Behind Closed Doors: How NEDLAC Became the Government’s Gateway to Gun Control
Nedlac’s Quiet Involvement In Gun Law Reform Sparks Transparency Concerns
The Quiet Repurposing Of A Democratic Institution
The National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC), once a symbol of participatory democracy, now stands accused of betraying its founding principles. Established to deliberate labour and socio-economic policy, NEDLAC’s sudden involvement in firearms legislation has raised red flags among civil society watchdogs.
The council’s original purpose is clear—to ensure consensus between government, labour, business, and community on policies directly affecting economic and employment conditions. Yet somehow, the Firearms Control Amendment Bill, which has nothing to do with labour or economics, has landed on its desk.
Why? And more importantly, who authorised it?
Transparency Abandoned For “Managed Consultation”
Reports indicate that NEDLAC has been reviewing the Bill in secret, excluding major stakeholders such as firearm owners, security professionals, sport shooters, and training bodies. The South African Gunowners’ Association (SAGA) and AfriForum have both criticised the process, calling it “unlawful, unconstitutional, and outside NEDLAC’s mandate.”
Even the Democratic Alliance has weighed in, accusing the council of hiding the Bill “behind closed doors” for over 40 days without any stakeholder engagement. The public, it seems, has been deliberately cut out of the conversation.
If NEDLAC was designed to foster transparency, why is it now operating like a gatekeeper for politically charged legislation? The optics are damning.
A Familiar Pattern Of Circumvention
This isn’t the first time the government has tried to push the Firearms Control Amendment Bill through public resistance. The 2021 version of the Bill was overwhelmingly rejected—with over 118,000 public submissions opposing it. The proposal was shelved after outcry, particularly over sections that sought to remove the right to own firearms for self-defence.
Now, four years later, a nearly identical draft is back—rebranded, reintroduced, and quietly circulated through bureaucratic channels like NEDLAC. It’s a pattern that suggests procedural manipulation—using technical institutions to bypass public accountability.
If democracy depends on participation, what does it mean when participation is replaced with token consultation?
A Controlled Narrative Through Bureaucracy
Portfolio Committee on Police Chair Ian Cameron has raised serious concerns in Parliament over the Ministry of Police’s handling of the Bill. He noted that months had passed with little information on who was consulted, what feedback was received, or why NEDLAC was even involved.
Meanwhile, no visible progress has been made in addressing real firearm issues—including the thousands of lost or stolen police firearms feeding South Africa’s violent crime network. Instead, focus remains fixed on tightening control over legal firearm owners.
This inversion of priorities exposes a growing trust gap between citizens and the state. As one observer put it, “The government wants to disarm those it cannot control, while it fails to control those it arms.”
Democracy At Risk Behind Closed Doors
The use of NEDLAC to advance a politically unpopular gun law without broad consultation isn’t just poor governance—it’s institutional corruption in disguise. A once-democratic body now risks becoming a conduit for government overreach, weaponised against the very citizens it was designed to represent.
When the public is shut out of policy formation, transparency dies. When the process is hidden, freedom follows.
South Africans should be asking:
If they can misuse NEDLAC today, what else can they repurpose tomorrow?
