The South African Gunowners' Association
Comments on the Draft Firearms Control Amendment Bill, 2006 published in
Government Gazette No 28545 of 24 February 2006
Trustees; RK Anger, BM Shaw, JI Welch, DL
Spokesman & Legal Advisor: Martin Hood (082 553 9252)
We have noted that the draft amendments
published in the above Government Gazette are merely proposals.
We welcome this opportunity to provide
further constructive input with a view to improving the Act and to reduce
the acknowledged difficulties experienced with the proper interpretation
of and implementation of the Act.
We are committed to ensuring that the
implementation of the Act is fair, that the contents of the Act itself are
both lawful and constitutional and to ensure that the legitimate rights of
law-abiding firearm owners are protected.
SAGA's mandate is to ensure that firearm
owners are not in any way prejudiced by legislation that either
contravenes the Constitution or in any way removes existing rights.
Various press statements emanating from the SA Police Services and the
Minister's office have claimed that the published amendments were the
result of submissions made during the course of 2005 by the firearm
fraternity. This is incorrect. With the exception of the proposed deletion
of Section 24 and the amendment of Transitional Provision 1, Schedule 1,
none of the submissions made by the various organizations following the
September 2005 Ministerial imbizo have been embodied into the draft
amendments. Copies of those submissions will be sent to the Portfolio
Committee, Director Van Vuuren and the Minister's Office in due course.
In assessing the possible impact of the amendments, SAGA's approach is
founded upon the following general principles:
1 SAGA will oppose any limitation of the
existing rights of firearm owners, or any potentially unconstitutional
2 The Act, whatever its ultimately
provisions, must be applied consistently and objectively. This
necessitates that there be an open, disclosed policy -- developed in
conjunction with the firearm community -- that will serve as a guide to
how the Act is to be interpreted and applied. This policy must be adhered
to by the SA Police Services and be such as to enable firearm owners to
understand their rights and their obligations. The Minister is
respectfully referred to Chapter 10 of Act 108 of 1996, more specifically
Section 195(1)(e),(f),(g) in this regard.
3 SAGA records, to date hereof, that there
has been no disclosed policy and no consultation with the firearm
community relating to the development or disclosure of a policy to
interpret and implement the Act, notwithstanding repeated requests.
4 It is however quite clear that policy
guidelines are being used by the SA Police Services in, not only assessing
applicants for firearm licences (for example the unlawful application of
the principle of need to applications other than self-defence) but also in
dealing with appeals. SAGA has concluded this on the basis of continued
and ongoing common "reasons" given for the refusal of licences
and for upholding such refusals on appeal.
5 SAGA has also noted with concern that
appeals are refused, not on the basis of the original reason given by the
SA Police Services, but for other reasons. It is the Appeal Board's task
to decide whether or not the decision of the SA Police Services was lawful
and reasonable or not. To find other reasons for the refusal of an appeal
is, in SAGA's opinion, exceeding the mandate of the Appeal Board. It also
appears that the Appeal Board has become part of the policy-making
machinery of the SA Police Services: this compromises the independence and
role of the Appeal Board and must be stopped immediately.
6 The independence and integrity of the
Appeal Board must be safeguarded because of the requirements of Section 34
of Act 108 of 1996 which states:
"everyone has a right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the
application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or
where appropriate another independent or impartial tribunal or
7 The Appeal Board is supposedly "an
independent forum or tribunal". However, the independence of the
Appeal Board is in question and this must be addressed and remedied
immediately in order to restore credibility to the process. The
administrative debacle at the Appeal Board also urgently needs to be
8 There is a concentration of
decision-making at the Central Firearms Registry. This has created huge
administrative backlogs. Decision-making must be delegated downwards from
the Central Firearms Registry to provincial designated firearm officer
level and local designated firearm officer level. This will ease
administrative backlogs and allow for the more effective implementation of
9 When the Act was first discussed
publicly, and throughout the entire Portfolio Committee process, one of
the principal reasons given for the formulation and passing of the Act was
to give powers to police at local level to assess a person's suitability
to possess a firearm. It was acknowledged that, the Central Firearms
Registry was not in the position, based on the information provided in the
SAP 271 application forms, to properly assess the suitability of an
applicant for a firearm licence.
