04 Apr Proposed PSIRA Amendments Threaten to Cripple the Private Security Industry
As a professional private investigator working within South Africa’s complex and often dangerous security landscape, I’ve seen first-hand the critical role private security firms play in protecting people, property, and businesses. From high-risk surveillance operations to armed response in volatile areas, the private security sector supports countless South Africans in ways the state simply cannot.
That’s why I am deeply concerned about the proposed amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulations, gazetted on 28 March 2025. If enacted in their current form, these changes won’t only complicate operations but also potentially devastate an industry that employs over half a million South Africans and serves millions more.
Firearm Restrictions Based on Allegations
One of the most troubling amendments proposes that firearm authorisations be suspended if a company is under investigation for an alleged violation. This means a firm could be disarmed—not because it’s been found guilty, but simply because an accusation has been made.
As professionals who regularly uncover false claims, malicious competitors, or manipulative tactics used by organised crime, we know how dangerous it is to let allegations dictate enforcement. This opens the door to abuse and sets a deeply unfair precedent—one that punishes compliant firms and emboldens bad actors.
Public-Space Firearm Restrictions Put Lives at Risk
The proposed restrictions on carrying firearms in public spaces, unless under very specific and vague conditions, would effectively neutralise armed response. Consider the implications—officers responding to alarms at shopping centres, schools, or conducting neighbourhood patrols would be legally barred from doing their jobs.
Our officers don’t just operate behind closed doors—they’re out in the field, where real-world threats exist. Denying them the tools they need in these environments endangers everyone.
Vague Ammo Limits Invite Legal Trouble
Another proposed change requires ammunition quantities to be “reasonable,” without defining what “reasonable” means. For urban patrols, one load out might suffice. For rural escorts in high-risk zones, more is needed. This ambiguity creates legal uncertainty that could see law-abiding officers criminalised for simply being prepared.
Unfeasible Medical Evaluations
We support mental and physical fitness standards. But the proposed blanket requirement for yearly psychometric, psychiatric, and physical assessments—at the employer’s cost and without clear guidelines—places an unmanageable burden on businesses, especially smaller operators. It also risks pushing qualified professionals out of the industry due to cost or unclear compliance requirements.
Semi-Automatic Rifle Restrictions Undermine High-Risk Ops
Semi-automatic rifles are standard equipment for our tactical response teams, who regularly face armed criminal syndicates. Limiting these tools to cash-in-transit services alone ignores the real, daily threats our officers face. Expecting us to respond to hijackings, armed robberies, or coordinated theft with sidearms is not just unrealistic—it’s irresponsible.
Tracking Firearms? The Technology Doesn’t Exist
The requirement that every firearm be fitted with a tracking device may sound like a smart solution—until you consider the facts. The technology capable of tracking a weapon’s movement and use in real time simply does not exist in a scalable or practical format. It’s an overreach based on wishful thinking, not feasibility.
Banning Non-Lethal Tools Removes Critical Options
Rubber bullets, water cannons, and Tasers are designed to avoid escalation and minimise harm. Removing these tools from our arsenal makes it more likely—not less—that lethal force will be the only option available in tense situations. These tools save lives, full stop.
To compound matters, even handcuffs are now labelled as “prohibited weapons” requiring registration. This isn’t just excessive—it’s absurd.
This Is Not the Way Forward
We understand the importance of accountability and regulation, but the proposed changes don’t promote higher standards. They promote paralysis.
If the aim is to professionalise the industry, PSIRA already has the mandate to enforce existing laws. What we need is tighter enforcement of those laws—not sweeping, vague new rules that make compliance nearly impossible while doing nothing to stop unregistered, illegal operators.
What You Can Do
South Africa’s private security sector isn’t perfect, but it’s indispensable. And right now, it’s being set up to fail.
Stakeholders have until 25 April 2025 to submit their comments to:
📧 Regulations@psira.co.za
Read more about this topic:
- SAGA warns: New regulations threaten to disarm SA’s security industry
- Proposed amendments to PSIRA regulations spark concern from industry