The State v Bongani Sehoole

The respondent was stopped by SAPS officers while driving a vehicle. During a search, a 9mm Beretta pistol with a filed-off serial number and a magazine containing fifteen rounds of ammunition was found concealed on his person. He was convicted in the regional court of unlawful possession of a firearm (s 3) and ammunition (s 90) under the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 and sentenced to effective imprisonment. On appeal, the South Gauteng High Court set aside the convictions, holding that because the serial number was removed, the respondent should have been charged under s 4 rather than s 3 of the Act, and that there was insufficient proof that the cartridges were ammunition without a ballistic report.

The appeal was upheld. The High Court order was set aside in its entirety. The convictions and sentences imposed by the regional court were reinstated, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for a de novo hearing of the respondent’s appeal.

The case affirms prosecutorial discretion (dominus litis) in South African criminal law, particularly in the context of overlapping statutory offences under the Firearms Control Act. It clarifies that possession of a firearm with a removed serial number does not preclude prosecution under s 3 and that courts should not dictate charging decisions. It also confirms that proof of ammunition does not invariably require ballistic evidence.