10 This philosophy is quite clearly
embodied in the requirements of the Act by virtue of the fact that
designated firearm officers are tasked in terms of the SAP 271 and related
documentation to assess an Applicant's suitability to possess firearms and
make a recommendation in respect thereof. The powers of local designated
firearm officers must be increased to allow for and give recognition to
11 SAGA calls upon the Minister to
immediately declare a moratorium on the re-licensing process. This should
apply until certainty has been restored to the licensing process.
12 Not only do the proposed amendments, if
accepted in respect of Section 24 and Transitional Section 11, prejudice
those persons born in January, February and March, but they have created
the potentially unlawful and unconstitutional environment. Persons born in
these months may be refused competency certificates or licences because
they are legally obliged to reapply, whereas the seventy-five percent
remainder of firearm licence holders will not be subject to such process
and risk. This will result in damages claims, and claims for compensation
against the Ministry. These can be avoided by a simple administrative
process of declaring such a moratorium. Alternative administrative
solutions should also be sought so as not to prejudice the past year of
13 SAGA also draws to the Minister's
attention the fact that Section 149(2)(b) must be complied with and that
existing firearm owners who, as a result of information provided by the SA
Police Services and the Minister's office have surrendered firearms must
be entitled to reclaim those firearms, if not destroyed, because all
existing licences remain valid until 30 June 2009.
14 If such firearms have been destroyed, or
if the Minister cannot return that property, he must undertake to pay
compensation to the rightful owners.
No Rationale provided
15 SAGA (and the other established firearm
organizations) has found that making constructive comment on the proposed
amendments -- particularly those relating to collectors and black powder
firearms -- to be extremely difficult because no rationale has been put
forward to explain the need for such restrictions.
16 SAGA calls upon the Minister to disclose
the rationale and reasons (as he is constitutionally obliged to do) why he
has proposed certain of the amendments (which are referred to below) in
order that we may provide further and proper comment. We reserve the right
to comment further when these reasons are disclosed.
17 The Firearms Control Act was originally
proposed as, and has always subsequently been termed, a crime fighting
tool. The Ministry, when dealing with amendments, must bear this in mind
and amend only those sections that have proved inadequate for this
purpose. It is unreasonable and irrational to regulate persons and types
of firearms if no harm is perpetrated by such persons and firearms.
18 To ensure its proper implementation, the
wording and structure of the Act (and its Regulations) must be simplified
to make it accessible and understandable to both police and firearm
owners. If this is not done, the Act will continue to lack credibility and
compliance levels will not improve.
19 In order to amend legislation there is
an established legal principle that there be a harm not addressed by
current legislation and it must be shown that an amendment is necessary to
deal with such harm or prejudice. The Minister is called upon to explain
why, and how, the legislation has failed, what harm has resulted and how
the proposed amendments redress such harm.
20 Legislation cannot be amended in a
vacuum, it must be amended in a manner that is constitutional, reasonable
21 The Minister himself has publicly stated
that when legislation is not fair then it is not good legislation. SAGA's
arguments below will show that the legislation is not fair, that it is
restrictive, that it targets a group or groups of people that have not
committed any harm, and that do not need any further control. Many of the
proposed amendments will not pass constitutional scrutiny.
22 SAGA will also comment on other areas of
the Act that require amendment to comply with the abovementioned
Section 4 - Prohibited Firearms
23 This section needs to be clarified
urgently. Subsection (e) contradicts the deactivation provisions that
allow a person to possess deactivated sample of a prohibited device. This
must be cross-referred to Section 5(1)(j).
24 The general provision applicable to non
dedicated firearm owners limiting possession of ammunition to two hundred
rounds must be deleted. Target shooters and wing shooters are particularly
prejudiced by this provision.
25 The various hunting and sports shooting
associations will provide the specific motivations in this respect.
Licences for Business Purposes
26 SAGA has been advised that the licensing
process to issue firearms for business purposes, particularly security
companies, is subject to a separate business process and is therefore
quicker, but the reality is that this is not so. Businesses are being
prejudiced and potential employees are not being gainfully employed as a
result of the delays in issuing the firearm licences for business
Importation of Firearms
27 Section 73 and Regulation 62 must be
amended as a matter of urgency to provide that a returning resident or
citizen can obtain a temporary import permit either on arrival or in
another manner to be prescribed by the Registrar. Many people are being
criminalized as a result of incorrect information provided by the Central
Firearms Registry to returning residents who wish to import firearms,
resulting in their arrest on arrival in South Africa and the confiscation
of their firearms. The information on the SAPS website is contradictory
28 There must be a clear policy relating to
the issue of Section 21 permits to temporarily possess firearms.
