Don’t break private security

Author: Nicholas Woode-Smith (Free Market Foundation)

(This is a substantially edited version, with some of my own additions, for full article press@fmsa.co.za)

Attempts by the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) to amend the Private Security Industry Regulation Act (the Act) need to be completely and utterly condemned.

The private security industry employs over 580,000 security guards,(ratio 1 Guard: 103 citizens) with a further 2.5 million registered security guards in reserve. This is in stark contrast to the 179,000 police officers employed by SAPS as of 2023 (ratio 1 Cop:335 citizens).

Private security response times are also far better than that of the police. (My experience, the Security company appears within 2 minutes of the alarm signal, phoning the SAPS will result in a possible visit an hour later)The South African Intruder Detection Services Association (SAIDSA) considers 15 minutes to be an acceptable response time, but many security firms guarantee a response time of 5 minutes.

1. The amendment contains the following concerning elements 
   Allowing a mere accusation to shut down a firm
   Under the proposed amendment, security guards will not be allowed to be armed or function effectively if their employer is merely under investigation. No conviction needed. This means that just a mere accusation is needed to render a security company useless.
2. Arbitrarily restricting the use of firearms in public spaces
   The amendment calls for security guards to not be allowed to be armed in many public spaces, including malls, businesses, churches and even private homes. An exemption can be granted, but without any clear criteria. This grants PSIRA subjective and arbitrary control over where security guards can do their job.
3. Imposing unclear limits on ammunition
   The amendment places vague and unclear limits on how much ammunition security guards can possess. Private security operatives need different amounts of ammunition for different scenarios. Tactical intervention teams with semi-automatic rifles need far more than a patroller in a residential neighbourhood.
4. Employer-funded psych tests with unclear standards
   The amendment demands that all private security personnel undergo psych tests but does not provide any standards or guidelines. The lack of clarity leaves employers paying out of pocket for something that may not meet PSIRA’s unspoken standards.
5. Outlawing non-lethal weapons and crowd control equipment – PSIRA wants to ban private security from using non-lethal equipment like rubber bullets, water cannons and tasers (a brand, but which we can presume include any stun guns or non-lethal electric weapons).
6. Attacking firearm tracking devices. – The amendment wants private security to track firearms with devices that don’t exist..
7. Limiting possession of semi-automatic rifles – Preventing private security from using semi-automatic rifles except in very specific circumstances will allow heavily armed criminals to have increasingly greater advantages in firefights.

But, PSIRA is more concerned with security firms not “overstepping their role”. A petty defence of the amendment that seems to reveal that the government is feeling threatened by the private sector fulfilling their mandate.

Conclusion
As is to be expected, the private security industry opposes the new amendment. We should be looking to improve the effectiveness of private security and law enforcement, not making their jobs harder through ill-thought out regulations and outright bans.

The Author

Nicholas Woode-Smith is the managing editor of the Rational Standard, an author and a political analyst. He is a senior associate of the Free Market Foundation and writes in his personal capacity.