Private security industry is facing a crackdown on the weapons the security industry can have access to.
Image: Tshenolo PI/Facebook
The wave of opposition to the proposed amendments to firearm regulations for the private security industry is gaining momentum, with nearly 30,000 formal objections submitted by the Foundation for Rights of Expression and Equality (Free SA) in a scathing rejection of the draft regulations under the Private Security Industry Regulation Act.
“This is not just about regulatory overreach; it’s about people’s lives. The draft regulations are disconnected from the realities of crime in our country. They disarm the very people who are protecting our communities while offering no credible alternative,” said Reuben Coetzer, Spokesperson for Free SA.
Free SA warns that the proposed regulations, tabled by the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) and Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, could have dire implications for public safety, community self-reliance, and the constitutional rights of citizens.
The proposed amendments to South Africa’s Private Security Industry Regulation Act introduce significant changes to the management of firearms within the private security sector. These draft regulations aim to tighten control over the issuing, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons by security service providers.
Key provisions include mandating that security officers may only possess firearms lawfully provided by their employers, prohibiting them from using personally owned firearms while on duty.
Additionally, the regulations seek to impose stricter oversight on firearm usage, including requirements for detailed record-keeping and adherence to specified training standards.
Free SA has called for the immediate withdrawal of the draft, citing widespread concern from crime-affected communities. In its submission to PSIRA, Free SA revealed it had received 28,395 individual objections through its public participation platform. “We don’t see SAPS in our community. If you take away our security patrols’ tools, who will protect us?” read one submission. Another asked: “Private security came when my wife was attacked. SAPS came three hours later. If these rules pass, who do I call next time?”
Among the objections are concerns about legal vagueness, such as undefined terms like “reasonable quantity of ammunition” and impractical proposals like mandating tracking devices on firearms. Free SA also criticised what it called a “flawed and legally deficient” public consultation process and warned that the regulations ignore successful safety models, such as the Western Cape’s LEAP programme.
The foundation’s stance echoes industry-wide backlash. Just last week, six leading private security industry bodies—SANSEA, SASA, the National Security Forum, CEO, TAPSOSA, and LASA—announced their formal opposition to the proposed regulations.
“We urge the government to work collaboratively with the sector to find solutions that support both accountability and operational viability,” said Steve Conradie, National Chairperson of the National Security Forum. “If these regulations are promulgated, it will result in massive job losses and will put the safety of the public at risk.”
The coalition has engaged firearm law expert Martin Hood of MJ Hood and Associates to spearhead their legal response.
