No, it doesn't. The contract with the ZAR for 12,450 "Francotte Pattern" Martinis was Westley Richards', obtained through Beckett's, their South African agent. Westley's contract with Francotte stipulated that Westley would manufacture the rifles on actions provided by Francotte. So yes, I imagine that there are Francotte markings on the internals, the actions were made by them, but the guns were barreled, stocked, proved and finished by Westley in England. Westley's contract with Francotte does not support the claim that these were "complete Belgium made rifles".

Is a Rigby Magnum Mauser a German made rifle because Rigby sourced the action from Oberndorf Mauser? The argument is silly.

Neither is Winfer. And there is a world of difference between singles and doubles. I'm not saying that it couldn't have been done with doubles with respect to rough parts. I'm saying that a gun built in England from rough parts sourced from abroad does not make the gun "German made" or "Belgian made". I've seen no evidence of more substantive work done in Belgium on pre-war British double rifles. The assumption that practices that may have applied to the manufacture of single shot rifles are therefore likely to have applied to double rifles is simply not logical. In my opinion, only someone who is not a student of the double would think it would be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------