Members of the public have complained about bodyguards carrying high-calibre weapons in restaurants, churches, shopping centres and townhouse complexes.
With 608 977 registered, active security officers compared to just 150 388 employees registered in terms of the South African Police Service Act, our private security industry is four times larger than our police service. Yet this massive — and lucrative — industry operates with minimal oversight and control, flying well below the radar.
The recently published draft regulations for South Africa’s private security industry are a much-needed step toward addressing a regulatory gap that has persisted for far too long.
This imbalance between the private security industry and the police is particularly glaring, given South Africa’s rising crime rate. While the security industry has grown by 35% (from 451 565 guards in 2014-15 to 608 977 in 2023-24), the country has seen a 62% increase in murder (from 17 023 in 2013-14 to 27 494 in 2022-23) and an almost 50% increase in attempted murder (from 16 989 to 25 131) during a similar period. This stark contrast raises questions about the industry’s effectiveness in addressing crime.
More troubling is the evidence suggesting that elements in the private security industry might be contributing to criminality. Research dating back to 2012 has identified persistent and worsening problems.
These include inadequate firearms stockpile management. To illustrate, the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority has repeatedly raised concerns that dysfunction at the Central Firearms Registry (the police unit responsible for firearms management) means the authority does not know what the industry firearms and ammunition stocks are, which creates loopholes for diversion.
This is a particular risk when a company closes down or when, for example, a contract to provide armed guards ends, without any mechanism to monitor its licensed firearms.
A second, long-standing — and worsening — problem is criminal infiltration of security companies. Examples are the case of alleged gang leader Nafiz Modack, currently before the Western Cape high court; private security companies being used to arm hitmen for political and taxi violence and a recent case where four of the six men killed by police with extortion kingpin Yanga “Bara” Nyalara in Cape Town were registered security guards.
A third problem is the diversion of private security industry firearms and ammunition to criminal networks. On average, private security companies report the loss or theft of six guns a day, according to parliamentary records. Sometimes this is due to deliberate criminality by the industry but there are numerous reports of guards being specifically targeted for their weapons.
The draft regulations seek to address these issues through several key provisions that deserve support. First, comprehensive record-keeping and reporting requirements for firearm and ammunition stocks; gun-discharge incidents as well as the fitness and proficiency of armed guards. This will improve accountability and traceability.
Second, the establishment of limits on firearm types according to specific security functions: handguns or shotguns for armed response and close protection; bolt-action rifles for anti-poaching operations and semi-automatic rifles restricted to cash-in-transit protection. This move aligns with globally recognised principles for reducing gun violence based on limits on types of guns and ammunition and the users and the uses of guns.
Third, the requirement to install tracking devices on all firearms represents a positive step toward preventing them from being diverted to criminal networks.
Finally, prohibiting security officers from carrying firearms in crowded public spaces like shopping malls, schools and taxi ranks acknowledges the significant risks posed by firearms in these environments. A shootout in a public space puts the lives of many people at risk, a threat that far outweighs the possible safety benefits.
Some provisions of the draft regulations require clarification or strengthening. The proposal to limit the ammunition carried by officers to a “reasonable” quantity needs clearer definition to be effective.
The requirement for annual medical, psychometric and psychiatric evaluations to ensure that armed guards are fit and proper for this responsibility is well-intentioned but should specifically target the two biggest risk factors for future violence: a history of violence and alcohol misuse. For instance, prohibiting individuals with drunk-driving convictions from serving as armed guards would be a concrete step towards improving public safety.
Similarly, the provision restricting the use of less-lethal weapons like rubber bullets and water cannons appears aimed at preventing private security companies from engaging in public-order policing — a function constitutionally reserved for specifically trained and equipped police members. This is particularly important given the evidence from the July 2021 unrest, which showed that many deaths resulted from shootings by civilians, including private security guards illegally using lethal force to protect property.
A further consideration is the longstanding lack of harmonisation between the Firearms Control Act (2000) and the Private Security Industry Regulation Act (2001) and associated regulations.
While the 2025 draft regulations include a range of proposals that are aimed at synchronisation, there seem to be overlaps which highlight the importance of enforcement, rather than amendment.
For example, Gun Free South Africa 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. Aside from the fact that these types of weapons are not effective in 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.
For these regulations to succeed, the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority must have sufficient capacity to conduct compliance inspections and enforce the rules. This amendment process presents an opportunity to strengthen oversight mechanisms for the entire industry.
With 33 people shot dead every day in South Africa, strengthening control over firearms and ammunition, and improving oversight of the private security sector, are urgent priorities.
These draft regulations represent an important step towards creating a safer country for all South Africans. Their publication creates space for engagement before formal tabling, allowing all stakeholders — from industry representatives to community members — to contribute to a framework that will enhance public safety.
Dr Stanley Maphosa is the executive director of Gun Free South Africa.