A legal organisation has approached the North Gauteng High Court with an urgent application demanding the suspension of all South African arms export permits destined for the United States, contending that continued approvals violate mandatory provisions of domestic legislation.
The Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) filed the challenge against the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC), the statutory body responsible for authorising conventional weapons transfers. According to the application, the committee has neglected its duty under Section 14 of the National Conventional Arms Control Act, which requires the suspension or cancellation of export permits whenever a transfer would not serve the interest of maintaining or promoting international peace.
Dr. Attila Kisla, who leads the International Justice Cluster at SALC, outlined the legal foundation of the case. “The legislation is clear and contains no exceptions,” he explained. “When a recipient state engages in conduct that threatens international peace and security, the committee is legally bound to act.”
The submission identifies a pattern of U.S. actions that SALC argues meet this threshold:
- In January 2025, the U.S. administration removed restrictions on weapons shipments to Israel, including 2,000-pound munitions subsequently deployed in Gaza during proceedings at the International Court of Justice concerning alleged international crimes.
- In June 2024, U.S. military strikes targeting Iranian nuclear infrastructure were characterised by UN legal experts as breaches of the Charter’s prohibition on the use of force and as acts of aggression.
- Also in January 2025, the apprehension of Venezuela’s president was cited by UN specialists as another violation of the Charter’s restrictions on forceful intervention.
- Beginning February 28, 2025, escalated military operations against Iran drew condemnation from South Africa’s president, the UN Secretary-General, and multiple UN special procedures, all describing the situation as a serious threat to global stability.
“These are not disconnected incidents,” Dr. Kisla noted. “Together, they demonstrate a recurring disregard for foundational principles of international law. That pattern activates the NCACC’s statutory duty.”
Addressing evidentiary questions, the application clarifies that the National Conventional Arms Control Act does not require proof that specific South African-manufactured items were deployed in unlawful operations. Rather, the law focuses on the conduct of the receiving state. “The legislation is concerned with whether arms are going to a country that systematically violates international law,” Dr. Kisla said. “It is about responsible trade, not tracking individual shipments.”
The case also touches on broader questions of consistency in South Africa’s foreign policy posture. With the nation actively pursuing genocide-related claims at the International Court of Justice, SALC questions the compatibility of continuing arms transfers to major military supporters of parties involved in those proceedings. “Our mandate is legal, not political,” Dr. Kisla emphasised. “We are asking that existing law be applied uniformly, regardless of strategic partnerships or economic considerations.”
The organisation stressed that its request is narrowly focused. The application targets only export permits related to the United States and does not seek to dismantle South Africa’s defence export sector. “This is a proportionate measure aimed at ensuring compliance with domestic law,” Dr. Kisla added.
Legal observers note that a favourable ruling could establish precedent for future challenges involving arms transfers to other states accused of serious breaches of international norms. Beyond domestic implications, Dr. Kisla suggested the case carries symbolic weight: “A court order would affirm that governments, civil society, and concerned citizens possess legal tools to hold powerful states accountable. It would reinforce that the rule of law applies universally—not selectively.”
The North Gauteng High Court has not yet set a hearing date for the matter.