GOOD Statement by Brett Herron,
Unite for Change Leadership Council Members & GOOD member of the Western Cape Provincial Parliament
05 March 2026
The GOOD Party has written to Speaker of the National Assembly Thoko Didiza to ask that Parliament consider regulating the carrying of guns by MPs.
While it is legal for South Africans to carry firearms, whether it is appropriate for MPs to carry firearms when working in communities raises a spectrum of moral, ethical, and practical questions around the safety of MPs, the safety of communities, and whether gun-carrying MPs reinforce the culture of gun violence and community fear.
In the letter to Didiza, GOOD Party Secretary-General Brett Herron states that parliamentarians’ constituency and political work should communicate accountability, solidarity, first-hand knowledge acquisition, and democratic engagement.
When, however, elected representatives feel compelled to carry guns in communities already traumatised by gangsterism and endemic gun violence, it communicates that:
- The community is so inherently dangerous that it can’t be engaged without lethal force;
- Political representatives operate above the safety standards of ordinary citizens; and
- Violence is an acceptable instrument in political space.
Herron’s letter to Didiza follows the incident last August in Philippi in which a DA delegation led by an armed MP, Ian Cameron, came under attack by criminals. Cameron used his gun, got the group to safety, and was hailed as a latter-day hero on social media.
In his letter to Didiza, Herron lists the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and several European democracies as nations in which elected representatives are expressly forbidden from carrying firearms while conducting parliamentary duties. Security is provided institutionally. Even where private firearm ownership is lawful, parliamentary norms distinguish sharply between personal rights and institutional roles.
“The principle underlying these practices is that democratic authority derives from a constitutional mandate and public trust — not from the capacity for armed self-defence.”
Herron asks Didiza to consider the issues of safety (for elected members and the public), the integrity of oversight processes, and the values Parliament seeks to embody in a society grappling with firearm-driven violence, and to provide institutional guidance.
The Speaker is specifically requested to refer the matter to the Rules Committee for its urgent consideration, including on whether a prohibition should apply during official duties, whether a formal authorisation or notification protocol should apply, or whether a structured security framework should replace individual discretion. She is also requested to obtain an opinion from Parliamentary Legal Services on the constitutional liability and institutional implications of Members carrying firearms while performing their functions.
“Parliament must provide the necessary guidance on whether Members should act as civilian legislators or armed enforcement officers when engaging communities.”
* Soon after the Cameron incident in August Herron issued a statement that inter alia questioned the optics of a self-confessed gun-loving MP, whose wearing of blackface to an Afriforum event a few years ago became a South African right-wing trope.
He likened Cameron’s actions in Philippi to colonial tropes depicting “civilized” Whites teaching hard lessons to Black “savages”. Those remarks are the subject of an ongoing quasi-legal process brought by the “Western Cape Parliamentary Conduct Committee” to muzzle the author.
Media Enquiries: media@forgood.org.za