29 The Minister must clearly indicate in
terms of this policy whether he intends on following the provisions of the
Interpretation Act, i.e. whether the legislation is deemed to be
retrospective or not, and in what respects. The Act must be amended to
clarify the issue of retrospectivity.
30 As the Act currently stands, it clearly
contravenes the Interpretation Act and will be subject to constitutional
and judicial review in this respect.
31 A final problem area is that of the
involvement of Sasseta and the Skills Development Act.
32 Sasseta's involvement (and its
predecessor Poslec Seta) has been a dismal failure. Sasseta is clearly not
capable of processing the number of learner achievement certificates
required within a reasonable time. The Skills Development Act was
incorporated at a very late stage into the regulations without thought
being given to how the requirements of the South African Qualifications
Act would be accommodated within the prescribed framework and without
giving thought as to the technical capability of Sasseta to comply with
33 The Skills Development Act has no
application in a non industrial environment such as firearm training. We
suggest that all reference to Sasseta be removed from the Act,
alternatively that Sasseta's involvement be limited to that of
accreditation of training institutions and instructors.
34 The issue of training provider
certificates for firearm owners should not be subject to Sasseta
requirements because the quality controls in respect of institutions and
instructors are sufficient.
35 Against this must also be borne in mind
the fact that all firearm instructors and institutions have to go through
a separate accreditation process with the SAPS in addition to that of
accrediting with Sasseta. This seems to be an unnecessary duplication.
Amendment of Definition of Ammunition
36 A primer cannot be deemed ammunition. We
suggest that SAPS legal services examine the various international
conventions such as the International Air Travel Association Convention
that deals with the transportation of arms and ammunition. A primer is
quite clearly classed separately. A primer is a component of ammunition
and in the absence of the other components (propellant, bullet and
cartridge case) cannot be deemed to be ammunition.
37 The definition is illogical and contrary
to internationally accepted standards.
38 This amendment is going to be extremely
problematic. Not only will it infringe upon the existing rights of
purchasers of antique firearms subsequent to 30 June 2004, but no
provision is made in the proposals as to exactly how these firearms are
going to be re-licenced, and how possession will be regulated until
licences can be issued.
39 The amendment is illogical for two
reasons. Firstly, the original legislation reflects the intention of the
legislature to deregulate these objects. Subsequent to deregulation, we
were not aware of any harm that has resulted from the deregulation of
black powder firearms. In the absence of any harm that can be proven and
that needs to be remedied by additional legislation, any amendment would
be legally unsustainable.
40 Secondly, there is no logic in the fact
that an object manufactured before 1 January 1900 need not be regulated
and an object manufactured after 1 January 1900 needs to be regulated if
they are exactly the same object and are capable of achieving exactly the
41 Nitro proofing has no relevance to
antique firearms and its inclusion is mystifying and pointless.
42 Quite clearly this is an attempt to
bring the Firearms Control Act into line with, amongst others, the
43 Brokering services by definition has no
place in the Firearms Control Act. Not only is the definition so broad as
to be potentially struck out for vagueness but it will to lead to
unintended adverse consequences. Furthermore, the harm that it seeks to
remedy has not been disclosed but there is quite clearly going to be
extensive prejudice should the proposal be passed.
44 For example, in the security industry, a
responsible person purchasing ammunition on behalf of his employer would
be deemed to be a broker. This is illogical and quite contrary to the
intention of the legislation.
Fit and Proper Person
45 This amendment is to be welcomed if it
is intended to give the Registrar a greater discretion to allow people to
be declared fit and proper as opposed to allowing a restrictive
46 A clear policy however on what is meant
to be a fit and proper person must be disclosed. Reference once again is
made to Section 195(1)(e) of Act 108 of 1996.
Amendment of Section 3
47 This amendment is to be welcomed if it
anticipates that recognition is to be given to Arms & Ammunitions Act
licences. This appears to be the intention but is also contrary to public
statements made by persons in the Minister's office. This has created
confusion as to precisely what the intent of the legislation is and what
requirements the public has to comply with.
