Private security under threat in South Africa

Experts have warned that proposed amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulations threaten the security industry in South Africa, risking public safety and thousands of jobs.

These are the primary concerns of major private security stakeholders in response to the Gazetted amendments.

In March 2025, the Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu, published a Government Gazette after deliberations with the Council of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA).

According to PSIRA, the proposed amendments aim to tighten firearm and weapon controls while increasing regulatory oversight. Other changes include:

• 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.

However, experts in the security industry argue that these amendments are unrealistic and make their operations more expensive and less effective.

The South African Gun Owners Association (SAGA) warned 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,” it said. 

Another concern is the ban on firearm possession in public spaces, which SAGA stated would hinder armed response officers from patrolling or assisting in places like malls, hospitals, and schools without meeting government compliance conditions.

Fidelity Services Group CEO Wahl Bartmann agreed with these concerns and added that the lack of clarity could have far-reaching consequences for industry operations and public safety.

“The lack of precision in defining things such as  ‘reasonable quantity’ of ammunition creates room for subjective interpretation and inconsistent enforcement,” he said.

“It is recommended that any such limits be clearly defined and adaptable to operational contexts, which the amedments fail to do.”

Another proposed change is enforcing annual psychological evaluations for armed private security personnel, which their employer must fund.

Bartmann again highlighted a lack of clarity, with no clear evaluation standard or criteria guidelines, which could severely impact operational efficiencies.

The Chairperson of Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Police, Ian Cameron, has also raised serious concerns about the proposed amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulations.

Cameron warned that private security firms could be closed overnight if the amendments proposed by the Private Security Regulatory Authority are implemented.

He added that the amendments could jeopardise the R45 billion private security industry that employs over 500,000 guards.

These risks come as the amendments will render security teams under-equipped against violent threats, punishing law-abiding firms for unproven accusations while creating vague and unenforceable operational criteria.

PSIRA says no one is being disarmed or losing their job

Despite the criticism of the proposed amendments, PSIRA CEO Manabela Chauke noted that the changes would not disarm security officers, no business would close, and no one would lose their job.

Speaking to Newzroom Afrika, Chauke said the regulations are designed to combat rogue elements within the industry and “rogue behaviour”.

Chauke highlighted that it is incorrect to say that the draft amendments prohibit the use of firearms or disarm security officers,” said.

“There are some people who are saying we are prohibiting. That is an incorrect use of words because there’s no word in the regulations that seems to be prohibiting anything,” he said.

“There are people who are saying we are disarming. There is no such word to say that security officers are being disarmed.”

Chauke also explained that the measures in the regulations are conditional, not absolute. They require a security firm to conduct a risk assessment before issuing an officer with a particular type of firearm.

“We don’t plan to disarm anyone. All we’re saying is that we need to know where you are going to use it and for what purpose you are going to use it,” he said. 

He further emphasised that no business would close, and no one would lose their job because of the regulations.

However, Cameron accused the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) of being dishonest about their intentions. 

“It’s critical also to understand that when PSIRA says they have no intention of disarming security companies or causing unemployment of security guards, it’s a blatant untruth,” he said. 

He argued that the proposed amendments clearly state that they can arbitrarily close or suspend the services of private security authorities and want control over the firearms of those private security entities.

Cameron criticised the necessity of the amendments and highlighted that the existing legislation and regulations already allow them to do the relevant policing of the industry without making any real changes.

Cameron called for public involvement and urged citizens to get involved. He asked South Africans to look out for the public participation processes in the different provinces and participate.