South Africa

South Africa, DM168, Maverick News

Alarm and applause after Police Minister Mchunu takes aim at private security guns

Guards on patrol in Cape Town with dogs. (Photo: Instagram)

12 Apr 2025

Police minister has signed off on firearm proposals that could disarm guards at malls, taxi ranks and protests – triggering pushback from the security industry and praise from gun-control advocates.

South Africa’s booming private security sector is about to change.

If proposed draft amendments to Private Security Industry Regulations are enacted, armed officers at malls may become a thing of the past.

And if there’s a violent protest, private security officers may not be able to use weapons in response.

Police Minister Senzo Mchunu signed off on the proposed private security amendments on 28 March. The public still has a chance to comment on them.

Because security companies work with, among others, neighbourhood watch and community policing forums, the eventual confirmed amendments will have a ripple effect. The proposals have already elicited a mixed bag of responses, the majority being negative and alarming, some even alarmist.

Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu. (Photo: Gallo Images / OJ Koloti)

Regulation and rogues

The head of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (Psira), Manabela Chauke, reassured the public this week that the proposals are not designed to harm security companies or cut jobs.

The authority cannot issue or revoke gun licences; the South African Police Service (SAPS) does that.

In an interview with Newzroom Afrika, Chauke explained that the suggested changes were to regulate and track private security companies’ possession and use of firearms and ammunition.

Chauke said related proposals were first published in 2003, but were not acted on, and the country was now experiencing “the very worst situation … in terms of the rogueness that has happened”.

As of September last year, according to Mchunu’s response to parliamentary questions, private security companies across South Africa had 126,529 licensed firearms altogether.

For the first semester of the 2024/25 financial year, security companies reported 847 firearms stolen or lost.

“If you ask me to account for the movement of a firearm in the private security industry, I will not be able to tell you.

“Why is that? Because we don’t have a mechanism to police that,” Chauke said during this week’s interview.

The proposals aimed to change that.

Chauke emphasised that they were conditional, not absolute, meaning companies could motivate for the weapons they needed.

Armed response security guards stand with rifles beside their vehicles. (Photo: Facebook / West Rand Reaction Unit)

The good, the bad and the ‘debilitating’

Daily Maverick has spoken to sources with ties to policing who believe the proposals are necessary and will erode criminality in the private security sector.

Claire Taylor of Gun Free South Africa (GFSA) also welcomed the draft proposals, saying they presented a chance to address “poor” oversight.

“The argument that these proposals could ‘derail private security’ fails to acknowledge the serious problems that have persisted in the industry,” Taylor said.

“In fact, better regulation stands to professionalise the industry.”

But several security industry insiders and pro-firearm figures are outraged at what Mchunu and Psira put forward.

Some community policing forums have taken to social media to advise followers to object to the proposals.

Martin Hood, an attorney who specialises in firearms matters, told Daily Maverick the proposals were closing down the use of firearms in the private security industry. In another statement, he said Chauke was being misleading.

The SA Gun Owners’ Association issued a statement saying the proposals have “debilitating flaws”.

“They will significantly increase the administrative burden and costs on private security providers, and severely curtail their ability to render services.”

And the South African National Security Employers’ Association chair, Gary Chatwind, told Daily Maverick that it had joined up with other related organisations.

“We are going to oppose this,” he said emphatically, adding that the group planned to meet Hood for legal advice.

In politics, Parliament’s police committee chair, the DA’s Ian Cameron, also rejected the amendments, saying that if enacted, they “will severely undermine the private security industry in South Africa and compromise public safety”.

Guards on patrol in Cape Town with security dogs. (Photo: Instagram)

SAPS and private security

Elements of private security in South Africa have previously sparked concern.

There are suspicions that some individuals, including gangsters, manipulate private security – that they exploit businesses to get access to firearms and use certain companies as fronts.

Rogue private security can also lead to protection rackets, with “services” forced on businesses and money demanded in return.

Psira is meant to oversee the sector.

Read more: Private security watchdog tightens the industry leash – deploys debt collectors, focuses on criminal vetting

Daily Maverick has previously reported that Psira has admitted it has “a lack of sufficient capacity” and that it has one inspector for every 200 security companies, compared with the ideal of one for every 110.

Psira’s 2024/2025 performance plan said there were more than 2.8 million security officers registered in South Africa. Of those, more than a half a million – 577,444 – were actively employed.

Read more: Police bosses roasted while gangs go ‘corporate’ and cops lack resources, proper vetting

Meanwhile, as of February, the SAPS had 184,106 employees. The number of actively employed private security officers in South Africa is therefore more than three times the number of police. The SAPS also has staff shortages.

Guns and guards

It is in this landscape that the new private security proposals come in.

Under the amendments, handguns or shotguns may be issued to security officers involved in cash-in-transit duties, anti-poaching activities, close protection and protecting critical infrastructure.

Bolt-action rifles can be used for environmental protection and anti-poaching activities, and semi-automatic rifles may be used for duties including cash-in-transit and protecting critical infrastructure.

Read more: ‘Private militias’ warning after Cape Town taxi shootout

A contentious part of the proposals says that a business can issue a gun to an officer, but that “does not include security officers possessing firearms” in public places, including shopping malls, restaurants, taxi ranks, cemeteries, stadiums, churches, hospitals, schools and “any other similar public establishments”.

