Key Changes and Restrictions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nOne of the most significant amendments is the broader definition of “weapons,” which now includes handcuffs, which would require specific training and regulatory approval.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nCritics argue that this requirement is impractical in emergency situations, such as riot control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another controversial proposal is the prohibition of firearm use by security personnel in public spaces, including shopping malls, schools, hospitals, churches, and cemeteries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This raises concerns about how essential security services\u2014such as cash-in-transit operations and armed response teams\u2014will continue to operate under these restrictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Further changes include, but are far from limited to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Mandatory annual physical and psychological assessments<\/strong> for security officers, evaluating their visual, neurological, and emotional condition<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Restrictions on semi-automatic rifles<\/strong>, limiting their use to protecting valuables and critical infrastructure<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Mandatory tracking devices<\/strong> for all firearms used by security firms, with tracking service providers requiring government approval.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Restriction on ammunition<\/strong>, limiting it to a “reasonable quantity” without clear guidelines.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Security firms under investigation could be prohibited from issuing firearms to their officers<\/strong>, even if no charges have been laid.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Senzo-Mchunu-1024x576.jpg\")
<\/a>Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nCritics Warn of Industry Disruption<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nMany within the security industry argue that these amendments place unrealistic burdens on private security providers, making their operations costlier and less effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Gideon Joubert, of the South African Gun Owners Association (SAGA) and editor of Paratus, warns that the new rules could destabilise the entire industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThey will significantly increase the administrative burden and costs on private security providers and severely curtail their ability to render services to their clients,\u201d he said<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
He also highlights the removal of less-lethal tools, sarcastically noting that \u201cprotesters would need to give a week\u2019s notice so security firms can apply for permission to use rubber bullets.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Joubert also warns that security firms under investigation\u2014even without proof of wrongdoing\u2014could be prevented from issuing firearms to their officers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis could cripple security operations, as firms could be effectively shut down simply by being investigated, regardless of the outcome.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Most would agree that purging harmful entities is a vital task for the regulatory authority\u2014but this can be achieved by enforcing existing laws, not piling on new burdens,” he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“By pushing these changes, the regulator risks harming the very industry it is meant to protect\u2014along with its clients, employees, and the broader economy. If enacted, they will leave us with a less safe, less secure society.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hood argues that “these proposals are going to severely limit the ability of the security industry to do the job that they are doing.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regulator Defends the Amendments<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nDespite the backlash, proponents argue that the amendments are necessary to increase oversight, prevent firearm misuse, and enhance public safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They argue that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Firearm tracking devices<\/strong> will help prevent security weapons from falling into criminal hands.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Annual assessments<\/strong> will ensure that only mentally and physically fit officers<\/strong> carry firearms.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Limiting semi-automatic rifles<\/strong> will prevent security firms from overstepping their role as a supplement to law enforcement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Next Steps<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe amendments have sparked industry-wide debate, with many calling for them to be revised or scrapped entirely. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Public comments on the proposed regulations can be submitted until April 25, 2025<\/strong>, via Regulations@psira.co.za<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe full draft amendments can be found below:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that this requirement is impractical in emergency situations, such as riot control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another controversial proposal is the prohibition of firearm use by security personnel in public spaces, including shopping malls, schools, hospitals, churches, and cemeteries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This raises concerns about how essential security services\u2014such as cash-in-transit operations and armed response teams\u2014will continue to operate under these restrictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Further changes include, but are far from limited to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Mandatory annual physical and psychological assessments<\/strong> for security officers, evaluating their visual, neurological, and emotional condition<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Restrictions on semi-automatic rifles<\/strong>, limiting their use to protecting valuables and critical infrastructure<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Mandatory tracking devices<\/strong> for all firearms used by security firms, with tracking service providers requiring government approval.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Restriction on ammunition<\/strong>, limiting it to a “reasonable quantity” without clear guidelines.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Security firms under investigation could be prohibited from issuing firearms to their officers<\/strong>, even if no charges have been laid.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
<\/a>Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Critics Warn of Industry Disruption<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Many within the security industry argue that these amendments place unrealistic burdens on private security providers, making their operations costlier and less effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Gideon Joubert, of the South African Gun Owners Association (SAGA) and editor of Paratus, warns that the new rules could destabilise the entire industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThey will significantly increase the administrative burden and costs on private security providers and severely curtail their ability to render services to their clients,\u201d he said<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
He also highlights the removal of less-lethal tools, sarcastically noting that \u201cprotesters would need to give a week\u2019s notice so security firms can apply for permission to use rubber bullets.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Joubert also warns that security firms under investigation\u2014even without proof of wrongdoing\u2014could be prevented from issuing firearms to their officers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis could cripple security operations, as firms could be effectively shut down simply by being investigated, regardless of the outcome.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Most would agree that purging harmful entities is a vital task for the regulatory authority\u2014but this can be achieved by enforcing existing laws, not piling on new burdens,” he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“By pushing these changes, the regulator risks harming the very industry it is meant to protect\u2014along with its clients, employees, and the broader economy. If enacted, they will leave us with a less safe, less secure society.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hood argues that “these proposals are going to severely limit the ability of the security industry to do the job that they are doing.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regulator Defends the Amendments<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Despite the backlash, proponents argue that the amendments are necessary to increase oversight, prevent firearm misuse, and enhance public safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They argue that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Firearm tracking devices<\/strong> will help prevent security weapons from falling into criminal hands.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Annual assessments<\/strong> will ensure that only mentally and physically fit officers<\/strong> carry firearms.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Limiting semi-automatic rifles<\/strong> will prevent security firms from overstepping their role as a supplement to law enforcement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Next Steps<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The amendments have sparked industry-wide debate, with many calling for them to be revised or scrapped entirely. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Public comments on the proposed regulations can be submitted until April 25, 2025<\/strong>, via Regulations@psira.co.za<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The full draft amendments can be found below:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Annual assessments<\/strong> will ensure that only mentally and physically fit officers<\/strong> carry firearms.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Restrictions on semi-automatic rifles<\/strong>, limiting their use to protecting valuables and critical infrastructure<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Senzo-Mchunu.jpg\")
<\/a>