearm amnesty issues. It was important that the Committee tell the National Commissioner and his team that they had ‘literally failed us.’ The President’s opening remarks at SONA had referred to the recovery plan and the fight against crime. How could one fight crime if SAPS could not manage the firearms amnesty?  

She referred to a question posed by Mr A Whitfield (DA) on 1 October 2020. He had asked the Minister of Police, ‘What were the total number of firearms tested through the integrated ballistic identification system that were linked to crime.’ The Minister had answered that SAPS had tested 7 170 amnesty firearms through the Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS), and 108 firearms were linked to previous ballistic cases. According to SAPS, the Forensic Science Laboratory received 44 195 test samples and 460 samples on the ABIS collectively during the amnesty. Why had they chosen to report on ABIS in the current presentation and not IBIS, as in the previous presentation? She also requested that they explain the differences between the two systems and details of the IBIS maintenance contract, including the appointed company, the duration of the contract and the cost thereof. The Committee needed clarity on this, as SAPS could not present different information every time they appeared. 

Section 139 (4) of the Firearms Control Act provided that ‘a person who surrenders firearms may apply for licences, and the firearm must be returned to the applicant upon approval.’ How did SAPS ensure that those firearms for which licence applications were outstanding were not destroyed? Did this open SAPS up to more civil litigation? She also requested clarity regarding what was meant by ‘illegal firearms,’ and whether this included those that were related to people with expired licences. 

The Chairperson said that at some stage there were approximately 450 000 expired firearm licences. She agreed with Ms Faku that the expired firearm licences were blocked in the system, which prevented firearm owners from applying to renew their licences. What happened to those expired firearm licences? What had happened since the firearm amnesty ended? What were they going to do with these outstanding licences? There seemed to be a parallel system of licensing. There were people who had green licences, and people who had green licences but had not converted to the Firearm Control Act. The latter, ironically, seemed to be better off than those who had converted to the Firearm Control Act. The Department did not seem to be properly implementing legislation.

Mr K Maphatsoe (ANC) said that the police would agree with the Committee, that the Committee had been the most lenient portfolio committee, because all of them wanted to deal with crime. They had always acknowledged that the police were overwhelmed by the level of crime. The COVID-19 lockdown had reduced the level of crime. He agreed with Ms Faku that the Department should come back and present the correct figures and plan. 

He said questions had been asked about the backlog, and whether SAPS were ready to deal with it. The Committee had been repeatedly told by the Department that all the systems were in place to deal with the backlog. The Committee had not been able to do an oversight visit, mainly due to COVID-19. It would play its oversight role without any fear because they wanted a ‘well-oiled’ Police Department that was doing its work. The Act did not allow for them to extend the amnesty further. 

He agreed about the issues of communication. This went back to the issue of the green licenses and the panic people went through to update their licences. SAPS had had the budget to put information in the media, in newspapers and on television. He stressed that the delays were unreasonable, given that many innocent people were compliant and had had to undergo the lengthy process of ballistic testing etc. What happened to people’s whose licences had expired? Were they going to go house to house and search? The police would not be able to do that. The law-abiding citizens were asking where their firearms were – they had surrendered their firearms for such a long time. 

COVID-19 would be with them for a long time, and the vaccine would take a long time to be administered to the entire population. He suggested that COVID-19 could not be seen as their main obstacle. SAPS should be addressing the issues the Committee had previously highlighted, such as the CFR, IBIS and DNA. COVID-19 cannot be used as an excuse in future for why things had not happened. 

The Chairperson said she had been through all the minutes of the previous year. The minutes dealing with the second firearm amnesty noted that the Committee had asked the police whether they had enough time and capacity to complete their amnesty work. The police had confirmed that they had the capacity and that they would be able to do their work despite COVID-19, and the second amnesty would be sufficient to address the backlog. That document also stated that the Committee requested monthly reports from SAPS. If the Committee had received monthly reports, they would have picked up that there was a huge crisis. 

The Zondo Commission had been an ‘eye-opener’ for everyone. She had sent the Minister a letter, reminding him that they were required to send monthly reports to the Committee. That decision was taken by the Committee. She reiterated that they did not have any monthly reports on record. She expressed her concern that the CFR was not working. She requested a detailed report on this and suggested that the Deputy Minister and National Commissioner visit the CFR, as there was a huge backlog.

It appeared that the firearms industry had not mobilised people to hand in their firearms during the amnesty. They knew that this would happen during COVID-19 and during the festive season. They had woken up too late, as suggested by the spike in submissions in the last month of the amnesty period. There had been many complaints. This was not a situation she could accept. What would happen now? The firearm amnesty had come to an end. What would happen to those people who did not apply for amnesty and whose licences had expired? The amnesty could not be extended, which meant they needed another amnesty. The Committee had already given two amnesties. As it stood, they had incorrect statistics. Had the Department misled them? 

Mr Terblanche asked how many firearms the police had been able to connect with previous crimes committed. 

Ms Majozi agreed that they needed to take their oversight role seriously, particularly given the number of complaints they had received. KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) and Gauteng were in chaos -- she had received a large number of complaints relating to delays of up to a year at police stations specifically in these provinces. Clearly the Department ‘did not have a clue’ as to what was happening in their stations. She suggested that as a Committee, they needed to visit the stations and see what was actually transpiring. They had given the police two firearm amnesties, but the results were not showing. After visiting the stations, they might be able to offer solutions on how to move forward with the firearm amnesty issue. 

The Chairperson took the decision to suspend the meeting. She suggested that the Committee go back and look at the previous amnesties given, and that Members look at the decisions they had taken and the proposals and recommendations they made to the police. 

She requested that the police present the Committee with a proper report. The report that had been presented was inadequate and the monthly reports that were requested were never provided. She requested that the Deputy Minister and the National Commissioner pay a visit to the CFR and provide the Committee with a report on the situation there. The Committee would conduct oversight visits to all those stations. 

She reiterated that SAPS should not provide the Committee with inconsistent statistics – this would have dire consequences for both the Department and the Committee. She requested that the Department respect the Committee and herself as the Chair by presenting correct information and statistics. She would save the Department the embarrassment of responding to the questions. She handed over to the Deputy Minister.

Deputy Minister’s response

Deputy Minister Mathale said that they would not have a problem with re-convening. They had a responsibility to do what was expected of them. The Committee had a responsibility to conduct oversight. If they had agreed to supply monthly reports and they had not, he agreed that the Committee should do what was necessary to make sure that those things happened. 

He did not agree that ‘nothing had happened’ with respect to the amnesty. There were arms that had been returned. There might have been inaccuracies, but that did not necessarily mean that nothing had happened. They would look at the areas raised by the Committee. Going forward, if they agreed on something, they recognised they had a responsibility to make sure that what was agreed took place. He said that generally the Department did have an understanding of what took place in all the police stations. 

Closing Remarks

The Chairperson said she requested that the Department urgently provide the Committee with a detailed report on the amnesty. She would circulate that report with the answers to their questions. She would send the Committee’s concerns to the Minister, with a copy to the National Commissioner and the Deputy Minister. She urged the other Committee Members to put their concerns in writing. 

She reiterated that the Department needed to reconcile their figures, and not present incorrect statistics to the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.


 

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.

Share this page: