The police minister has approved firearm policies that might lead to disarming guards at shopping centers, bus stations, and demonstrations—prompting opposition from the security sector and support from those advocating for stricter gun control.
The rapidly growing private security industry in South Africa is poised for transformation.
Should the suggested revisions to the Private Security Industry Regulations be implemented, security personnel carrying weapons at shopping centers might soon disappear from sight.
Furthermore, should a violent protest occur, private security personnel might not have the option to employ weaponry as a countermeasure.
On March 28th, Police Minister Senzo Mchunu approved the suggested changes to private security regulations. Members of the public can now provide their feedback on these proposals.
Since security firms collaborate with entities such as neighborhood watches and community policing forums, the final approved changes will likely cause widespread impacts. The suggestions have triggered varied reactions, predominantly negative and concerning, with some bordering on panic.
[caption id="attachment_2640501" align="alignnone" width="1859"] Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu. (Image: Gallo Images / OJ Koloti) [/caption]
Regulation and rogues
This week, the head of Psira, Manabela Chauke, assured the public that the proposed measures are not intended to adversely affect security firms or result in job losses.
The authority has no power to issue or withdraw gun licenses; this responsibility lies with the South African Police Service (SAPS).
In a conversation with Newzroom Afrika Chauke clarified that the proposed amendments aimed to monitor and control the acquisition and usage of guns and bullets by privately owned security firms.
Chauke mentioned that the associated proposals were initially released in 2003, yet they weren't implemented at the time. Now, the nation is facing "an extremely dire circumstance" ... with regard to the misconduct that has taken place.
By September of the previous year, as per Mchunu’s answers to parliamentary inquiries, private security firms throughout South Africa collectively possessed 126,529 registered guns.
In the initial semester of the 2024/25 fiscal year, security firms documented 847 guns as either missing or unaccounted for.
If you inquire about my explanation for the shift in firearms usage within the private security sector, I won’t be capable of providing an answer.
"Why is that? Because we lack a system to monitor that," Chauke stated during this week’s interview.
These suggestions were intended to alter that situation.
Chauke stressed that these regulations were conditional rather than absolute, indicating that firms had the opportunity to justify their requirements for specific weaponry.
[caption id="attachment_2671899" align="alignnone" width="2560"] Security personnel carrying rifles stand next to their vehicles. (Image: Facebook / West Rand Reaction Unit) [/caption]
The positive, the negative and the 'disabling'
The Daily Maverick has consulted individuals connected to law enforcement who feel these measures are essential and will diminish crime within the private security industry.
Claire Taylor from Gun Free South Africa (GFSA) likewise expressed approval for the proposed drafts, noting that they offered an opportunity to tackle "inadequate" monitoring.
Taylor argued that the claim these suggestions might 'disrupt private security' overlooks the ongoing significant issues within the sector.
In reality, improved regulations have the potential to elevate the status of this profession.
However, numerous individuals within the security sector along with those who support firearm ownership are incensed by the proposals made by Mchunu and Psira.
Several community policing forums have turned to social media platforms to encourage their followers to oppose these suggestions.
Martin Hood, an attorney with expertise in firearm-related issues, informed Daily Maverick that these proposals would effectively eliminate the use of firearms within the private security sector. He also stated in a separate comment that Chauke’s comments were misleading.
The SA Gun Owners' Association released a statement indicating that the proposals possess "disabling shortcomings".
They will greatly enhance the paperwork and expenses for private security firms, and substantially limit their capacity to deliver services.
The chairman of the South African National Security Employer’s Association, Gary Chatwind, informed Daily Maverick that they have aligned themselves with various connected organizations.
“I am firmly against this,” he stated passionately, mentioning that they intended to consult with Hood for legal guidance.
In the political sphere, Ian Cameron—who serves as the chair of Parliament’s police committee for the Democratic Alliance—also dismissed these proposed changes. He stated that should they be implemented, they would “will significantly weaken the private security sector "In South Africa and jeopardize public safety".
[caption id="attachment_2671901" align="alignnone" width="1181"] Security personnel patrolling Cape Town with guard dogs. (Image: Instagram) [/caption]
SAPS and private security
Aspects of private security in South Africa have formerly raised concerns.
Some suspicions have arisen regarding certain individuals. People such as gang members tamper with private security systems. - that they take advantage of businesses to obtain access to firearms and utilize specific companies as cover.
Unscrupulous private security firms may also result in protection rackets, where "protection" services are coerced from businesses and payments are extorted under threat.
Psira is intended to supervise the industry.
Read more: Private security overseer strengthens industry regulations – enlists debt collectors, emphasizes criminal background checks
Previously, Daily Maverick disclosed that Psira acknowledged "an insufficient capacity" issue. It also noted that they have only one inspector for each set of 200 security firms instead of the recommended ratio of one inspector per 110 firms.
Psira’s 2024/2025 performance plan mentioned that over 2.8 million security personnel were registered in South Africa. Among them, more than half a million—specifically 577,444—were currently working.
Read more: Top police officials faced criticism as criminal organizations adopt more sophisticated operations, and officers struggle due to inadequate resources and insufficient screening.
Meanwhile, as of February, the SAPS had 184,106 employees. Consequently, the count of active privately employed security personnel in South Africa exceeds triple the number of police officers. Additionally, the SAPS faces staffing deficiencies.
Guns and guards
In this setting, the new private security proposals emerge.
As per the amended regulations, pistols or shotguns can be provided to security personnel engaged in tasks such as managing cash-in-transit operations, participating in anti-poaching efforts, offering close personal protection, and safeguarding crucial infrastructure.
Bolt-action rifles can be employed for conservation efforts and combating poaching, whereas semi-automatic rifles might be utilized for tasks such as securing cash transportation and safeguarding vital facilities.
Read more: 'Warning over private militias following Cape Town taxi clash'
One controversial aspect of these proposals states that businesses may provide guns to their staff members; however, this does not apply to security personnel carrying weapons in public areas such as shopping centers, eateries, taxi stands, graveyards, sports arenas, religious institutions, medical facilities, educational sites, and "other comparable public venues."
‘Dangerous misinterpretation’
Taylor from the GFSA stated: "We back the ban on security personnel carrying guns in places such as shopping centers, taxi stands, and educational institutions because it is an important safety step that recognizes the danger posed by weapons in densely populated areas."
Nevertheless, she highlighted that certain aspects of the proposals required clarification since they intersected with the provisions of the Firearms Control Act.
"For instance, the GFSA has received numerous inquiries from members of the public who are upset about security guards publicly wielding large firearms in places like eateries, houses of worship, malls, and gated communities," stated Taylor.
“Besides the ineffectiveness of such weaponry for close protection roles, Section 84 of the Firearms Control Act mandates that firearms carried in public settings must remain hidden. This rule applies to security personnel as well.”
Read more: Eyewitnesses recount harrowing Sandton eatery gunfight that resulted in three fatalities and four injuries
However, Hood responded: "The most worrying element is the limitation placed on carrying firearms in public areas."
If an armed guard escorted cash to a mall while conducting cash-in-transit duties, the new proposals suggested that the guard could not carry the firearm into the shopping centre, exposing them to danger.
Christopher Thornhill, CEO of the security firm Phangala Group, stated: "Although we appreciate the stricter rules, we have concerns about ambiguous sections and their real-world effects…"
The term 'any other comparable public venue' — concerning the ban on carrying firearms — opens up possibilities for harmful misunderstandings.
He mentioned that even though Phangela grasped "the logic of restricting weaponry in public areas," this point had to be considered within specific contexts.
‘Open to abuse’
Another suggestion states: "A security firm can provide a firearm solely to an employee working for them… provided... neither the security company nor the employees are currently being investigated by the government."
These inquiries would include "unlawful employment of force" as well as a violation under the Firearms Control Act.
A security firm may provide a weapon to an employee solely when "there isn’t any active misconduct investigation" started by Psira.
Hood stated that legally, one must assume someone's innocence until proven otherwise, which contradicts the proposal put forward.