48 This relates to the regulations of what
is commonly termed a silencer. During the drafting of the original Act,
proposals were made to regulate silencers but these were removed after
representations from various firearm organisations. Once again, in the
absence of a harm or mischief that the Minister can prove needs to be
remedied, this amendment should not be allowed.
49 Furthermore, silencers have a number of
uses in different environments:
49.1 Firstly, in training, particularly for
those who have not been exposed to firearms previously, the muffling of a
report from the discharge of projectile is an essential training aid, and
it also aids the safe discharge of firearms;
49.2 Secondly, it is essential that older
hunters or shooters, who may suffer from tinnutis, be allowed to use
silencers to prevent further damage to their hearing.
49.3 Thirdly, culling, and problem animal
control, is often done using silencers and many farmers insist that
hunting be done in certain environments with the use of silencers so as
not to traumatise or affect other animals.
49.4 Fourthly, a pregnant woman cannot be
trained other than by the use of a silencer for fear of injuring her
50 Finally, the word "device" is
potentially confusing. There are many attachments put on barrels that are
not silencers, such as muzzle brakes and flash hiders.
51 The intent behind this proposed
amendment is to give recognition to the fact that there is a need to speed
up the process of changing responsible persons, particularly in relation
to security companies. This amendment is welcomed.
52 This extremely problematic amendment
must be seen against the fact that many people have criminal convictions
of a petty nature, and subsequent to their conviction and full disclosure
of such conviction, they have been granted firearm licences under the Arms
& Ammunitions Act. Implicitly they have been deemed fit by the
Registrar to possess firearms. The effect of the wording of this amendment
is that someone will be disqualified for life from obtaining a competency
certificate if they have one of the category of offences referred to in
Section 9. If they are prevented from obtaining a competency certificate,
they will be prevented from renewing and or keeping their existing
licences. This is clearly wrong and, we would suggest, an unintended
consequence of the proposed amendment.
53 It furthermore contravenes the principle
of rehabilitation and paying one's debt to society through conviction and
punishment and the handing down of an appropriate sentence by a court.
Should this amendment be effected, this would take away existing rights
and will no doubt be subject to legal challenge. It is not in compliance
with Section 36 of the Constitution nor, we would suggest, does it comply
with the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act
54 The proposal to amend sub-section 4 of
Section 9 is potentially good. However an anomaly exists in that it is
irreconcilable to delete 3 and then create life disqualification from
obtaining a competency certificate while sub-section 4 accepts the time
period of unfitness imposed by a judge or magistrate. Section 3 appears to
be all the more irrational and unreasonable in the light of the proposed
amendment to section 4.
55 However, in principle, the amendment of
Section 10 and the abridging of the competency procedures are to be
welcomed, but there must be a policy framework in place that determines
how police officers must exercise their discretion in granting of
56 This amendment is welcomed. However
there is an irrational anomaly between sports shooters who may possess
restricted firearms where collectors now appear not to be able to possess
similar functional restricted or category B firearms. This is anomalous
and this anomaly appears throughout the proposed amendments in respect of
collectable firearms. It will be argued that such proposals are
irrational, unreasonable and prejudicial to a defined class of persons and
57 These amendments are objected to in the
strongest possible manner. Section 17(1)(8)(ii) requires all firearms in
private collections to be made inoperable. No definition is given of what
"made inoperable" means, and the mechanism to do so is delegated
to regulations that can be passed without public scrutiny and are within
the discretion of the Minister. This is unacceptable in view of the
potential negative impact it may have on private collectors, the value of
whose firearms may be totally destroyed. We are of the opinion that this
is deactivation under another name, is unacceptable for reasons of
historic, heritage, technical and collector value. It also constitutes an
unlawful, unconstitutional, unreasonable and irrational deprivation of
rights granted to collectors under legislation that was proposed by, and
accepted by, the same department that is now seeking to amend such
58 In the absence of any specific harm that
needs to be remedied, these inexplicable provisions will be subject to
59 In addition to this, the removal of the
clause that allows collectable firearms to be discharged, where it is
legal to do so (Section 17(4)) is unreasonable. This constitutes a further
unreasonable limitation on property rights.
60 Recognition must be given to the fact
that collectors, generally speaking, have much better safekeeping
facilities (approved by SAPS) than the average person, and they are not
public collectors. There is also confusion in the mind of the drafters of
these proposals as to the difference between public and private
collectors, and public and private museums.
