Civil Society South Africa (CSSA) demands that political parties declare before election day whether they will support removing self-defence as a valid reason to own a firearm. Parties backing its removal must explain how they intend to protect families facing armed criminals when police cannot reach them in time.
“Before asking South Africans for their votes, tell them whether you will support their ability to protect themselves,” says Reece Clark, spokesperson for CSSA. “If your party supports removing self-defence as a reason to obtain a firearm licence, say so openly. Then explain what a parent must do when armed criminals threaten their children.”
The attempted hijacking of Pinetown father Sidney Hill and his two children shows what is at stake. According to police, armed suspects blocked their vehicle and opened fire on 9 October. Hill returned fire, fatally wounding one suspect. The remaining suspects fled.
“For a father in that position, the immediate concern is keeping his children alive. He has seconds to act. Afterwards come the investigation, the scrutiny of his decisions and the trauma his family must live with,” says Clark.
“Using a firearm in self-defence already carries serious legal responsibilities. Now consider a father who faces the same attack but has been denied a firearm licence because protecting his family is no longer accepted as a valid reason to own one. What exactly do political parties expect him to do?”
Where the parties stand
CSSA’s review of publicly available statements and policies, updated to 26 October 2026, found:
- – Has explicitly opposed removing self-defence as a reason for firearm ownership and called for the FCAB to be withdrawn and reconsidered.
- – FF Plus: Supports competent, properly trained citizens owning firearms for self-defence.
- – ActionSA: Has opposed the proposed removal of self-defence licensing and called for a more efficient process for lawful firearm ownership.
- – ANC: Must clarify its current position on retaining self-defence licences, given that the removal proposal originated under an ANC-led government.
- – EFF, MK Party, IFP and Patriotic Alliance: CSSA’s review did not establish an explicit public commitment to retaining or removing self-defence as a licensing ground.
- An unconfirmed position does not mean a party supports the proposal. It means voters still need an answer.
“Some parties have put their positions on record. Others still owe voters a direct answer. Every party must now state whether its representatives will oppose removing self-defence as a reason to obtain a firearm licence,” says Clark.
A right that people must be able to exercise
The proposal to remove self-defence licensing featured in the 2021 draft Firearms Control Amendment Bill (FCAB). CSSA demands that parties commit to preserving this licensing ground in any legislation ultimately placed before Parliament.
Removing the licensing ground would not abolish the common-law right of private defence. CSSA’s concern is whether people would retain a practical means of exercising that right if they could no longer obtain a firearm licence because they need to protect themselves.
“A father cannot apply for a firearm licence while criminals are shooting at his children. He must be able to prepare lawfully before that moment comes,” says Clark.
CSSA demands that parties publish direct answers to three questions before South Africans vote on 4 November:
- – Will your party support retaining self-defence as a valid reason for obtaining a firearm licence?
- – Will your representatives oppose any FCAB provision that removes this licensing ground?
- – If you support its removal, how will you protect people during an armed attack, and what evidence shows that your policy will make them safer?
Parties must also explain how restricting people who apply for licences and comply with the law would disrupt illegal firearm trafficking, corrupt officials supplying weapons to criminals, or the syndicates financing armed violence.
CSSA recognises that the forthcoming elections are municipal and that firearm legislation is decided nationally. However, the parties asking communities for their votes also take positions and exercise influence at national level. Voters are entitled to question whether those positions support the safety promises being made on their doorsteps.
Through its Transparency Project, CSSA is seeking the research, policy records and assessments behind the proposed firearm amendments. Political parties owe voters the same openness about the decisions they intend to support.
“South Africans must know what they are voting for. If your party supports removing self-defence as a reason to own a firearm, explain how you will protect that family when an attack happens. Parents who are prepared to fight to keep their children alive deserve a clear answer before they vote,” concludes Clark.
Stay Informed
Campaign updates, legislation alerts, and advocacy news. No spam.
