South Africa’s private security sector is concerned about the implications of draft regulatory amendments, saying they will undermine its ability to protect clients and even result in job losses and the closure of firms.
The Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu, published the draft amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulations on 28 March in Notice 3088 in Government Gazette No. 52388. A statement or explanatory memorandum did not accompany the publication of the Notice.
Stakeholders and the public have until 25 April to comment.
Democratic Alliance MP Ian Cameron, who chairs the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Police, said in a post on X that he was “shocked” by the proposed amendments, and South Africans should be concerned by them.
The DA issued a statement last week calling on the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) and the Department of Police to withdraw the amendments.
PSIRA, which was established in terms of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act, regulates the industry and exercises control over security service providers. Its functions include registering security companies and individuals and enforcing compliance with legal standards.
Civil rights organisation Free SA said the draft regulations are “vague, unworkable, and a serious threat to public safety” and “will not curb crime but disarm those trying to prevent it”.
The organisation, which facilitates public participation in policymaking, reported on 4 April that more than 12 000 objections were submitted through its platform within 24 hours of launching its campaign against the draft regulations.
“These proposed regulations would make it nearly impossible for security firms to operate effectively,” said Reuben Coetzer, a spokesperson for Free SA. “They impose undefined standards, mandate non-existent technologies, and restrict the tools necessary for protection without evidence or consultation. Worse, they allow authorities to suspend businesses based merely on investigation, not proof.”
Free SA urged the Department of Police to withdraw the draft regulations and “begin meaningful engagement” with stakeholders.
Business Day quoted defence and security analyst Helmoed-Römer Heitman as describing the draft amendments as a “bad idea that is entirely divorced from reality”.
“We have serious crime and a police service that is too small, quite apart from its other problems, and it’s difficult for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves. Now they want to reduce the capability of the security industry. That suggests a complete failure to grasp reality by ministers and senior officials who enjoy armed bodyguards,” he said.
Gideon Joubert, a trustee of the South African Gunowners’ Association, said the proposals contain “numerous serious and debilitating flaws”.
“They will significantly increase the administrative burden and costs on private security providers and severely curtail their ability to render services to their clients. With over 580 000 security officers employed serving millions of clients, the industry is a cornerstone of South African safety – these amendments threaten to destabilise it entirely.”
Joubert said legitimate private security businesses want rogue and criminal players that pose as security firms to be rooted out of the industry. This can be achieved by enforcing existing laws, not by saddling a critical industry with “costly, crippling restrictions that punish legitimate players and weaken their ability to serve the public and the state”.
The draft amendments propose to insert three regulations relating to the issuing, use, and registration of firearms and other weapons.
Main concerns
Criticisms of the draft regulations circulating on industry websites and social media accounts focus on the following aspects of the proposed regulations – although critics assert there are many other problematic provisions.
Prohibition on firearms in public places
Sub-regulation 13(A)(1)(q) prohibits security officers from possessing firearms in public places unless they comply with the extensive requirements under paragraph (u). These public places are taxi ranks, stadiums, cemeteries, shopping malls, restaurants, parks, churches, hospitals, schools, or “any other similar public establishments”.
PSIRA can decide whether to approve or deny applications for security officers to possess firearms in these public places, based on what Joubert described as “its vague and unspecified expectations”.
He said this process is open to abuse, and it will essentially mean that any security guard who transits through or patrols these public spaces will not be able to be armed. Joubert believes the provision even casts doubt on whether suburban neighbourhoods can have armed response.
“This would effectively ban armed response unless the armed response company can satisfy the regulator that it needs to carry guns in these public locations.”
‘Reasonable amount’ on ammunition
Sub-regulation 13(A)(1)(s) states that armed response officers should be issued no more than “a reasonable quantity of ammunition for the purposes of rendering the relevant security service”.
Critics ask what is meant by “a reasonable quantity of ammunition”.
Joubert said the South African private security industry operates in a wide variety of contexts. For example, in the case of a rural mine security tactical response team that has to go up against zama zamas (illegal artisanal miners) and similar high-level threats, it would be reasonable for them to issue every member of the tactical team with at least 60 to 90 rounds of ammunition (two spare magazines for a rifle). By contrast, an urban or suburban armed response patroller with two spare magazines for their handgun would probably have a total of 45 rounds of ammunition.
“Is that reasonable or unreasonable? We don’t know because the regulator doesn’t tell us,” Joubert said. “It’s therefore open to extremely subjective interpretation, and including such requirements in a regulation creates unnecessary and unwanted uncertainty and risk.”
