On 2 February 2026, the Gauteng Division of the High Court delivered judgment in Marksman Arms and Firearm Training CC v National Commissioner of Police and Others. The decision is significant not because an applicant succeeded against the state, but because of what the court recorded about the conduct of officials linked to the Central Firearms Registry.
The matter concerned a licensed firearms dealer operating under the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2002. After a change in membership of the close corporation, the new member requested that the South African Police Service update its system to reflect him as the responsible person. Officials refused, insisting that a fresh dealer licence application was required. That position effectively prevented the business from operating normally.
The court rejected that approach.
In doing so, it recorded serious deficiencies in the reasoning advanced by the respondents. Officials confused a close corporation with a company, referred to “directors” where none exist in law, and applied requirements that were not grounded in the Act. The court described aspects of the reasoning as indefensible and made clear that internal administrative preferences cannot override legislation.
More concerning is the court’s finding that earlier High Court precedent had already clarified the issue. In Pretoria Arms, the court held that a change in ownership of a juristic person did not require a fresh dealer licence application. Despite this, the respondents persisted in applying a contrary position. The judgment notes that compliance followed only after the threat of contempt proceedings.
That sequence matters. It indicates not a misunderstanding, but a refusal to align administrative conduct with binding judicial authority.
The court ordered punitive costs against the relevant respondents and directed that the judgment be brought to the attention of the Minister of Police and the National Commissioner. That reflects judicial concern about the manner in which power was exercised.
This case is not a debate about firearm policy. It is about administrative legality.
The Firearms Control Act grants specific powers. Those powers must be exercised within the limits set by Parliament and in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. Public officials may not achieve regulatory outcomes through obstruction, delay or invented criteria. Where the statute does not authorise a requirement, it may not be imposed.
A licensing regime depends on consistency and predictability. Compliant dealers and applicants are entitled to decisions that are lawful, rational and procedurally fair. When internal procedures diverge from the Act, the result is institutional instability.
South Africa’s violent crime environment requires a competent and credible regulatory system. That credibility is weakened when courts must intervene to restate basic principles of administrative law to senior officials.
Civil Society South Africa regards this judgment as requiring structured oversight.
First, SAPS leadership must clarify whether the position rejected in Marksman Arms was an isolated error or reflective of broader internal practice. If similar requirements were applied elsewhere, affected parties are entitled to clarity.
Second, all standard operating procedures within the Central Firearms Registry must be reviewed against the Firearms Control Act and existing court judgments. Administrative guidance cannot contradict statute or precedent.
Third, accountability must follow where officials knowingly persisted with an approach already found to be unlawful. Institutional credibility depends on consequence.
The court has drawn a clear boundary: public power is limited by law, and internal incapacity or preference does not justify deviation from that limit. The issue now is whether that boundary will be respected in practice.
Civil Society South Africa will continue to monitor compliance with the judgment and broader administrative conduct within the firearms regulatory framework. Judicial findings of this nature require more than quiet absorption. They require correction, transparency and reform.
Stay Informed
Campaign updates, legislation alerts, and advocacy news. No spam.
