Gov’s Controversial Move Against Private Security Amid Crime Crisis

Crime poses a persistent challenge in South Africa, where private security companies play a crucial role alongside the South African Police Service (SAPS), addressing significant gaps in capacity and resources amid the country’s shameful crime rates.

With the country famous for its global leading crime rate one has to ask a few questions: Is the government looking at tightening regulations in the security sector for good reason, or is this yet another attempt to expand its control and influence beyond its scope as a government in a democratic country?

Building on this, why would you want to limit private security when the SAPS openly states that it cannot fight crime alone? Or is this a tactical plan unfolding from the government?

Nevertheless, this issue has come into sharp focus with the release of draft amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulations, published in the Government Gazette on 28 March 2025. Signed by Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu, these proposed changes carry serious implications for the private security industry, its clients, employees, stakeholders, and public safety as a whole.

The amendments emphasise firearm safety for security officers, with a notable provision barring them from carrying firearms in specific public locations (the places where most crime occurs).

These include:

·         Shopping Malls

·         Restaurants

·         Hospitals

·         Public and Private Schools

·         Stadiums

·         Taxi Ranks

·         Churches

·         Cemeteries

·         Parks

·         Any other similar public establishments

The gazette further specifies that a security service provider using or intending to use firearms in a public place, as outlined in sub-regulation (1), must comply with the following conditions:

·         The public place must not be declared a firearm-free zone by the Minister under Section 140 of the Firearms Control Act.

·         The use of firearms must be in the interest of public safety.

·         Firearms must not be used unless a risk assessment report has been submitted to the Authority.

·         There is no other alternative means of protection without using high-calibre firearms.

The amendments also state that a security business requiring the use of a handgun or shotgun may issue such a firearm to a security officer, as contemplated in sub-regulation (1), only for one or more of the following purposes:

·         Reaction services or armed response services.

·         Protection of valuable being transported (cash-in-transit).

·         Private Investigator Services.

·         Environmental protection or anti-protection services.

·         Protection and security services at critical infrastructure.

·         Escort services and vehicle recovery.

In addition to restricting firearm use, the draft amendments prohibit security providers from using the following weapons in the rendering of security services:

·         Tasers

·         Tear gas

·         Water cannon

·         Sponge grenade

·         Rubber/Plastic bullets

·         Any other weapon which may harm civilians.

Click the button below to read the full draft amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulations.

These proposals remain open for public comment, with submissions accepted within four weeks of the Gazette’s publication. This provides South Africans an opportunity to voice their opinions on whether the amendments should be enacted. Comments can be submitted to Regulations@info.co.za.

However, while still open to public comment, the draft has already sparked significant opposition.

Blue Hawks Tactical, a security firm based in Brakpan, addressed Ian Cameron, National Assembly Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Police, via a post on X. The company cited crime statistics to underline its concerns, including:

·         “Over 70 Murders PER DAY”

·         “Over 15 Women murdered every day”

·         “Over 136 rapes per day”

·         “Over 50 Kidnappings per day”

·         “Over 60 hijackings per day”

Blue Hawks Tactical also detailed its encounters with criminals armed with mortars, military grenades, armed militia typically from Lesotho operating as security in mines protecting zama zamas, and fully automatic weapons. “We have been in gun battles for 3 hours in a pit fighting zamas where the police helicopter was fired on and had to withdraw due to the weaponry used by criminals. We work WITH SAPS and support them and help them reduce crime. This new regulation which will affect all private security will result in the crime escalation and destruction of South Africa, it’s that simple,” said the security firm.

The SA Gun Owners’ Association also issued a statement, pointing to numerous flaws in the amendments.

“They will significantly increase the administrative burden and costs on private security providers, and severely curtail their ability to render services to their clients. With over 580,000 security officers employed serving millions of clients, the industry is a cornerstone of safety – these amendments threaten to destabilise it entirely,” said Gideon Joubert, in the statement by the association.

Reflecting on the above, the critical role of security companies in supporting SAPS is evident in official data.

According to the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) 2023/2024 Annual Report, there are 12,059 registered security businesses and 586,042 active security officers, compared to SAPS’s workforce of 172,906 personnel (including officers and administrative staff), as reported in the SAPS 2023/24 Annual Report.

This results in a ratio of approximately 3.4 private security officers per SAPS employee, highlighting the extent of private sector involvement.

With South Africa’s population estimated at 62 million (Statistics South Africa, mid-2023), the police-to-population ratio stands at about 1:359, while private security provides a ratio of 1:106, reflecting their substantial presence and importance in crime-riddled country.