61 Regulation 17(2) is not acceptable
because it constitutes an unreasonable limitation of existing firearm
62 Of additional concern to SAGA, although
it may just be careless drafting (which is repeated throughout the Act in
certain respects), is the fact that in Section 17(2) the additional words
do not include the words "restricted firearm" and in 17(3)(c)
"semi automatic" is used instead of restricted. This latter
instance is serious because it could be taken to apply to all self-loading
pistols instead of what we believe is intended to be limited to restricted
or self-loading rifles, carbines and shotguns.
Section 18 - Ammunition and Private
63 Likewise we repeat many of our
objections and principles to Section 17 for Section 18.
64 This will destroy ammunition collecting
because any tampering with ammunition, breaking open of packets, etc, will
destroy the collectable value of ammunition. This will contravene the
National Heritage Resources Act and constitutes an unreasonable
restriction on individual rights.
65 Furthermore, it is inexplicable that if
the ammunition is deactivated as required, why the ammunition then needs a
licence because it is no longer ammunition.
66 To address any security concerns (if
that is indeed the rationale) we suggest that collectable ammunition must
be contained in a safe that complies with regulation 86 and leave matters
67 Our objections are similar to those in
respect of Section 18. There is no need to store moving parts of a public
collector's collection separately in respect of restricted firearms and
the confusing use of "semi automatic" instead of
"restricted" continues. Unintended consequences would flow from
this confusing intermixing of terminology.
68 What is even more perplexing is that the
clause permitting use (of the inoperable firearm) on an accredited
shooting range has been retained. This is extremely confusing.
69 This minor amendment is to be welcomed
because it gives recognition to the fact that persons under the age of
twenty-one are theoretically entitled to be granted firearm licences.
70 De facto however, the SA Police Services
have adopted the approach that no persons will be entitled to obtain a
competency certificate (and therefore a licence) before they reach
71 This will potentially destroy junior
shooting sports. This comes at a time when our South African Clay Target
Shooting Team achieved fantastic success at the Commonwealth Games against
stiff international competition.
72 Provision must be made for a policy that
clearly spells out when a person under the age of twenty-one will be
entitled to obtain a competency certificate, and therefore a licence. The
SAPS clearly misunderstand the provisions of Section 21 read with Section
9 and 10 of the Act.
73 This section is completely unacceptable.
It gives judicial powers to the Registrar (which he/she may not exercise
properly) and allows him to openly contravene Section 22 of the
Constitution which states "every citizen has a right to choose their
trade, occupation or profession freely. The practice of a trade,
occupation or profession may be regulated by law".
74 For the Registrar to accept statements
on oath that have the effect of depriving somebody of their ability to
earn a livelihood, and to allow the person so affected only to make
written representations, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
75 The Registrar is assuming the function
of a judicial official and that contravenes Section 34 of the
Constitution. This function should be removed from the Registrar as it is
inevitable that it will be (and has been) abused.
76 It must be drawn to the Minister's
attention that there have been many attempts under the Arms &
Ammunitions Act to suspend a dealer's licence, and in certain instances it
has taken in excess of two years for the Registrar to make a decision as
to whether or not to uplift the suspension. The consequences of this
unlawful and tragic action are obvious. Such dealers were forced to close
77 Furthermore, there are no guidelines to
how the Registrar should exercise these powers, nor is any limitation
specified in the proposed amendments as to how long the Registrar can
suspend the licence and the time period within which he must make a
78 The proposed amendment to sub-section
(f) clearly contravenes the concept of the independence of the judiciary.
79 A judicial officer has a discretion as
to how to exercise his judicial function and, should he choose to accept
an admission of guilt fine, should the offender pay such admission of
guilt fine, guilt has been admitted, sentence has been imposed, and the
offender has complied with such sentence. Society's requirements have been
complied with, in that the offender be punished appropriately and
thereafter the offender, in the absence of evidence to the contrary is
deemed to be rehabilitated.
80 Now, not only is the Registrar given the
power to usurp the authority of the court, but the principle of double
jeopardy has been introduced into the Firearms Control Act and a person
can be punished twice for the same offence by two separate entities. This
is clearly unconstitutional.
