NEDLAC Under Fire For Secrecy Over Firearms Control Bill Revival
Civil Society Raises Concerns About Government Oversight and Public Engagement
NEDLAC’s Role Questioned As Transparency Falters
The National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) has found itself at the centre of growing controversy, accused of abandoning its commitment to transparency and overstepping its mandate in its handling of the Firearms Control Amendment Bill. Critics argue that this latest development exposes deeper issues within South Africa’s legislative process—where key institutions may be used to push contentious policies through the back door.
Originally designed to mediate between labour, business, government, and community sectors on labour and socio-economic policies, NEDLAC’s current involvement in firearms legislation appears out of alignment with its constitutional role. Firearms regulation is neither a labour matter nor an economic one, yet discussions are reportedly being conducted behind closed doors—raising fundamental questions about accountability and legitimacy.
Stakeholders Locked Out As Government Pushes Ahead
Civil society groups, including AfriForum and the South African Gunowners’ Association (SAGA), have criticised NEDLAC for what they call an “unlawful” and “secretive” process. Despite directly representing constituencies impacted by the bill, these organisations have been excluded from formal discussions.
SAGA further noted that the firearms industry, sport shooters, and security sectors—key stakeholders in this legislative process—have received no meaningful consultation. This lack of inclusion, they argue, not only undermines the credibility of the process but also contradicts the principles of participatory democracy that NEDLAC was established to uphold.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) echoed these concerns, stating that over 40 days have passed without any engagement between NEDLAC and firearms stakeholders. The DA accused the council of attempting to fast-track the Bill “under a veil of secrecy” to bypass scrutiny.
A Recycled Bill, A Familiar Strategy
The Firearms Control Amendment Bill currently under review is, according to several critics, a rehash of the 2021 version—a proposal overwhelmingly rejected by the South African public after over 118,000 submissions were made opposing it. Instead of drafting a new version reflecting those objections, the government appears to be reviving the same text, merely repackaged through procedural channels.
This pattern raises uncomfortable questions about whether public participation in South Africa is genuinely respected—or merely performed for appearance. If the state continues to advance legislation already repudiated by its citizens, is this democracy or administrative coercion?
Parliamentarians Demand Clarity
Portfolio Committee on Police Chair, Ian Cameron, has publicly questioned the Ministry of Police over vague responses concerning the Bill’s progress. Cameron pointed out that NEDLAC has been sitting on the legislation for months without transparency or updates. He also warned of a “misleading narrative” emerging from the bureaucracy—one that paints the Bill as consultative when it is not.
Critics argue that before amending firearm laws, the government should focus on enforcing existing legislation, addressing corruption in the Central Firearms Register, and accounting for missing state-owned firearms that continue to fuel criminal violence.
Transparency Or Political Theatre?
At its core, this controversy highlights a deeper issue—whether the South African government is committed to open, participatory governance or whether transparency has become a political performance. NEDLAC’s silence, coupled with the absence of clear stakeholder involvement, signals a troubling drift from its founding purpose.
If a body meant to promote inclusivity and dialogue is now being used as a shield for secrecy, South Africans have every reason to question the legitimacy of the process and the motives driving it.
The question remains: Is this how democracy dies—not with a declaration, but with a closed-door meeting?