Read more: PPA Security was raided by police — firearms were confiscated from a Cape Town firm as part of the probe into Mark Lifman’s murder
He mentioned that individuals involved in corruption, including some within the private security industry—despite recognizing its issues—could take advantage of their positions. As an illustration, a dishonest officer might ask for a payoff from a business to avoid initiating an inquiry into it.
A person working in the private security industry might file a false report about a competitor simply to initiate an inquiry and stop them from obtaining weapons. "This system is highly prone to misuse, making it hard for me to articulate this concern using sensible legal terminology," stated Hood.
On the contrary, Thornhill welcomed the measure. "This is an essential and prudent action," he stated. "It is quite troubling when individuals who are under investigation receive weapons."
Investigation implications
In the Western Cape, which is known as South Africa’s hub for gang activity, law enforcement has accused members of the criminal underworld of competing to dominate areas related to security, particularly those involving night life.
Individuals associated with these accusations have been named as Nafiz Modack and Mark Lifman, suspected criminals involved with organized crime from Cape Town.
Modack is facing charges for purported criminal acts, one of which involves an assault on a police officer leading to his death. Meanwhile, Lifman, who was being tried separately for another homicide, met with fatal consequences when he was killed in the Western Cape municipality of George back in November of the previous year.
Read more: The killing of Mark Lifman highlights how organized crime has a firm hold over both the police force and private security.
The two individuals detained regarding Lifman’s death were connected to PPA, a security firm based in Cape Town.
In December, police conducted raids at the company’s offices, and PPA mentioned they were assisting law enforcement officials. Although these actions did not disrupt business activities up until now, things might turn out differently should the suggested changes be implemented.
Trigger trackers
As part of the new suggestions, monitoring firearms is being considered too. "Any security firm that holds and utilizes guns for providing security services has to fit each gun with a tracking device to monitor ownership and usage," state the proposals.
The installation of the tracking device must be carried out by a service provider who has been authorised and approved by the Authority.
Taylor embraced the suggestion. "Requiring tracking devices on all guns is a beneficial move toward stopping their misuse," she commented.
Read more: Police focus on Cape Town security company suspected of possessing firearms from another business, including shotguns and pistols.
As per Hood, security firms were already monitoring their security personnel – along with their weapons – through multiple methods. These involved ledgers, mobile phones, as well as surveillance systems and equipment fitted inside cars.
Thornhill believed that even though this measure could enhance accountability, it wasn’t "currently feasible in South Africa." He further stated: "The technology required for gun monitoring hasn't been implemented here yet."
Armaments, demonstrations, and faith concerns
An additional part of these suggestions pertains to protests. The document states: "A security firm must refrain from employing weapons at gatherings, marches, or protests, conferences, or any other events categorized under crowd control… except when the deployment of said weaponry is sanctioned and allowed according to legislation."
In 2021, the function of private security during protests rose to prominence as ex-president Jacob Zuma’s incarceration sparked unrest in KwaZulu-Natal, which then escalated into Gauteng.
Security companies stepped in to assist law enforcement in curbing the unrest.
Read more: The parliament will deliberate on the police reaction and the involvement of the private security sector during the looting incidents.
But a The report from the South African Human Rights Commission The report released last year noted: "During crises such as the disturbances in July, security firms seemed to take over responsibilities typically handled by the South African Police Service because of the limited capabilities within SAPS."
This diminished public trust in SAPS. These companies took on the role of unofficial law enforcement entities, lacking the necessary training and expertise.
The issue – which is a deficiency in public trust towards the SAPS – remains a critical concern overshadowing the proposed measures for private security.
Different stakeholders connected to the industry, along with some linked to law enforcement, concurred that strengthening regulations for private security firms wasn’t a poor concept in principle. However, the main issue was that the SAPS wasn't seen as a trustworthy provider of safety.
Many people felt that the SAPS had to improve their practices internally and root out corruption. This might lead to greater faith among citizens in law enforcement and decrease dependence on private companies for protection. DM
Submissions regarding the proposals must be emailed to regulations@psira.co.za by 25 April.
This tale initially surfaced in our weekly publication. Daily Maverick 168 The newspaper, accessible throughout the country for R35.