Government has released proposals that would effectively restrict the types of firearms and conditions under which they can be used by the private security industry in South Africa.
Police minister Senzo Mchunu appears to have taken the industry, which employs more than 500,000 people, and civil society by surprise with the recent publication of a gazette, minus fanfare, of proposed amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulation Act.
In much the same fashion as health minister Aaron Motsoaledi's unforeseen gazetted “ban” on cannabis-containing foodstuffs, only to later be reversed, the latest amendments initially created confusion and a public backlash due to an information vacuum.
Confronted by heavily armed thugs, should security officers “throw marshmallows” at them? asked a caller to a Johannesburg radio station.
Critics pointed out that politicians had armed VIP protection and blue light convoys while violent crime was prevalent and police resources were stretched across the country. In a nutshell, the amendments are — officially — aimed at clamping down on “rogue” elements operating under the umbrella of owning a security company. And it is a real problem.
We have seen examples of this in the past related to alleged extortion, or the brandishing of rifles by the bodyguards of a so-called VIP in public, at shopping malls or funerals.
One of the reasons the private security industry employs more people in the fight against crime than the South African Police Service is the latter's inability to effectively curb violent crime such as cash-in-transit robberies.
Independent crime and policing consultant Dr Johan Burger this week told CapeTalk that SAPS had about 150,000 trained crime fighters (excluding civilians) while security companies had about 400,000 active crime fighting members.
The irony is that in recent years, police and trusted security companies have forged closer working relationships resulting in positive outcomes in the war against crime. Will the amendments damage this relationship?
DA police spokesperson and MP Ian Cameron criticised the amendments as being “excessive and unworkable”, adding they would “jeopardise the safety of the very communities they are meant to protect”.
Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSiRA) CEO Manabela Chauke downplayed fears that crime would escalate, adding the goal was to more stringently ensure public safety.
However, he conceded that tighter restrictions were necessary because PSiRA's oversight inspections, in conjunction with SAPS, “unfortunately, can’t cover everything”.
Let us allow common sense to prevail in the days ahead.
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.