DA questions NCACC process for issuing weapons conveyance permits
Despite a briefing on Thursday to the Portfolio Committee on Defence, the Democratic Alliance (DA) has still not been able to obtain a satisfactory answer as to why the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) granted a conveyance permit to a ship carrying weapons to a country in the midst of a brutal government crackdown on the population. We will be asking parliamentary questions to get to the truth of the matter.
Furthermore, when questioned by the DA as to why the Navy did not prevent the Chinese ship containing weapons for Zimbabwe from leaving South African waters while an urgent interdict was in the process of being served on the ship, the Minister responsible for the NCACC Sydney Mufumadi, replied that he did not know which court order the DA was referring to because the one he has seen did not oblige the Navy to intervene.
The DA strongly disagrees - a South African court issued a court order and it is incumbent upon all organs of state responsible for security, in this case, the Navy, to ensure that the law is complied with. In this case, who else could have prevented the ship from leaving South African waters ahead of a court order? The court order clearly ordered that "...the Sixth [Port Captain, Durban Harbour] and Seventh [Transnet National Ports Authority] Respondents are prohibited from in any manner whatsoever permitting the consignment of goods described in paragraph 3 above from being removed from the precincts of Durban Harbour, pending the final determination of the relief sought in Part B of the Notice of Motion." [insertions ours]. Does the Minister really think that the Navy has no role to play in this scenario?
South Africa cannot allow weapons to pass through our territories without rigorous scrutiny. The fact that the Chinese consignment was granted a permit at all indicates that there is a great deal of room for improvement in terms of how permits are issued. We cannot be seen to support, however passively, oppressive regimes anywhere in the world. Our legislation guided by our Constitution, is meant to safeguard against that.
The DA will do everything necessary to hold the various role-players to account in the event that the legislative requirements have not been met.
DA sources allege that the subcommittee responsible for issuing permits, the Directorate of Conventional Arms Control, did not follow correct procedures for the issuing of a conveyance permit for the Chinese consignment. On the basis of these allegations we will be submitting the following questions to the Minister of Defence:
- With regard to the Chinese ship carrying weapons bound for Zimbabwe which docked in the Durban harbour in April 2008, did South Africa receive a diplomatic note from the Chinese and/or Zimbabwean government as part of the application for a conveyance permit;
- Was the required quorum obtained in respect of the decisions taken to issue the conveyance permit for the shipment;
- Who gave the instructions that the permit must be issued;
- In what capacity was the President involved in the decision to issue the permit;
- What documentation exists to show that the decision to issue the permit for the weapons was taken after due consideration of Section 15 of the National Conventional Arms Control Act; and
- Why did the navy not enforce the SA law in terms of the court order or assist the sixth and seventh respondents from complying with the court.
These questions are critical in terms of proving whether all the requirements of the Act were fulfilled. If it becomes apparent that proper processes have not been followed, or that records are not been kept or that decisions are being made to grant permits without quorum being reached, then this needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Statement issued by Rafeek Shah MP, Democratic Alliance spokesperson on Defence, May 19 2008
