PRETORIA — A groundbreaking legal dispute over South Africa arms exports to the US has reached the Pretoria High Court, as the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) formally challenges the government’s continued authorization of conventional weapons transfers. The unprecedented application seeks a court order to immediately suspend and cancel all active export permits, marking the first time a permanent member of the UN Security Council has faced such a legal hurdle in South Africa on human rights and international law grounds.
Dr. Atilla Kisla, International Justice Cluster Lead at SALC, anchors the lawsuit firmly in the National Conventional Arms Control Act. He highlights Section 14 of the legislation, which mandates that the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) must revoke or suspend permits if the proposed transfers undermine the maintenance or promotion of international peace.
To justify this mandatory suspension, the SALC application details a specific, documented pattern of alleged international law violations by the United States. The filing outlines four distinct situations:
- The US decision in January 2025 to lift a hold on arms shipments to Israel.
- US military attacks on Iran in June 2025.
- A January 2026 incident where US forces crossed into Venezuelan territory and detained the sitting head of state, constituting a clear territorial and UN Charter violation.
- The ongoing Iran war that erupted on February 28, 2026, which the South African presidency has explicitly labeled a severe threat to regional and global security.
Dr. Kisla noted that SALC’s legal strategy is not operating in a vacuum. The application is bolstered by independent findings from the UN Secretary-General, various UN special mechanisms, and prior public declarations by high-ranking South African officials, including the President and the Director General of International Relations.
The South African government has formally pushed back against the litigation. The NCACC chairperson and the Minister of Defense have submitted a notice to oppose the application. While Dr. Kisla declined to preview the specifics of the government’s upcoming answering affidavit due to the active nature of the case, he emphasized that the mere act of opposition sets the stage for a rigorous legal defense of current trade policies.
However, SALC argues that the government’s defense will struggle to align with its own stated foreign policy principles. Dr. Kisla pointed to recent remarks by Minister Lamola, who reaffirmed that South Africa refuses to supply weapons to nations actively engaged in conflict. Given that the US has been involved in armed conflict since at least February 28, 2026, SALC contends that the legal threshold for permit cancellation has already been satisfied.
Addressing potential criticisms that the lawsuit is driven by diplomatic or financial friction, Dr. Kisla firmly rejected that notion. He clarified that the case is strictly an administrative law matter focused on the rule of law. The core question, he stated, is whether the NCACC is fulfilling its statutory, mandatory duty to halt arms transfers when the criteria for threatening international peace are demonstrably met, regardless of the political or trade implications.
The High Court will now await the government’s detailed answering affidavit as this landmark test of South Africa’s arms export policy moves forward.