Restrictions on the use of semi-automatic rifles
Sub-regulations 13A(12) and (13) place potentially significant restrictions on the issue and use of semi-automatic rifles by private security firms.
Security firms may issue semi-automatic rifles to officers only for high-value goods in transit (such as cash in transit), the protection of critical infrastructure (such as national key points), or combating poaching.
Tactical intervention teams and high-risk units will no longer be able to use semi-automatic rifles unless they apply to PRISA for an exemption, which may be granted if the regulator finds the grounds sufficiently compelling.
Critics say the prohibition will severely affect the effectiveness of tactical intervention teams and high-risk units.
The implications are that security officers can protect high-value goods in transit with semi-automatic rifles but cannot protect those same goods in their warehouses or depots, Joubert said. Mine security will not be able to protect facilities often targeted by zama zamas and other armed and dangerous criminal groups.
“Tactical intervention teams and high-risk units protecting retail complexes, shopping centres, industrial parks, and corporate offices will be similarly rendered toothless and ineffective, and anti-hijacking units will be forced to confront dangerous hijacking syndicates while armed only with handguns,” he said.
Tracking device on every firearm
Sub-regulation 13A(16) requires that all security firms that possess firearms must install a tracking device in every firearm to track the possession and use of such firearms.
The regulation does not specify whether this is an electronic tracking device or a non-electronic tracking device.
Joubert said he assume it’s an electronic device because he is not aware of any non-electronic tracking device, “but neither am I aware of any electronic tracking devices for firearms that fulfil this requirement, so it’s an impossible requirement that firms have to fulfil”.
Clamp-down on non-lethal weapons
Sub-regulation 13B(17) lists the non-lethal weapons that private security firms may not use. The list includes Tasers, tear gas, rubber or plastic bullets, water cannons, and sponge grenades.
Joubert point out that “Taser” is a specific brand of conductive energy device, primarily used to incapacitate people by electric shock, and not the general term for such devices.
Firms can access these prohibited weapons if they satisfy PRISA that they have met the extensive requirements in sub-regulation 13B(17).
If an exemption is granted, a security firm must submit an application within seven days of its intention to use a prohibited weapon.
Joubert said these devices are extensively used in crowd management, crowd control, and in response to violent riots, public violence, and violent strike action, “which I’m not aware comes with a seven-day pre-warning period, so effectively this would pull the teeth from private security responding to those threats, meaning they can’t protect the assets, facilities, businesses, neighbourhoods, or people that they are contractually obligated to protect”.
Suspected offence can shut down a firm
In terms of sub-regulations 13(A)(1)(j) and (k), a security firm that is under investigation for an alleged or suspected offence or violation is prohibited from issuing firearms to any of its officers.
Joubert said these provisions could prevent a security firm from performing its tasks and duties and fulfilling its contractual obligations without being officially suspended; it merely has to have allegations against it, irrespective of whether those allegations are frivolous, without foundation, or malicious.
“As long as those allegations lead to an investigation, the firm can effectively be shut down on that basis. This will result in termination of contracts and firms going out of business, service provision becoming much more expensive and less reliable, and generally have an extensive and extreme negative impact on the industry,” Joubert said.
Compulsory evaluations
Sub-regulation 13A(8)(f) stipulates compulsory annual medical, psychometric, and psychiatric evaluation of all armed security officers at the cost of their employers.
Joubert said although this provision sounds reasonable, it does not provide guidance regarding who is certified to carry out these examinations, what criteria must be satisfied, and how one is supposed to assess the mental and emotional condition of armed security officers.
Not the first attempt
This is not the first time in recent years that the government and PSIRA have tried to restrict the use of firearms by private security firms.
In May 2019, the Minister of Police proposed amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulation Act that sought to limit private security companies’ access to certain high-calibre firearms.
The proposed regulations specified that handguns and shotguns could be issued only to security officers involved in specific services, such as armed response, cash-in-transit protection, private investigation, environmental protection or anti-poaching, close protection, and security at national key points. Semi-automatic rifles were to be restricted to cash-in-transit security personnel, while bolt-action rifles would be limited to environmental protection and anti-poaching services.
These specific amendments did not progress into law. Instead, a broader legislative effort culminated in the Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Act, which President Cyril Ramaphosa signed into law in September 2021. The Amendment Act primarily focused on regulating foreign ownership within South Africa’s private security sector.
