Threat to private security in South Africa

The Association of Private Security Owners of South Africa (TAPSOSA) says proposed amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulation Act would render private security firms dysfunctional.

Speaking to Newzroom Afrika, TAPSOSA spokesperson Sindiswa Changuion said the organisation wants the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (Psira) to review the draft amendments.

“If you are going to be restricting the tools of trade within this particular industry, that is going to render the industry dysfunctional in terms of the way it has to render services to its clients,” she said.

“A simple example: just prohibiting the use of several essential crowd control tools, including your rubber bullets, water canons, etc. in situations where there is unrest, in situations where there are violent threats, you are expecting security officers to stand there with folded arms.”

She also warned that the restriction on the use of semi-automatic rifles could be detrimental in high-risk regions.

“There are people that require tactical intervention units. There are people guarding high-risk areas. If you are going to be restricting the ammunition that is supposed to be used by those companies, you are going to render them dysfunctional,” said Changuion.

She said TAPSOSA and the rest of the industry want Psira to reexamine the proposed amendments and engage in extensive consultation to find solutions to professionalise the industry without rendering it dysfunctional.

“We feel that consultation was thoroughly needed so that you understand the practicality and the impact operationally that these amendments would have,” said Changuion.

She added that TAPSOSA acknowledges the amendments’ intent, and applauded Psira for working to ensure that rogue elements in the private security industry are rooted out.

Police minister Senzo Mchunu published the draft amendments in the Government Gazette on Friday, 28 March 2025.

The proposed changes include restricting private security firms’ use of firearms, stun guns, tear gas, water cannons, sponge grenades, rubber bullets, or “any other weapon that could harm civilians”.

They also propose limiting the use of semi-automatic assault rifles by private security officers to protect high-value targets like cash in transit vans and critical infrastructure.

In a separate interview with Cape Talk, independent crime and policing consultant Dr Johan Kruger emphasised that these are draft amendments.

“So, a lot of debate, discussion, and whatever I think is still going to take place in the next few weeks,” he said.

“It’s just unfortunate that it comes at a time when we have extremely high crime levels and even rising crime levels, serious and violent crimes.”

The chairman of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police, Ian Cameron, also criticised the proposed amendments, warning that they would effectively give the state a monopoly over South Africans’ safety.

Describing the proposed amendments as “draconian” and said the move felt “political in nature”.

“If the state cannot keep you safe, yet insists on a monopoly, then you’re heading in a very, very dangerous direction and developing a bit of a police state mentality,” he said.

Cameron added that South Africans are right to be concerned about the proposed amendments and warned that the government must be very careful when considering them.

According to Cameron, the current regulations would suffy were enforced correctly and consistently. However, he noted that this isn’t currently being done.

He also warned of the consequences the proposed changes could have for private security firms, as the draft proposals would enable Psira to investigate a security firm on short notice and immediately suspend its services.

“That’s what the regulations say. You could wake up this morning with certainty, and by tonight, when your alarm goes off, no one comes,” said Cameron.

He believes the move is to take control over security services in South Africa, as the government is afraid that the private security industry wields more force than the state — and he says the government is probably right to be scared.