Private security firms in Nelson Mandela Bay are pushing back against controversial proposed firearms regulations, while experts have warned that the changes could put millions of South Africans at risk.
The proposed amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulation Act (PSIRA) was gazetted by police minister Senzo Mchunu on March 28.
Some of the recommendations include security guards being prohibited from using a weapon during assemblies, demonstrations or protests, and meetings or any other incidents classified as crowd management, “unless the use of such weapons is authorised and permitted in terms of the law”.
Security service providers will further not be allowed to carry firearms at taxi ranks, cemeteries, stadiums, shopping malls, churches, restaurants, parks, hospitals, schools or similar facilities.
The deadline for the public to submit their objections is Friday.
SA’s private security industry employs more than 580,000 people — far more than the 180,000 by the police.
One of the Bay’s largest private security firms, Atlas, confirmed it had submitted objections.
“We have done this through the appropriate channels, under the guidance of our legal partners, and we look forward to taking the appropriate steps as we follow the process,” spokesperson Ryan Morris said.
The Foundation for Rights of Expression and Equality (Free SA) has, meanwhile, obtained about 30,000 objections.
Attorney Martin Hood, a specialist in firearm legislation, explained how the proposed measures would restrict the private security sector in protecting citizens and their property.
“This proposal suggests that even handcuffs, which are now deemed to be weapons, must be regulated,” Hood said.
He said the security industry would no longer be allowed to use tasers, teargas, water cannons, sponge grenades, rubber or plastic bullets, “and any other weapon that may harm civilians”.
“If you want permission to use these, you must apply at least seven days beforehand, which means the protesters that you are going to address in a riot are going to have to give you seven days notice so you can get permission, which may or may not be granted, for your security company to use rubber bullets.
“And it gets worse — security companies are going to be prohibited from using firearms at taxi ranks, cemeteries, stadiums, shops, churches, restaurants, hospitals, schools and any other similar public establishment.
“How do you deliver and collect cash [from ATMs and shops]?”
He also pointed out that no alternative had been proposed to explain how the police would improve their effectiveness without the support of private security.
He said the extensive demands being imposed on private security firms would likely lead to an increase in the cost of their services.
Hood was referring to the suggestion that security companies be required to install a tracking device in each of their firearms to monitor its use and possession.
According to the proposed regulations, security companies must also ensure that any officer provided with a firearm is properly assessed, at the company’s cost, at least once every 12 months.
This assessment must include checks of the officer’s vision, hearing, mobility, neurological health and overall mental and emotional condition to confirm they are fit to carry a gun.
Danie Lotter of Omega Risk Solutions said that while they agreed on the need for stricter regulation of firearm distribution — since guns too often ended up in the wrong hands — they were generally opposed to the proposed measures, and the matter was being handled by their legal department.
In a statement earlier in April, PSIRA emphasised the vital role the private security industry played in SA’s safety and economic landscape.
“PSIRA is encouraged by the level of interest the draft amendments have generated and believes this will lead to a high volume of meaningful contributions from the public and stakeholders alike.
“These proposed changes are part of a broader effort to strengthen compliance and oversight.”
The authority said it wanted to strike a balance by supporting legitimate operations, while addressing concerns about noncompliance and rogue elements.
“The proposed amendments do not prohibit firearms outright but introduce conditions under which specific calibres may be used.
“The proposed regulations do not restrict the quantity of ammunition issued to security personnel.
“On the contrary, the aim is to ensure personnel are adequately equipped, allowing for the reasonable use of ammunition in line with operational requirements.”
It said the proposed regulations were in line with international standards.
“In other jurisdictions, the regulations are far more stringent.
“The authority’s primary role is to regulate and exercise effective control over the private security industry in the interest of national and public safety.”
Attorney Willie Spies, who acts for civil rights group AfriForum, said what was alarming was that in the same week the draft regulations were gazetted, there had been a number of cash-in-transit robberies across the country.
“While it is still just a draft, there has been a flood of comments launched from all sectors, especially civil society, security and AfriForum.
“We live in a country where there is anarchy and attacks on the economy.
“To overregulate the private security industry at a time like this does not make sense.
“Ultimately, it would mean the private security sector is regulated, while criminals run free.
“The very existence of private security is a result of the failure by the government to keep society safe.
“If a particular area is declared a gun-free zone, a criminal is not going to abide by that. It just shows the irrationality of it.”
The proposed amendments further state that if a security officer wants to use a firearm in a public place, certain rules must be followed, including that the area must not have been declared a firearm-free zone by the minister.
A risk assessment report must also be submitted to PSIRA.
Finally, using high-calibre firearms should only be allowed if there is no other way to ensure protection.
Several petitions are, meanwhile, in circulation opposing the amendments.
One of them comes from AfriForum, which says the changes could directly “threaten the safety and security of millions of South Africans”.
“By imposing excessive restrictions on private security firms — limiting their access to firearms, burdening them with unworkable regulations, and creating loopholes that could shut them down without due process — these changes will effectively disarm the very people tasked with protecting homes, businesses and communities,” it said.
The Security Association of SA (SASA) has issued a strong objection to the proposed amendments.
It said the amendments were seen as an attempt to disarm the industry.
According to SASA, the regulations would have dire consequences for both the safety of security personnel and the public.
It said the proposed changes granted the authority sweeping powers over how security companies operated, including deciding what areas they could serve and what equipment they could use.
Claire Taylor of Gun Free SA said: “We welcome this move.
“It was found in 2012 that private security companies had been operating under the radar, and this action is long overdue.
“The draft regulations are precisely that — a draft.
“The issues these regulations seek to address have persisted for years.
“We view these proposed regulations as an attempt to resolve long-standing challenges.”
The Herald
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.