Disaster for private security in South Africa
A wave of criticism is mounting against proposed amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulations, with industry stakeholders warning of “potentially devastating consequences” for the sector and public safety.
On 28 March 2025, Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu published the Government Gazette after deliberations with the regulatory body that governs the private security industry, the Council of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSiRA).
The proposed amendments are said to be aimed at tightening firearm and weapon controls while increasing regulatory oversight.
While proponents argue that these changes will improve accountability and prevent misuse of force, critics warn that the amendments would likely weaken private security’s ability to function effectively in a country so heavily reliant on them.
Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Police Chairperson, Ian Cameron, wrote on social media that the amendments could jeopardise a R45 billion+ industry that employs over 500,000 guards by:
- Punishing law-abiding firms for unproven accusations;
- Making routine armed response illegal in practice;
- Creating vague and unenforceable operational criteria;
- Forcing impractical compliance with non-existent technology;
- Rendering security teams under-equipped against violent threats.
Key Changes and Restrictions
One of the most significant amendments is the broader definition of “weapons,” which now includes handcuffs, which would require specific training and regulatory approval.
Additionally, the amendments restrict less-lethal tools such as tasers, rubber bullets, and water cannons, requiring a seven-day approval process before they can be deployed.
Critics argue that this requirement is impractical in emergency situations, such as riot control.
Another controversial proposal is the prohibition of firearm use by security personnel in public spaces, including shopping malls, schools, hospitals, churches, and cemeteries.
This raises concerns about how essential security services—such as cash-in-transit operations and armed response teams—will continue to operate under these restrictions.
Further changes include, but are far from limited to:
- Mandatory annual physical and psychological assessments for security officers, evaluating their visual, neurological, and emotional condition.
- Restrictions on semi-automatic rifles, limiting their use to protecting valuables and critical infrastructure.
- Mandatory tracking devices for all firearms used by security firms, with tracking service providers requiring government approval.
- Restriction on ammunition, limiting it to a “reasonable quantity” without clear guidelines.
- Security firms under investigation could be prohibited from issuing firearms to their officers, even if no charges have been laid.
Critics Warn of Industry Disruption
Many within the security industry argue that these amendments place unrealistic burdens on private security providers, making their operations costlier and less effective.
Gideon Joubert, of the South African Gun Owners Association (SAGA) and editor of Paratus, warns that the new rules could destabilise the entire industry.
“They will significantly increase the administrative burden and costs on private security providers and severely curtail their ability to render services to their clients,” he said
Attorney Martin Hood argues that the amendments fail to provide alternative policing solutions, leaving security firms to bear higher costs while operating under stricter restrictions.
He also highlights the removal of less-lethal tools, sarcastically noting that “protesters would need to give a week’s notice so security firms can apply for permission to use rubber bullets.”
Joubert also warns that security firms under investigation—even without proof of wrongdoing—could be prevented from issuing firearms to their officers.
“This could cripple security operations, as firms could be effectively shut down simply by being investigated, regardless of the outcome.”
Another major concern is the ban on firearm possession in public spaces, which Joubert says would prevent armed response officers from patrolling or assisting clients in areas such as malls, hospitals, and schools unless all government compliance conditions are met.
“If these amendments aim to tighten control over the private security industry to root out rogue and criminal players, they are taking the wrong path,” said Joubert.
“Most would agree that purging harmful entities is a vital task for the regulatory authority—but this can be achieved by enforcing existing laws, not piling on new burdens,” he added.
Joubert argues that criminals exploit corruption in SAPS and PSIRA to operate sham security firms. Instead of imposing costly restrictions on legitimate businesses, he advocates for investigating, prosecuting, and convicting offenders to address the problem effectively.
“By pushing these changes, the regulator risks harming the very industry it is meant to protect—along with its clients, employees, and the broader economy. If enacted, they will leave us with a less safe, less secure society.”
Hood argues that “these proposals are going to severely limit the ability of the security industry to do the job that they are doing.”
Regulator Defends the Amendments
Despite the backlash, proponents argue that the amendments are necessary to increase oversight, prevent firearm misuse, and enhance public safety.
They argue that:
- Firearm tracking devices will help prevent security weapons from falling into criminal hands.
- Annual assessments will ensure that only mentally and physically fit officers carry firearms.
- Limiting semi-automatic rifles will prevent security firms from overstepping their role as a supplement to law enforcement.
Next Steps
The amendments have sparked industry-wide debate, with many calling for them to be revised or scrapped entirely.
Critics argue that while removing criminal elements from the security sector is essential, enforcing existing laws would be a better approach than imposing additional restrictions.
Public comments on the proposed regulations can be submitted until April 25, 2025, via [email protected].
The full draft amendments can be found below:
Loading ...