Results 1 to 10 of 46
-
22-11-2018, 20:44 #1
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
- Johannesburg
- Posts
- 6,444
Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS
Received this and thought it would be worthwhile to share.
Notes on Clark Attorneys’ court case against the SAPS and certain of its officials in their personal capacity.
Background:
The leaked Draft Firearms Control Amendment Bill 2018
The intention behind this leaked document is clear in that it seeks to take self-defense away as a valid reason to own a firearm and to incrementally place significant further restrictions on the possession of firearms by hunters, sport shooters, collectors and the security industry (Note: Those South Africans who can afford it is mostly reliant on the private security industry to protect them and their assets – the security industry has 3 times more security guards than what the SAPS has members, and many of those members are employed in administrative capacities and not operational).
The SAPS’s initial response to the leaked draft was to downplay the authenticity and veracity thereof and to publicly state: “Gun Owners are Jumping the Gun”.
Parliamentary questions were subsequently asked by Dr. Pieter Groenewald of the FF+ and it has now in the past week been confirmed by the Minister for Police that this is indeed the course that government has embarked on and that the official release of the bill is immanent. Clearly on that front only a political solution will save the day for all South Africans.
The SAPS has resorted to the de facto refusal of license applications for blatantly fictitious reasons pending the legislative amendments, even before they were debated in parliament. Clearly the SAPS have embarked on the disarmament of people who have (ironically and through the prescribed procedure to determine their competence) _been found_ to be fit and proper to possess a firearm. The current de facto disarmament is being conducted outside of the provisions of the current legislation (ultra vires their powers and with an ulterior motive) and in line with the proposed amendments to the FCA (Firearms Control Act) as per the leaked bill.
For example: Protea Colours competitors at international level – just about all of them had their licenses refused and could not compete at all or properly with the firearms in the recent world championships in France and Russia amongst others – out of more than a 100 - nations South Africa as a nation suffered a huge embarrassment and the situation is continuing despite hundreds of appeals that have been successfully lodged to the Firearms Appeals Board against the refusals. The question can now indeed be asked if we find ourselves back in the dark ages of sport embargoes, but this time effectively self – imposed?
Some of the fictious reasons for refusal include a statement by the SAPS that the relevant firearm is a “machine gun” whereas it clearly is a handgun. (Note: the FCA in any event requires of the SAPS to keep an accurate database of firearms.)
The relevant members of the South African Sport Shooting Team have approached Annette Clark of Clark Attorneys to institute a high court application where the applicant claims relief that includes the issuing of his license for his shotgun, and for orders for _compensation_ (for the legal costs of the appeals to the Firearms Appeals Board _and_ for the specific and general _damages suffered_ as a result of the wastage of his time and due to the fact that the competitor’s entire competition was spoilt.
The compensation is claimed in terms of the provisions of Section 8(1)(c)(ii)(bb) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) from the relevant respondents personally (a piece of legislation that has strangely not been used a lot by lawyers up to date, despite the fact that the Act has been in operation for a considerable period of time). Once the principle is accepted by the court in the context of the suffering that the public had to endure over the years from the actions and omissions of the CFR and certain of its officers (the conclusion is now inescapable that this must have been by design), the door will be open for applicants to claim back their money from the relevant officers personally and from the SAPS by default, that they had to pay to lawyers to institute and prosecute appeals for them to the Firearms Appeals Board.
The Notice of Motion to the application also includes an order that the relevant officials should be ordered to personally pay the _legal costs_ of the application _and_ that they should also personally pay for the costs of their _own _defense of the matter (pay for the attorneys and advocates who will most likely be appointed by the State Attorney for them), that would in the past have been paid for by the state and therefore the very taxpayers that are trying to defend themselves against unjust government conduct. This is in line with the recent costs orders that the Constitutional Court made against minister Bathabile Dlamini and the order of the North Gauteng High Court of earlier this week against former president Jacob Zuma.
Clearly South Africans have had enough of paying for the legal costs of government employees who are acting outside their powers and against the interests of the public who they should in fact being serving to justify the use of the term “civil servant”.
What remains to be seen is if the SAPS and its officials will continue with their conduct in refusing perfectly good license applications to people that the SAPS itself declared to be competent and fit and proper to possess firearms, on fictitious reasons, in the light of the fact that the court has now been requested to hold the officials personally liable for both the legal fees and for compensation in terms of PAJA.
Annette Clark can be contacted on clarkattorneys@gmail.com for further information.
15 November 2018
-
22-11-2018, 21:51 #2
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
- Location
- Noord van die biltong gordyn.
- Age
- 56
- Posts
- 9,116
Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS
-
22-11-2018, 22:10 #3
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Cape town
- Age
- 48
- Posts
- 1,017
Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS
Camaaaaaan!! I am so angry just reading this! I had no idea that these sport shooters were denied from representing our country!
-
23-11-2018, 06:19 #4
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
- Location
- Pretoria
- Age
- 50
- Posts
- 260
Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS
Excellent news !!!!!
-
23-11-2018, 07:12 #5
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
- Location
- PTA
- Posts
- 172
Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS
If they can get a court to hold the officials (or any official) personally responsible for legal costs it sure would change things for the better. Let's hold thumbs!
-
23-11-2018, 08:02 #6
-
23-11-2018, 08:20 #7
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Location
- Jnb
- Age
- 50
- Posts
- 1,178
-
23-11-2018, 08:30 #8
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- Melkbosstrand
- Age
- 46
- Posts
- 256
-
23-11-2018, 09:32 #9
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- Now Durbs
- Age
- 67
- Posts
- 564
Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS
I would like to wish Annette the very best and hopefully we will see a successful outcome of this initiative. She knows what she is doing.
-
23-11-2018, 09:41 #10
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Port Elizabeth
- Age
- 56
- Posts
- 6,736
Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS
Yes, it's because of their knowledge of IT geek protocols that somehow got GOSA the interdict that is keeping a few 100k guns out of the saps redistribution network for now and that is demanding legal accountability of public servants.
Let's NOT focus on the bit that was actually important.
Bookmarks