Proposed PRISA regulations could leave private security guards unarmed

Several political parties and lobby groups have raised the alarm over sweeping amendments proposed by the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA), warning that the changes could paralyze operations, threaten jobs, and compromise public safety by potentially leaving private guards unarmed and ill-equipped.

Critics argue the amendments amount to regulatory overreach, creating vague, impractical, and potentially harmful requirements.

ALSO READ: New PSIRA regulations deadly for security industry – SAGA

The DA’s spokesperson on Police Ian Cameron says instead of punishing those who enforce the law and diligently work to protect, these amendments should address the rogue elements that have infiltrated the private security sector.

“The excessive and unworkable amendments would make it impossible for the industry to respond to emergencies, particularly in high-risk areas, and expose communities to an increase in criminal activity.”

Cameron says if adopted, the amendments could:

Destabilize the R45+ billion security sector
Jeopardize over 500,000 jobs
Decrease public and private safety capacity

He has urged South Africans to submit their written objections to PSIRA by April 25, 2025. The email address is: Regulations@psira.co.za

Here’s a breakdown of the top concerns:

Presumption of Guilt Through Investigations

Firms may be disqualified from issuing firearms merely for being under investigation.
No proof of wrongdoing is needed—this could be abused to sabotage competitors.
Core operations could be crippled without due process or formal suspension.

Severe Restrictions in Public Areas

Armed officers may be barred from malls, schools, hospitals, and even streets.
Vague location conditions make compliance unclear and difficult.
Clients could be left vulnerable due to legal limitations on response teams.

Unclear Ammunition Limits

Officers restricted to a “reasonable” amount of ammunition—without defining what that means.
Creates legal uncertainty, open to subjective interpretation by inspectors.

Mandatory Medical & Psychological Screening – No Standards

Annual assessments required but with no criteria for who conducts them or what qualifies.
Potential for inconsistent, biased, or fraudulent evaluations.
High cost and admin burden on security firms.

Tactical Equipment Restrictions

Semi-automatic rifles allowed only in limited cases (e.g., cash-in-transit).
Tactical teams protecting mines, warehouses, and executives would be under-equipped.
Criminals often outgun officers under these proposed rules.

Unrealistic Firearm Tracking Requirements

Proposal mandates tracking devices in all firearms.
No viable tech exists to implement this at scale or within firearm design specs.
Duplicates existing compliance structures without added value.

Ban on Less-Lethal Crowd Control Tools

Rubber bullets, Tasers, water cannons, and sponge grenades effectively banned.
Exemptions would require a slow, complex process—even during riots.
Officers may be forced into riskier situations or rendered ineffective.

More Bureaucracy, Same Enforcement Failures

New rules pile on red tape without fixing enforcement failures at PSIRA/SAPS.
Law-abiding firms are penalized while rogue operators continue unchecked.
May drive smaller firms underground or out of business.