Don't Break Private Security
Hopefully, this amendment doesn’t come to pass. Otherwise, criminals will have gained even more breathing room to harm innocent South Africans.
Attempts by the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) to amend the Private Security Industry Regulation Act (the Act) need to be completely and utterly condemned.
In a country where over 85 people are murdered per a day - not to mention thousands of robberies, carjackings, assaults and attempted murder - we should not be toying with our last (and often) only line of defence against lawlessness.
The private security industry employs over 580,000 security guards, with a further 2.5 million registered security guards in reserve. This is in stark contrast to the 179,000 police officers employed by SAPS (as of 2023). While SAPS struggles to maintain a satisfactory presence on our crime-ridden streets, private security guards can spread themselves out to guard businesses, homes, neighbourhoods and more, allowing the drastic manpower shortage of the police to not be felt as much by the population. On top of that, the industry provides employment opportunities that are drastically needed in a country with skyrocketing unemployment.
Private security response times are also far better than that of the police. The South African Intruder Detection Services Association (SAIDSA) considers 15 minutes to be an acceptable response time, but many security firms guarantee a response time of 5 minutes. I know from repeated experience that armed response has appeared within two minutes after being notified of a crime. In stark contrast, the police response time ranges from around fifteen minutes to over an hour.
In response to an ongoing burglary in my neighbourhood, a private security car arrived within forty seconds - police arrived over two hours later. The police station was five minutes away.
Yet, despite the obvious importance of private security and its superiority to the current state of policing, government officials still want to legislate the industry into chaos and dysfunction. A move that will directly enable criminals to wreak havoc.
The amendment contains the following concerning elements:
Allowing a mere accusation to shut down a firm
Under the proposed amendment, security guards will not be allowed to be armed or function effectively if their employer is merely under investigation. No conviction needed. This means that just a mere accusation is needed to render a security company useless.
This gives rivals and criminals an opportunity to destroy the security of a potential target. A criminal cartel could file a false accusation of a company guarding a business they wish to rob. A mafia could force local businesses to hire their services as they accuse legal firms of made-up crimes.
A company should need to be proven of committing a valid crime before it is no longer allowed to function.
Arbitrarily restricting the use of firearms in public spaces
The amendment calls for security guards to not be allowed to be armed in many public spaces, including malls, businesses, churches and even private homes. An exemption can be granted, but without any clear criteria. This grants PSIRA subjective and arbitrary control over where security guards can do their job.
Criminals will take advantage of many firms being denied exemptions and will be able to use their superior access to firearms to commit even more violent crimes. This will also disable the effectiveness of tactical intervention teams, that need to be able to respond quickly to ongoing violent crimes. They cannot wait on a regulator to grant them an exemption while people are being hurt.
If a security company has been allowed to be armed at all, then it shouldn’t matter where they are armed. It is important that we allow security to cover as much ground as possible to guarantee their effectiveness.
Imposing unclear limits on ammunition
The amendment places vague and unclear limits on how much ammunition security guards can possess. Private security operatives need different amounts of ammunition for different scenarios. Tactical intervention teams with semi-automatic rifles need far more than a patroller in a residential neighbourhood.
The amount of ammunition carried by a guard should be completely up to the firm itself, based on experience and industry practice. An ignorant bureaucrat should have no say.
Employer-funded psych tests with unclear standards
The amendment demands that all private security personnel undergo psych tests but does not provide any standards or guidelines. The lack of clarity leaves employers paying out of pocket for something that may not meet PSIRA’s unspoken standards.
A private security firm does not want to employ a madman. It’s within their already present interest to maintain strict standards when it comes to the behaviour and mental well-being of their employees. There is no need for an additional regulation in this regard. And if there is to be a mandated psych test, then PSIRA needs to provide additional guidelines.
Outlawing non-lethal weapons and crowd control equipment
Perhaps most ludicrously, PSIRA wants to ban private security from using non-lethal equipment like rubber bullets, water cannons and tasers (a brand, but which we can presume include any stun guns or non-lethal electric weapons).
Why? Private security fills a valid role in crowd control – stopping mass looting and rioting. The 2021 unrest in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng would have been far worse without private security guarding private business. If you take away non-lethal deterrents, that leaves private security with being forced to use more dangerous alternatives.
PSIRA allows firms to ask for an exemption on a case-by-case basis, but unrest doesn’t really care about regulatory schedules. This amendment functionally renders private security useless at providing non-lethal responses to crime. This either forces them to act more lethally than warranted, or to not act at all.
Attacking firearm tracking devices
The amendment wants private security to track firearms with devices that don’t exist. Perhaps, the government should be more concerned with the thousands of missing police firearms before demanding that the private security industry invent a convenient electronic tracker for guns that can’t just be ripped off by criminals. Functionally, a tracker for firearms does not exist and it is ludicrous to impose such a requirement on private security when police are not expected to abide by the same rules.
Limiting possession of semi-automatic rifles
Preventing private security from using semi-automatic rifles except in very specific circumstances will allow heavily armed criminals to have increasingly greater advantages in firefights. Private security personnel are not fighting petty thieves. They are going head-to-head with assault rifle wielding gangsters. Many of which are well-trained, disciplined and ruthless.
If anything, private security should be equipped with automatic, military-grade weaponry to match their criminal adversaries.
But, PSIRA is more concerned with security firms not “overstepping their role”. A petty defence of the amendment that seems to reveal that the government is feeling threatened by the private sector fulfilling their mandate.
Conclusion
As is to be expected, the private security industry, the Democratic Alliance, security experts and stakeholders oppose the new amendment. We should be looking to improve the effectiveness of private security and law enforcement, not making their jobs harder through ill-thought out regulations and outright bans.
Hopefully, this amendment doesn’t come to pass. Otherwise, criminals will have gained even more breathing room to harm innocent South Africans.
Nicholas Woode-Smith is the managing editor of the Rational Standard, an author and a political analyst. He is a senior associate of the Free Market Foundation and writes in his personal capacity.