Put simply, the police refused to change the name of a responsible person in a close corporation where the membership had been changed. The police were adamant, that according to their Standard Operating Procedure, when there is a change of member, a new application for a new dealer’s licence must be submitted. This was notwithstanding a written judicial finding on exactly the same circumstances in a 2022 case in the matter of Pretoria Arms, that this was not necessary.
The outcome of this court case was that the police continued to believe they could establish procedures based on their own judgment and interpretation of the Firearms Control Act, even if they were wrong or if a judge had told them they were incorrect.
Some of the judge’s comments included, and I quote: “The respondents’ approach to the matter is astonishing,” and “They have also deliberately ignored the clear findings of the High Court in Pretoria Arms. Their conduct is, in my view, contemptuous of this court,” and “The respondents continue to enforce a procedure that has been held to be unlawful,” and “A police officer should realize that he should never obey an unlawful order.”
The cherry on top of the cake, of course, was the comment, “the respondents are blatantly obstructive and contemptuous, and they display an astounding lack of knowledge about corporate structures.” The first part of the comment is of a general nature, suggesting that the head of the Central Firearms Registry, among others, is obstructive and contemptuous. However, the judge concluded that their conduct is not limited to the issue that was before the High Court.
What was even more distressing to lawyers was that Major General Mamotheti, who is the Head of Firearms, Liquor, and Second Hand Goods, tried to unilaterally change the Standing Operating Procedure to get around the outcome of the case during the proceedings. The judge recognized this and was just as unimpressed. The overall effect is that we have a court case that once again shows that the South African Police Service simply doesn’t care about the law and people’s rights. Their attitude of non-consultation, non-disclosure, non-explanation, and contempt toward the people they serve is so deeply ingrained that it will not change in the foreseeable future unless these people are dismissed and punished for their incompetence, which, in the current environment, is too much to expect. We have too much corruption and too little resources to discipline everyone who doesn’t know the Constitution and the law and who deliberately takes a political stance in an environment where they should be guided by legislation.
What is even more disturbing is that there are other examples of the Standard Operating Procedures that are also blatantly unlawful, and the police turn their back on the public they serve and simply enforce them. A relevant example is the permanent import of firearms by private individuals. The Firearms Control Act clearly addresses this, as does the SAPS 520 form you must complete to permanently import a firearm. In fact, the police permitted individuals to permanently import firearms until around 2022, when they suddenly changed their approach without informing anyone (as usual), and then modified their system to change the process for submitting permanent import permits. Their current system now only allows the submission of a permanent import permit by a licensed firearm dealer. Underlying this is their Standard Operating Procedure of 2023, which explicitly states that a private individual cannot import a firearm directly without going through a firearm dealer.
The Central Firearms Registry knows that this is unlawful because, in the Firearms Control Amendment Bill of 2025, they seek to amend the Firearms Control Act to say that only a dealer may import a firearm. If they are of the view that only a dealer may import a firearm, why do they need to change the Act?
It is at this juncture that we need to begin tying together certain issues that, on the face of it, appear to be unrelated. In 2019, the South African Arms and Ammunition Dealers’ Association obtained a court order by agreement. It is to be emphasized that, through a structured process known as a structural interdict, digital connectivity between dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths had to be instituted with the Central Firearms Registry within three years. This was subsequently amended by a court order to four years, i.e., 2023. We are now in 2026, and the police are attempting to push the implementation date back to 2027, i.e., five years after the court order’s original end date.
In my view, it is no coincidence that the South African Police Services, despite an order instructing them to consult with dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths about the new system, have flatly refused to do so. They will not disclose what the new system is, other than it is much greater than connectivity to dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths. This raises the distinct possibility that the system will be programmed with functions or limitations that go far beyond what the Firearms Control Act envisions and could be designed to implement the Firearms Control Amendment Bill. Conversely, if it is not so programmed, not so designed, there will be major problem if and when amendments are made to the Firearms Control Act. However, the South African Police Services simply refuse to reach out to the industry for help and explanation of what they are doing.
At the same time, we are facing the PSIRA amendments, and the Secretariat has not yet disclosed the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment; it says it has to justify the cost, or lack thereof, of implementing the Firearms Control Amendment Bill. Similarly, the Private Security Industry Regulator publicly stated that it has conducted research and has data on the commission of crimes by security officers involving firearms, yet, strangely, it cannot make this data available. They have, however, turned to the South African Police Services and asked them to collect this data, but this request was only made after the statements were made publicly in support of the regulations that they already have this data.
Again, besides the head of PSIRA blatantly lying to the public and the Secretariat of Police blatantly lying, the greater concern above and beyond the dishonesty is their willingness to simply ignore procedure, legislation, and citizens’ rights to push through a minority agenda that is not supported by fact or legislation.
If you are reading this article, you must be prepared to dig deep to pay to stop this. When your association asks you for contributions, do it (and if you are not a member of a firearm association, you should be), and you should be prepared to push back on any proposals of any nature that directly or indirectly infringe upon your right to possess and use firearms.
What do you do when the law enforcers don't obey the law?
