Dr U Roopnarain MP
 

National Assembly Cape Town: 29 August 2007  
 

Madame Speaker, 

The core objective of the bill is to incorporate the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects into domestic law as our country signed and ratified the Convention.

Passing the bill will therefore mean that we have executed our obligations in terms of the Convention. 

Conventional weapons of war have in recent years developed to the point where they are far more destructive and lethal than in the past.Furthermore, despite sophisticated targeting systems, conventional weapons still take a disproportionate toll on non-combatants such as civilians, especially when deployed indiscriminately. In terms of international humanitarian law it is therefore appropriate that the use of certain conventional weapons should be prohibited or restricted.   

When the Bill was first tabled, the IFP was concerned about two major issues. The first was what effect the original bill would have had on South Africans forces who were deployed in an international peacekeeping force that included foreign forces who had not signed the Convention, and who had some or all of the relevant weapons in their arsenals? We asked whether this meant that our forces could not be deployed with such foreign forces or whether it meant that we would be breaking our own laws if we were so deployed? 

Civil society also raised this practical problem and we are satisfied that during consideration of the bill, the portfolio committee and the department took our concerns seriously and decided that the United Nations or African Union mandate for any peacekeeping mission would take into account the Convention and its prohibitions or restrictions on certain weapons. We need therefore not fear that our forces will break our laws. 

The second concern was the extra-territorial application of the Act and jurisdiction. The IFP felt that domestic law should apply to South Africans but that it would have been very difficult practically to claim jurisdiction over foreigners who committed offences in terms of the Act outside the territory of the Republic. In the end a compromise was reached to our satisfaction that such persons would be tried if the offence could be tied to an intention to affect a public body, business or any other person in South Africa. 

Finally, the IFP would like to thank the chairperson and the portfolio committee, the department and civil society for contributing to a more polished and practical final bill. 

The IFP supports the bill.

Thank you.