By Alani Janeke
The proposed amendments to South Africa’s private security regulations have drawn sharp criticism from various sectors, with some describing them as absurd. Free State Agriculture has gone so far as to ask whether the Minister of Police intends to prohibit the use of “hands and teeth as weapons” as well.
The amendments, published in the Government Gazette on 28 March 2025 by Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu after deliberations with the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA), aim to tighten control over the use of weapons by private security companies.
Martin Hood, a well-known attorney specialising in firearm legislation, says the proposed amendments are aimed at restricting the use of firearms and other items on an expanded list of weapons.
A video of a concerned Hood discussing the proposed regulations is circulating on Facebook. In it, he highlights that even handcuffs are classified as a weapon under the draft regulations. In addition, private security guards would be prohibited from using pepper spray, electric shock devices (such as stun guns), and rubber and plastic bullets in any area defined as a public place.
If a private security company wanted to use any of these “weapons” it would need to submit an application to the regulator at least seven days in advance, with approval granted at the regulator’s discretion.
Hood notes that this requirement would make it practically impossible to respond to unexpected threats. “Technically, if a private security company wanted to use rubber bullets during an illegal protest, they’d need to apply seven days beforehand, which means the protesters would have to give you seven days’ notice before they protest.”
‘What about hands and teeth?’
Dr Jane Buys, a safety risk analyst at Free State Agriculture, says the vagueness of the amendments leaves many questions unanswered, like what would be classified as a weapon. She reviewed the police’s annual reports on the instruments used in cases of murder, attempted murder, and assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to determine what could potentially be considered a weapon under the new regulations.
According to the police’s report for the 2019/20 financial year, the 15 most common instruments used in these contact crimes included “feet, fists, hands and teeth”. They were used in 17 182 cases the police investigated: 401 murders, 178 cases of attempted murder, and 16 603 cases of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
In the same financial year, 73 883 cases of these contact crimes were reported in which the instruments used were knives, bottles, sticks, knobkieries, tools such as screwdrivers and hammers, hot water, clothing, bricks and stones.
By comparison, firearms were used in 20 927 such cases.
The report does not specify how many of the 20 927 cases involved illegal firearms. Dr Buys says that the real issue lies not with legal firearms, but with the proliferation of illegal ones.
She says she cannot help but wonder whether hands and teeth might also now be subject to government’s tighter control of private security companies.
“In 2019, the minister himself recognised the importance of the agricultural community and private security companies in the rural security strategy. There are many agricultural communities where private security companies keep farms safe, protect crops, go looking for cattle thieves and carry out pre-emptive operations to prevent incidents. There are a significant number of private security companies that serve and keep our farming communities safe.”
She says implementing these regulations would be disastrous for rural safety. Free State Agriculture, as a member of Agri SA, will submit formal comments and raise strong objections to the proposed amendments.
‘Nothing positive about it”
There is nothing positive in these proposed amendments for the farming community, says Dr Theo de Jager, the chairman of Saai. He describes the proposed amendments to the regulations as absurd and completely disconnected from the realities on the ground. “They raise more questions than answers, and come at a time when farm safety continues to deteriorate. This is yet another threat to the agricultural community, one that must be strongly opposed.”
Due to ineffective policing, Dr De Jager says, theft on farms is on the rise, particularly during harvest season, forcing farmers to rely on private security to protect their crops and ensure sustainable production.
“We are competing with farmers across Africa and the world, places where this kind of legislation doesn’t exist. These regulations would make it even harder to safeguard property while continuing to farm sustainably.
“Since this announcement, I haven’t spoken to a single farmer who is not deeply concerned.”
Saai also plans to submit formal comments on the proposed legislation.
‘Withdraw the proposed amendments’
Ian Cameron, a DA member of parliament and chair of the Portfolio Committee on Police, has called for the withdrawal of the proposed amendments. He says the changes to the regulations would severely compromise public safety in South Africa.
“We call on PSIRA and the Department of Police to withdraw the proposed amendments immediately and return to the table with a genuine commitment to stakeholder consultation, one that is grounded in operational realities and focused on enforcing existing laws.”
Cameron criticised the proposed amendments as vague, impractical and legally problematic, arguing that they impose excessive restrictions on where and how armed security officers may operate. In practice, these provisions would make it nearly impossible for armed guards to provide services in public spaces such as shopping centres, schools, churches and hospitals, unless both the service providers and the sites met an onerous list of compliance requirements.
According to Cameron, the proposed regulations aim to restrict the use of semi-automatic rifles to a limited set of scenarios – namely cash-in-transit security, critical infrastructure protection and anti-poaching operations. “This effectively disarms tactical response units and high-risk protection teams in environments where the threat of violent criminals is a daily reality.”
In addition, the regulations would require all security firearms to be fitted with tracking devices – “a highly burdensome and costly requirement, with no clear guidance on how it would be implemented”.
Cameron criticised the proposed ban on the use of non-lethal weapons such as rubber bullets, water cannons and electric shock devices unless registered and approved by government, calling it bizarre. “This kind of blanket ban on standard security equipment will not make the public safer. On the contrary, it risks depriving officers of the tools they need to manage potentially violent situations using non-lethal force, thereby increasing the danger to both the public and the officers themselves.
“If the state cannot keep you safe, you must retain the right to protect yourself – and to legally employ private security providers to do so on your behalf. The DA will not stand by while this vital industry is dismantled under the guise of reform.”
Members of the public and industry stakeholders have until 25 April 2025 to submit written objections to the proposed amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulation Act. Email submissions to Regulations@psira.co.za
Also read:
New anti-crime system shows early promise
Ask the experts: Safety – when are you allowed to shoot?
History made: Limpopo takes the lead with security plan
