Download
1 / 25
250 likes | 261 Views
Understand the evolving relationship between Hunters Forum, SAPS, and CFR, highlighting challenges and the need for improved engagement towards common goals.
E N D
SAPS and CFR interaction with the Hunters Forum Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police Dr Herman Els - 1 September 2017 - Cape Town
The Hunters Forum was established in September 2004 and consists of the current 11 SAPS accredited hunting associations, plus the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa (PHASA). As a collective, the Hunters Forum represents more than 83,000 legal firearm owners.
The responsibilities and accountability of accredited hunting associations towards SAPS and the legislator, are mainly prescribed in Sec 8 and in Regulation 4 of the FCA. These responsibilities imply an extensive commitment and compliance with several legal requirements before hunting associations are accredited by SAPS. Accredited associations are responsible for awarding and ascertaining maintenance of the dedicated status of their members, and can be taken to task for non-compliance.
The Hunters Forum engages with CFR, in regular annual quarterly meetings in a forum known as the Hunters/SAPS Consultative Forum. These engagements have always been focussed on achieving the objectives of the FCA, and specifically on those sections of the FCA with relevance to hunting firearms.
The working relationship between the Hunters Forum and CFR had been reasonably successful between 2004 and 2011. This relationship, built on engaging in mutual trust and good faith, has since 2012, however, seen a steady decline up to the end of 2015 when Forum meetings were only attended by two CFR officials, instead of all section commanders as was the norm at the time.
In this context we could only interpret CFR’s declining participation as no longer seeing the Hunters Forum as an important stakeholder in the implementation of the FCA. After the Forum’s June 2016 meeting, SAPS in October 2016, introduced a proposed new MoU describing an engagement process with the Hunters Forum to be chaired and driven by SAPS (FLASH) in consultation with what the new MoU refers to, as the Accredited Hunting Associations of South Africa (AHASA).
Unfortunately SAPS did not attended the Forum’s meeting of 10 May 2017, which was scheduled for discussion, adaptation and acceptance of the new MoU. No reasons were given for SAPS not attending that Forum meeting.
SAPS’ non-attendance of the Forum meeting of 10 May 2017, thus only further enhanced the Hunters Forum’s loss of confidence in the commitment of SAPS to act in good faith towards a major stakeholder in the implementation of the FCA. Against this background, the Hunters Forum was thus forced to seriously reconsider its own position and commitment to the existing Hunters/SAPS Consultative Forum format.
It must be understood that costs involved for members of accredited hunting associations to attend Hunters/SAPS Consultative Forum meetings, come to a considerable amount. Members come to Pretoria from Polokwane, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein and Durban and many have to stay over to attend Forum meetings.
As associations of members, budgets are limited, apart from the fact that 80% of members representing accredited associations at Forum meetings do so as volunteers, and have to take leave to attend these meetings. If there then exist confidence issues between parties, the question must be asked if it is worth the association’s while to keep on paying costs for meetings, which continue to show little or no results.
These were then the reasons why on 22 June 2017, the Chairman of the Hunters Forum sent a letter to the Chairman of this respected Committee wherein he indicated that the Hunters Forum had concluded… “…that unless further engagement with SAPS/CFR is formalised in a manner where civilian/political oversight is established, the Hunters Forum sees no point to engage any further with SAPS/CFR in a bilateral manner…”.
This position of the Hunters Forum and our loss of confidence in the bona fides of SAPS’ commitment to the Hunters Forum as an important stakeholder, must also be seen against a wider background, of which the following two examples are enough to make our point.
In a SAPS circular of 13 March 2017 pertaining to communication regarding the proposed amnesty, all accredited hunting and sport shooting associations, and all other firearm advocacy stakeholders, are identified as being part of what is described as the “External Target Audience”.
While the Gautrain, Faith based organisations, Sport associations, other government departments, and even Guns Free South Africa, all with no responsibility towards the legal possession of firearms in this country, and with no real relevance to the content of the proposed amnesty, are included in the communication strategy as “Stakeholders”.
Many issues, which are within the ambit of specifically CFR to remedy - some requiring very little effort beyond sheer will - remain as “Matters Arising” in minutes of the Hunters/SAPS Consultative Forum meetings and remain unresolved year after year.
Just a few examples: Duplication in submissions of proficiency training certificates & SAQA certificates. Temporary export permits – inconsistent application and issue. Barrel & calibre changes not captured on the system and cannot be traced once the submission has been handed in (waiting period of 18 months and longer not uncommon). Head stamps on self loaded ammunition – no mechanism created to prevent legal firearm owners to be taken to task for differing head stamp on cartridge cases and on licence.
As we believe the Hunters Forum to be a major stakeholder in the successful implementation of the FCA on ground level, we have no other option than to seek the intervention of this respected Committee to assist us in normalising the working relationship between SAPS and the Hunters Forum.
In the same context it is the Hunters Forum’s contention that the CFR’s Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, in which considerable energy, time, effort and money was spent by accredited associations and other stakeholders, has, so far, come to naught. To the best of our knowledge SAPS has not been involved in any firearm stakeholder engagement with recognised stakeholders since late 2015.
The Hunters Forum, therefore, requests that this respected Committee take special cognisance of the need for, and importance of, the positive continuance of the firearm stakeholder engagement process, by re-directing the responsibility for process convenor and for oversight of the stakeholder engagement process to the Civilian Secretary of Police. This appointment is appropriate in terms of sec 5 & 6 the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service Act, 2011 (Act 2 of 2011).
The situation where Provinces and DFOs at different police stations still implement vastly different administrative procedures and processes in respect of competency and firearm licence applications, continues.
As Hunters Forum we request this respected Committee to again please seriously consider negotiating with SAPS a previous proposition to make the position of DFO a clear career path in SAPS so that one training schedule for DFOs can be instituted and be made compulsory for all DFOs. This will clear up a very large part of all service delivery issues our members and civil society encounter on station-level regarding firearm related applications.
It will definitely also largely benefit SAPS and the firearms licensing process as a whole, as our members report that at many stations one can only see the DFO on appointment, as their other Police responsibilities do not allow them to concentrate on firearm issues alone, and they can, therefore, not provide a walk-in service to the public.
In conclusion we ask if it is not possible to try and get the proposed amendments to the FCA through Parliament sooner than later. • We believe there to be adequate knowledge within the Civilian Secretariat for Police, in SAPS, and among members of accredited associations to “workshop” the existing draft legislation into a form ready for public participation in a very short time frame.
The more recognised stakeholders engaged in the process now, the less likely issues will emanate from the prescribed process to delay tabling the Bill.
The Hunters Forum supports the Objectives of the FCA whole heartedly and will do all in its power to make the Act’s implementation as successful and appropriate as is possible. • In this context we ask that CFR please be fully and seriously supported by this respected Committee and by SAPS’ Top Management in order to please create the appropriate infrastructure and personnel capacities needed to effectively fulfil their task.