Moreover, private security firms contribute through practical efforts such as armed response, neighbourhood patrols, alarm monitoring, and vehicle tracking, all of which reduce the strain on SAPS. The 2023/24 Portfolio Committee on Police Budget Report on PSIRA explicitly stated that the private security industry plays a valuable role in the fight against crime in partnership with SAPS.

During the 2021 July unrest, the South African Human Rights Commission’s 2021/22 Investigative Hearing Report observed that private security intervened where SAPS was overwhelmed, protecting properties and aiding in stabilising areas amid widespread looting and violence, a point that underscores their importance in crises.

Furthermore, government reliance on private security is also reflected in financial commitments.

The 2020/21 PSIRA Annual Report, citing National Treasury figures, notes that state entities spent R16.9 billion on private security contracts over multiple years, including for securing SAPS facilities, demonstrating the sector’s role in supporting public safety infrastructure. The SAPS 2019/20 Annual Report further mentions collaboration with PSIRA-registered companies in joint operations, such as efforts to address illegal firearms, though it provides limited detail on outcomes.

Crime statistics emphasise the necessity of this partnership. The SAPS 2022/23 Crime Statistics report documents 27,494 murders—a rate of 45 per 100,000—along with 258,152 common assaults and 167,537 house robberies. Given SAPS’s limited resources, private security’s active presence in wealthier areas and business districts often prevents or disrupts crimes, with suspects handed over to SAPS for legal processing, as noted in PSIRA’s 2021/22 Annual Performance Plan.

However, this role has boundaries. PSIRA’s 2021/22 report warns that private firms sometimes overstep their legal authority, lacking SAPS’s constitutional powers of arrest and investigation. Parliamentary briefings describe the partnership as “essential yet secondary,” with SAPS maintaining primary responsibility for law enforcement. The 2019/20 Portfolio Committee on Police Report also raises accountability issues, calling for stronger regulation to prevent misuse.

In conclusion, private security companies are vital to South Africa’s crime-fighting efforts, providing manpower, rapid response, and tactical support that SAPS alone cannot deliver.

Sources such as PSIRA, SAPS annual reports, and parliamentary oversight affirm their significant contribution, let alone the mass job creation within the industry.

While these draft amendments leave security companies in a state of uncertainty pending public feedback and final approval, they are not the only recent legislative development concerning safety. At the end of March, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill into law, marking a major reform of South Africa’s intelligence services with provisions for enhanced oversight and accountability.

According to the Presidency, the amendment Act revises the National Strategic Intelligence Act of 1994, the Intelligence Services Act of 2002, and the Intelligence Services Oversight Act of 1994. Among other changes, it disestablishes the current State Security Agency as a national government department, replacing it with two separate entities: the Foreign Intelligence Service (FIS), tasked with gathering foreign intelligence to identify opportunities and threats to national security, and the Domestic Intelligence Agency (DIA), responsible for counter-intelligence and domestic intelligence collection to detect threats to national security. The amendment Act also re-establishes the South African National Academy of Intelligence (SANAI) and Intelligence Training Institute for both domestic and foreign intelligence capacities.

In a statement, the Presidency noted, “The wide-ranging amendments constitute implementation of the recommendations of the 2018 Presidential High-Level Review Panel on the State Security Agency (SSA) and of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector (the Zondo Commission).”

The law also introduces measures to address bulk interception of internet traffic entering or leaving South Africa, requiring authorisation within the intelligence services and court reviews of such activities.

The law places the administration, financial management, and expenditure of the intelligence service entities under the oversight of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, a multiparty parliamentary committee that handles public complaints about the intelligence services and monitors their finances and operations. The amendments also grant greater autonomy to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and the National Intelligence Coordinating Committee (NICOC) in administrative and functional decision-making.

While these laws signed by Ramaphosa are presented as measures for national security and safety, they have obviously raised concerns. Organisations such as Dear South Africa, Campaign for Free Expression, and Intelwatch, along with the Democratic Alliance, have expressed apprehension about the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill, citing potential risks of power abuse and mass surveillance of the public.

Additionally, the City of Johannesburg is advancing a by-law to regulate privately owned closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance cameras, aiming to bring all private surveillance installations under municipal oversight.

Under the new rules, any individual or business installing a CCTV camera with a view of public space will need formal approval from the municipality. The by-law also imposes strict registration requirements for existing cameras, with the city establishing a database of all privately owned surveillance systems monitoring public spaces. The draft was passed last week.

Taking the above into consideration, what are your thoughts on the government’s intentions regarding the restrictions placed on security companies, the implementation of the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill with its potential for mass surveillance, and the City of Johannesburg’s by-law requiring municipal approval for CCTV installations?

Share your views in the comment section below.