The South African Gunowners’ Association (SAGA) has raised alarms over proposed amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulation Act, which threaten the viability of the private security sector and public safety in South Africa.
Image: IOL / Ron AI
The South African Gunowners’ Association (SAGA) says the regulatory proposals contained in the Private Security Industry Regulation Act, 2001 (Act No 56. of 2001) draft amendment to the Private Security Industry Regulations, 2002, has numerous “debilitating, damaging and harmful provisions”.
In a Facebook post, SAGA trustee Gideon Joubert said: “I would go so far as to say they threaten to completely destroy the private security industry in South Africa that employs approximately 580 000 actively registered security officers, serving millions of clients. They’re a cornerstone of public safety and national security in South Africa.”
Joubert said sub-regulation 13A (1) paragraphs J and K, are broad.
It says any security firm, that is simply under investigation for an alleged or suspected offensive or violation, will be prohibited from issuing firearms to any of its armed officers.
“Therefore, a security firm can effectively be prevented from performing its tasks and duties and filling its contractual obligations to its clients, without being officially suspended, it merely has to have allegations against it, whether those allegations are frivolous, have zero foundation, or be outright malicious, doesn’t matter, as long as those allegations lead to an investigation, it means that the firm can effectively be shut down on that basis. This will result in termination of contracts and firms getting out of business,” Joubert explained.
He said paragraph Q of the same sub-regulation effectively prohibits security officers from possessing firearms in public locations unless all the extensive requirements under paragraph U are complied with.
This means security officers cannot have firearms in almost all public spaces unless the necessary documentation, risk assessments, and requests are submitted to the regulatory authority who can then decide to approve or deny.
“This would effectively ban armed response unless the armed response company can satisfy the regulator that it needs to carry guns in these public locations,” Joubert said.
He said this will impact armed response clients in the public sector, retail clients, and commercial clients.
Joubert said paragraph S, which is equally vague and ill-defined, says armed response officers should be issued no more than a reasonable quantity of ammunition.
“Now the question here is, what is a reasonable quantity of ammunition? How is this defined and quantified and what are the underlying assumptions and their foundations?” Joubert asked.
Sub-regulation 13A (8) paragraph F stipulates compulsory annual medical psychometric and psychiatric evaluations of all armed security officers at the cost of the employers.
“A problem here is that no guidance regarding who is certified to carry out these examinations is provided. What criteria must be satisfied and how is it supposed to assess the mental and emotional condition of armed security officers?” Joubert said.
He said sub-regulation, 13A (12) and (13) place significant restrictions on the issue and use of semi-automatic rifles by private security firms.
“The only firms or only functions that are allowed access to semi-automatic are high-value goods in transit, like cash-in-transit, the guarding of key infrastructure points, like national key points and anti-poaching,” Joubert explained.
He said sub-regulation 13A (16) requires that all security firms that possess firearms must install a tracking device in every firearm to track the possession and use of such firearms.
“It does not specify whether this is some sort of electronic tracking device or non-electronic tracking device,” Joubert said.
“What PSiRA is doing here is it is infringing on the SAPS, who are the ultimate custodians of the Firearm Control Act and gun control in South Africa, the issuing of licenses, and that PSiRA is trying to start regulating firearms, which is, as far as I’m aware, not part of their mandate. Not what they’re supposed to be doing, and is severe regulatory overreach.”
Joubert said sub-regulation 13B (17) prohibits private security firms from using several so-called prohibited weapons. This includes teargas, rubber bullets, water cannons, and tasers. Tasers specifically.
He said a taser is a specific brand of conductive energy device primarily used to incapacitate people.
“Now, there is, of course, a caveat that firms can access these prohibited weapons… You’d have to submit full risk assessments and all sorts of paperwork to be allowed access to these prohibited weapons,” Joubert said.
“These aforementioned examples do not constitute the full amount of flawed, problematic, vague, and outright unworkable provisions contained within these proposed regulatory amendments.
“These amendments represent significant regulatory overreach, irrational micromanagement, and extreme administrative burdening of an industry already heavily regulated. Should they be passed they would represent a significant threat to the continued existence of the private security industry in South Africa.”
ET Rapid Response managing director Tony Lokker said security roleplayers will meet on Monday to discuss the changes in depth and will respond in unity accordingly.
“My biggest concern is who is behind these proposed law changes and why?” Lokker said.
He said there are important and concerning questions that need to be answered as it seems it is an effort to cripple and disarm the security sector.
“With our SAPS under huge pressure all the time, it is the security sector that assist them on a daily basis in the fight against crime. Without us, there will be anarchy. They can not fight crime on their own,” Lokker said.
He said if the security sector was not there during the 2021 riots, the country would have fallen.
“The type of criminals we come up against are armed to the teeth. We must have the tools to take these types of criminals on. Besides massive job losses, we will not be able to protect our communities with these types of draconian laws!” Lokker said.
Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police Chairperson Ian Cameron said the committee is yet to engage on the draft regulations but from face value, they are concerning.
Cameron added that they require broader consultation to arrive at more practical and reasonable regulations that are responsive to South Africa’s unique security needs and also take into cognisance the great work the private security industry is doing in the fight against crime.
He acknowledged that the South African Police Service (SAPS) is severely under-resourced and cannot provide adequate security for most South Africans. This security gap has been effectively filled by the private security industry.
“In the context of the current challenge of proliferation of illegal firearms in the country, the published regulations will have an unintended impact of limiting the ability of private security industries to respond adequately thereby compromising public safety. The regulations are also problematic in that they don’t provide certainty and are in certain instances vague, which make them unenforceable and impractical,” Cameron said.
He said in the coming term, the committee will schedule a full briefing with the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority, the Civilian Secretariat for Police, and the Police Ministry to understand the rationale behind the regulations and the need to address shortcomings.
The draft amendments published in the Government Gazette are out for public comment.
thobeka.ngema@inl.co.za