New security laws ‘a total abuse of power’

With a staggering crime rate and a chasmic disparity in wealth, you could say that South Africa is a prime environment for a thriving private security industry. 

Indeed, it is one of the largest employers in the country: about 580,000 people work in the sector, from neighbourhood patrollers to armed cash-in-transit vehicle guards. Compare that to the 179,502 officers employed by the state’s chronically mismanaged and deeply corrupt South African Police Service (SAPS). For most, private security is the foremost protector of their money, homes, businesses and lives.  

So the latest amendments to the regulations under the Private Security Industry Regulations Act, gazetted by police minister Senzo Mchunu late last month, are startling, given their severe restrictions and bizarre bans.  

Foremost of these is a law to prevent guards from carrying firearms if their company is under investigation for misconduct – not found guilty, just accused. It means a simple accusation could freeze an entire business, leaving communities without security, and even more individuals without work.  

In practice, says Chad Thomas, director of IRS Forensic Investigations and Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSiRA) associate, a certain security company that employs about 60,000 people could be paralysed if the company were to face an investigation. 

Says Tony Botes, national administrator of the Security Association of South Africa: “I wish we actually knew what motivated these amendments, as the Firearms Control Act, managed by the SAPS, already enforces their laws and the use of firearms.”

He’s not sure why the amendments have been gazetted at all. 

Ostensibly, the government says the amendments are necessary in the face of widespread criminal activity in the security business; it argues that companies are being used to settle scores, intimidate and extort.

Those working in the industry see this as an old excuse to implement new policy. As they put it, the regulatory authority, PRiSA should already be rooting out criminality – the sector doesn’t need new regulations that would effectively muzzle private agencies.

DA member and police portfolio committee chair Ian Cameron says that the way this amendment is written “makes it sound like if they just think that there might be wrongdoing, they can suspend services overnight, and there [are] no checks and balances”.  

‘Toothless’ guards 

The amendments also aim to ban the use of firearms in public places, such as shopping malls, schools, hospitals, stadiums and the vaguely defined “other similar public establishments”.  

Fidelity services group CEO Wahl Bartmann is strongly opposed to this specific amendment. “These locations are frequently targeted for crime, and armed personnel act as both a deterrent and rapid-response mechanism,” he says.  

Another vaguely written amendment imposes undefined limits on ammunition (described as a “reasonable quantity”). “The lack of precision in defining a ‘reasonable quantity’ of ammunition creates room for subjective interpretation and inconsistent enforcement,” says Bartmann.  

Perhaps most upsetting to the security industry is the amendment around non-lethal weapons. In the amendment, handcuffs have been reclassified as weaponry, requiring regulatory approval. Other non-lethal weapons such as tasers, rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons now require much stricter regulation – including a seven-day authorisation period. This is simply unworkable in terms of riot control, or in the case of any immediate response to a sudden attack.  

Botes explains that under this change, “security officers will have to wait for SAPS to arrive and assess the risks, and once that is eventually done, the company will have to apply to PSiRA for authority to use any weapons in their own and their clients’ defence”.

It’s an absurd process, and one that Botes says renders security forces “akin to having a toothless dog protecting your home and family”. 

It’s also problematic, given “how these non-lethal tools are instrumental in de-escalating potentially violent situations while avoiding deadly force”, says Bartmann.

The change is acutely concerning in light of what happened during the July 2021 riots; if these amendments had been in place, they would have incapacitated the private guards who helped defend homes and properties. As it is, the damage done by the riots came to an estimated R50bn.  

Cameron, for his part, is “extremely concerned” about the amendment. “This has got the risk of destabilising massive parts of the country in terms of safety and security,” he says.

Other aspects of the amendments would restrict the use of semi-automatic rifles to cash-in-transit security, the defence of critical infrastructure and anti-poaching units. Practically, this means mine security – already under threat from illegal mining syndicates – could find itself without serious firearm protection, for example.

Additionally, the amendment demands that all firearms be fitted with tracking devices, an expensive and arduous task.  

Curbing the bad actors 

Thomas acknowledges that the booming private security sector has attracted some “bad actors” who need to be rooted out, and enforcing regulations is the correct way to do this, including risk assessments to determine the use of weapons and the systematic tracking of firearms.  

Still, he acknowledges that some of the amendments are bizarre. “The issues around non-lethal equipment make no sense at all. Security officers need some level of protection for themselves and their clients if they are expected to stand their ground,” he says.  

As for lethal weapons, Thomas says “firearms are [also] a necessity to ensure that security officers employed in high-risk scenarios can protect themselves and their clients”.  

His view is that, while it is integral to rein in bad actors, PSiRA must remember to protect the livelihoods of its thousands of employees – “if not millions of people, if we look at the companies that provide support to security companies”.   

Cameron is adamant that these amendments are not the solution; PSiRA, he says, “must just enforce what they have already”.  

The changes are “a major overreach of power … it almost touches on a total abuse of power”, he tells Currency, and it will only hurt lawful security companies that abide by the rules.  

Members of the public and industry stakeholders have until April 25 to submit written objections. Until then, the security industry holds its breath.