Fifty-one days have passed since the Joint Standing Committee on Defence (JSCD) requested a response from Minister Khumbudzo Ntshavheni regarding allegations that South African-made weapons are being used in conflicts abroad, yet no official reply has been received.
The controversy began during a JSCD meeting on April 4, 2025, when Carl Niehaus, the EFF’s permanent representative on the committee, raised concerns about South Africa’s arms exports.
Niehaus accused the government of neglecting its responsibility to monitor and regulate weapons sales to conflict-affected countries, including Israel and Ukraine.
In response to these serious allegations, Ntshavheni requested additional evidence to support Niehaus’s claims.
Subsequently, on April 14, Niehaus submitted a comprehensive 11-page letter outlining South Africa’s obligations under key international treaties, such as the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms (UNRCA), and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW).
He stated that these treaties prohibit arms sales to conflict zones and countries accused of human rights abuses, specifically naming Israel and Ukraine.
Niehaus pointed out Rheinmetall, a German arms manufacturer with operations in South Africa, is reportedly expanding ammunition production at its RDM plant in South Africa to support Ukraine and replenish NATO stockpiles.
He indicated that from July 2024, RDM increased its capacity from 100,000 to 150,000 shells annually, operating around the clock.
Moreover, he added that Rheinmetall operates warehouses in Germany and Hungary, from which South African-manufactured shells are re-exported to Israel and Ukraine.
Despite the clear evidence, over seven weeks have passed without a formal reply from Ntshavheni or the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC).
When asked about this delay, Malusi Gigaba, Co-Chairperson of the JSCD, told that the committee’s oversight visit to Rheinmetall and other military equipment manufacturers had been postponed due to Parliament’s busy schedule and ongoing BRICS forums.
Gigaba acknowledged the delay but emphasised that the committee had urged the Minister to respond urgently, citing the Powers, Privileges, and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, which mandates truthful and comprehensive disclosures to Parliament.
Niehaus expressed frustration with the silence, stating, “I provided detailed information on April 14, and yet, 51 days later, there has been no response. I take this silence as a form of consent—or complicity.”
He further highlighted that the lack of response undermines South Africa’s international commitments and raises serious questions about the country’s role in global conflicts.
He added, “South Africa’s failure to address these allegations effectively makes a mockery of our international legal obligations and suggests that we are indirectly complicit in the ongoing genocide in Palestine through the continued export of weapons to Israel.”
Niehaus contends that by failing to respond, the government signals tacit approval of arms sales that may be contributing to human rights abuses and violence in conflict zones.
When asked if Ntshavheni had responded, Gigaba admitted, “I am unable to confirm if the Minister has responded to Mr Niehaus,” adding that the NCACC had assured that a response was forthcoming.
Furthermore, Gigaba said the Powers, Privileges, and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act compels anyone who gives Parliament information to be truthful.
“It is as important that the information the Minister gives is as comprehensive as possible. We have written to her as Co-Chairpersons, reminding her of the urgency of a comprehensive response in this regard.”
Politics