81 It is furthermore of concern to SAGA
that the Registrar can proceed with a hearing on the merits of a matter --
based upon an unsubstantiated allegation that may or may not be properly
made under oath and in the absence of the person who is the subject of the
complaint. This will be open to abuse, particularly in circumstances where
the SAPS do not properly carry out their obligation to take reasonable
steps to locate the subject of the Section 102 enquiry. If a person is
temporarily absent from their residence and the police officer does not
find them, the enquiry can take place in such person's absence, without
calling the complainant to give evidence and the person may be declared
unfit without him even knowing about it. This is clearly unacceptable and
82 These proposed amendments also give more
power to the already excessive powers granted to the Registrar.
83 We would prefer that this amendment be
deleted in its entirety. A judicial officer is far better trained and
capable of making a determination of whether a person is fit to possess a
firearm or not because they are trained in the law of evidence and how to
assess an accused legal responsibility. The ability to determine fitness
to possess a firearm, where criminal charges are laid, must remain with
the judicial officer, and should not be transferred to the Registrar. A
judicial officer exercising criminal functions must apply the criminal
onus of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the Registrar (if
he is even qualified to do so) may apply a different onus of proof. This
will lead to inconsistency and unfairness and is therefore irrational and
84 The addition of sub-section 8,
residential premises, is rejected. There is ample authority that has
already been to the Constitutional Court that states:
"the privacy of one's residence is paramount and is protected by
Section 14 of Act 108 of 1996"
The authorities in this respect are Hyundai
Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Smit NO 2001(i) SA454 (CC) and Bernstein v
Bester 1996 (2) SA751 (CC).
85 Not only is the granting of this power
to a police officer unconstitutional, but to give the power to the
Registrar to delegate it to a person, who is not a public official, is
incomprehensible. It is irrational and unreasonable.
Section 118 and Section 119(a)
86 The issue of reverse onus has already
been comprehensively dealt with in the Constitutional Court case S vs
Mbatha and S vs Prinsloo.
87 No matter how these presumptions may be
worded, they are unconstitutional and they must be rejected. The State has
an obligation to properly investigate alleged criminal offences and they
cannot escape their responsibilities by diminishing what they have to
prove in order to secure a conviction.
88 Furthermore, we suggest that Section
119(a) is clumsily worded and is therefore confusing. If it is confusing,
it is vague and therefore may be struck out and made void for vagueness by
89 Whilst we have long urged the Minister
to establish a consultative committee or forum, we prefer the original
wording of the Act because a committee has more legal standing and
authority than a consultative forum.
90 We would regard a consultative forum as
having less practical ability to assist the Minister.
91 Whilst we are committed to consultative
processes in principle (and the concept of a consultative forum) we
suggest that the Minister retain the right to form such a committee.
92 We have no difficulty with this proposal
in principle other than to draw to the attention of the Minister that
there is no National Heritage Authority, it is the National Heritage
Amendments to Schedule 1 of the
93 Our understanding of the amendment
proposed here is that the five year limitation on the validity of Arms
& Ammunitions Act licences is deleted and it is implied therefore that
all Arms & Ammunitions Act licences remain valid indefinitely.
94 If this is the intention of the proposed
amendment then this amendment is supported by SAGA. SAGA also supports the
requirement to obtain a competency certificate as is periodically
required. We suggest, however, that, from a logistical point of view, the
period of the validity of a competency certificate be considered for a
period longer than five years.
Section 1 of Schedule 1(2)
95 Twenty-four hours is too short a time
period within which to surrender a firearm.
96 It is unacceptable that penalties should
be decided upon after the publication of the draft amendments. The
potential penalties are subject to exactly the same constraints that the
Act and regulations are, i.e. they must be reasonable and rational to pass
with constitutional muster. Either the penalties must be drafted and
disclosed, or separate consultation must take place for this.
97 Whilst SAGA remains committed to
constructive engagement with Government and providing constructive input
into improving the Firearms Control Act, it is SAGA's respectful opinion
that these amendments, besides not embodying the practical suggestions
made by the firearm organisations, have been drafted in a hurried manner,
without proper thought as to the correct wording and the consequences.
These amendments can only be made workable with meaningful engagement with
all role players.
98 It is essential therefore that further,
much more comprehensive consultation, and more time be allowed to consider
the far-reaching effects of these amendments and to ensure that the
wording correctly reflects the intention of the legislature whilst at the
same time remains reasonable and constitutional.