‘Dangerous misinterpretation’

The GFSA’s Taylor said: “We support the prohibition on security officers possessing firearms in spaces like shopping malls, taxi ranks and schools as it is a significant safety measure that acknowledges the risk of firearms in crowded public spaces.”

She pointed out, however, that some areas of the proposals needed refinement as they overlapped with the Firearms Control Act.

“For example, the GFSA has been inundated with queries from members of the public complaining about bodyguards openly carrying high-calibre weapons in restaurants, churches, shopping centres and townhouse complexes,” said Taylor.

“Aside from the fact that these types of weapons are not effective at close protection, section 84 of the Firearms Control Act requires that guns carried in public must be concealed. Security guards are not exempt from this requirement.”

Read more: Witness details deadly Sandton restaurant shootout that killed three people and left four injured

But Hood countered: “The most concerning aspect is the restriction of the possession of firearms in public spaces.”

If an armed guard escorted cash to a mall while conducting cash-in-transit duties, the new proposals suggested that the guard could not carry the firearm into the shopping centre, exposing them to danger.

Christopher Thornhill, chief executive of the security company Phangela Group, said: “While we are welcoming the tighter regulations, we are concerned over vague clauses and practical implications…

“The phrase ‘any other similar public establishment’ – in reference to the prohibition of firearm possession – leaves room for dangerous misinterpretation.”

He added that although Phangela understood “the rationale behind limiting weapons in public places”, this needed to be contextualised.

‘Open to abuse’

Another proposal says: “A security business may only issue a firearm to a security officer employed by it … if … the security business and the security officers are not under state investigation”.

Such investigations would involve “the unlawful use of force” and an offence under the Firearms Control Act.

A security company can also only issue a firearm to an officer if there is “no pending improper conduct enquiry” initiated by Psira.

Hood said that from a legal perspective, one had to operate on the presumption of someone’s innocence, which was at odds with what was proposed.

Read more: PPA Security raided — cops seize guns from Cape Town company in Mark Lifman murder investigation

He said that corrupt figures, even those in the private security sector, which he acknowledged had its problems, could capitalise. For example, a corrupt official could demand a bribe from a company in return for not starting an investigation against it.

An individual in the private security sector could lodge a malicious complaint against a rival just to spark an investigation to prevent the rival from issuing firearms. “It’s so open to abuse that it’s difficult to express myself in rational legal terms,” said Hood.

Thornhill, on the other hand, applauded the measure. “This is a necessary and responsible step,” he said. “It is a matter of grave concern when officers under investigation are issued firearms.”

Investigation implications

In the Western Cape, South Africa’s gangsterism capital, police have alleged that underworld figures have vied to control aspects of security, especially those centred on nightlife.

Names linked to such allegations have included Nafiz Modack and Mark Lifman, organised crime suspects from Cape Town.

Modack is on trial for alleged crimes, which include a policeman’s assassination. Lifman, on trial for a separate killing, was murdered in the Western Cape town of George in November last year.

Read more: Mark Lifman’s murder underscores the ‘grip’ of organised crime on police and private security

The two suspects arrested in connection with Lifman’s killing had ties to PPA, a Cape Town security company.

Police raided the company’s offices in December, and PPA said it was cooperating with investigators. The raid had not affected the company’s operations, but the situation could have been different under the proposed amendments.

Trigger trackers

Under the new proposals, firearm tracking is also on the cards. “Every security business which is in possession of and using firearms to render security services must install a tracking device in every firearm to track possession and use,” say the proposals.

“The installation of the tracking device shall be conducted by a service provider authorised and approved by the Authority.”

Taylor welcomed the proposal. “The requirement to install tracking devices in all firearms is a positive step towards preventing diversion,” she said.

Read more: Cops target Cape Town security firm accused of having another business’s shotguns and pistols

According to Hood, security companies already kept track of security guards – and their guns – in various ways. These included registers, smartphones, and cameras and devices installed in vehicles.

Thornhill took the view that although the measure would promote accountability, it was “not currently a viable solution in South Africa”. He added: “The technology for firearm tracking simply isn’t in the country yet.”

Weapons, protests and trust issues

Another section of the proposals refers to protests. It says: “A security service provider must not use a weapon during assemblies, demonstrations or protests, meetings, or any other incidents classified as crowd management … unless the use of such weapon is authorised and permitted in terms of law.”

Private security’s role during protests became a key issue in 2021, when former president Jacob Zuma’s stint in jail led to riots erupting in KwaZulu-Natal and spreading to Gauteng.

Security companies stepped in to help police quell the violence.

Read more: Parliament to discuss police response and role of private security industry during looting

But a South African Human Rights Commission report on the riots, published last year, found: “In crisis situations like the July unrest, [security companies] appeared to have usurped the roles of the South African Police Service due to the capacity limitations within SAPS.

“This eroded public confidence in SAPS. These [companies] became de facto law enforcers who lacked the required training and expertise.”

This problem – a lack of public confidence in the SAPS – is still a key issue casting a shadow over the private security proposals.

Various sources with ties to the sector, and some to police, agreed that tightening the leash on private security was not a bad idea in theory, but an overriding problem was that the SAPS was not viewed as a reliable source of security.

The sources believed the SAPS needed to tighten up its own operations and eliminate corruption. That could result in more public trust in policing, and less reliance on the private sector for security. DM

Submissions on the proposals should be sent to [email protected] by 25 April.

This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.

Categories:

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...