Civil rights organisation Free SA says it has garnered almost 30 000 objections from people who are against the proposed amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulation Act.
In a media statement released on Wednesday, Free SA said it has obtained 28 395 individual objections through its public participation platform from people who are against the proposed changes to the Private Security Industry Regulation Act.
Free SA, which has submitted the individual objections to the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA), said the proposed amendments are a threat to private security in South Africa.
Formal objection to the proposed amendments
“The Foundation for Rights of Expression and Equality (Free SA) has submitted a formal objection to the proposed amendments to the regulations under the Private Security Industry Regulation Act. It is warning that the draft regulations could have devastating consequences for public safety, economic livelihoods, and constitutional rights across the country.
“Following its submission, Free SA is calling for the immediate withdrawal of the draft regulations. It urges the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) to restart the process through transparent, inclusive consultations that reflect the lived realities of South Africans. The organisation also calls for a regulatory framework that is clear, enforceable, and supportive of ethical, community-based safety partnerships,” said Free SA publicist Anneke Burns.
Proposed amendments
Last month, Police Minister Senzo Mchunu proposed amendments under the Private Security Industry Regulation Act. The draft amendments were gazetted on March 28.
According to the proposed amendments, security guards are barred from using “prohibited weapons”. These include tasers, teargas, water cannon, sponge grenades, rubber/plastic bullets. They also include any other weapon that may harm civilians.
Security guards may not use a weapon during assemblies, demonstrations or protests. During 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 be prohibited from carrying firearms in certain public places. These are taxi ranks, cemeteries, stadiums, shopping malls, churches, restaurants, parks, hospitals, public and private schools or similar facilities.
Public participation platform
“In its submission to PSIRA, Free SA highlights that 28 395 individual objections were received via its public participation platform. Each is voicing opposition to the proposed changes. These submissions, drawn from communities most affected by crime and violence, reflect a groundswell of democratic resistance to a regulatory framework seen as dangerously out of touch with the realities of everyday South Africans,” said Burns.
She said some supporters of Free SA wrote in the public participation process that: “We don’t see SAPS in our community. If you take away our security patrols’ tools, who will protect us? Private security came when my wife was attacked. SAPS came three hours later. If these rules pass, who do I call next time?”
Burns said Free SA’s submission raises several key objections. These are regulations that may violate the rights to security, trade, and procedural fairness. They may do so by curtailing private security capabilities while the state continues to fail in providing effective policing.
Other objections are that the undefined terms like “reasonable quantity of ammunition” and impractical mandates such as tracking devices on firearms create legal uncertainty and risk arbitrary enforcement.
Vital lifeline for communities
“The proposed disarmament of tactical units and sanctions without due process are concerning. They threaten the operational viability of an industry that has become a vital lifeline for many communities.
“The regulations ignore successful local safety models, such as the Western Cape’s LEAP programme. They impose a one-size-fits-all national standard that undermines regional solutions,” said Burns.
“A flawed public participation process renders the process legally and democratically deficient. This included a dysfunctional email submission system and the lack of a Socio-Economic Impact Assessment.
Disconnected from reality of crime in SA
Free SA spokesperson Reuben Coetzer said: “The draft regulations are disconnected from the reality of crime in our country. They disarm the very people who are protecting our communities while offering no credible alternative.
“This is not just about regulatory overreach — it’s about people’s lives. Free SA stands ready to support the co-creation of a constitutionally sound and practically effective framework. One that protects both lives and rights, as the voice of nearly 30 000 concerned citizens,” said Coetzer.
