Further, the SAPS alone is sitting on R2.5 billion in unresolved irregular expenditure.

“The same audit findings keep repeating, oversight is weak, and governance failures are persistent, eroding public confidence in policing and its oversight,” said Ian Cameron, Democratic Alliance Deputy Spokesperson on Police in response.

“SAPS is in a state of near-collapse. Mismanagement here is not an abstract concept. It affects the safety and security of South Africans every single day. Delayed crime statistics, poorly functioning forensic labs, malfunctioning digital systems, and unchecked tender irregularities directly put people at risk.”

Public trust is further shaken by revelations in the Madlanga Commission and the Ad Hoc committee, which show systemic leadership failures at the top, Cameron said.

“PSIRA is no better. Ongoing financial misstatements, overspending, reliance on external contractors, and weak internal audit functions make it clear that governance and accountability at this regulator are dangerously inadequate.”

The Democratic Alliance demands action from the SAPS, including:
Filling the long-vacant SAPS Internal Audit post and enforcing accountability at every level;
Conducting lifestyle and skills audits for all SAPS senior management;
Introducing Treasury-aligned tender reforms with strict due diligence;
Fast-tracking digitisation of crime and forensic systems to produce accurate, timely data;
PSIRA implementing an in-house billing system and fixing internal controls immediately; and
All unresolved irregular expenditure cases must be submitted for disciplinary or condonation action.

“Repeated failure to act on audit findings is unacceptable. Every day that mismanagement continues, the safety of South Africans, the integrity of policing, and trust in law enforcement are further undermined,” Cameron said.

The Portfolio Committee on Police, meanwhile, strongly condemned the SAPS and PSiRA for their persistent failure to implement audit recommendations and curb financial and administrative irregularities.

In a statement, the committee warned that the ongoing lack of accountability and consequence management within both institutions threatens to erode public confidence in the country’s law enforcement and regulatory systems.

“It is completely unacceptable that SAPS and PSiRA have persistently shown non-compliance with supply chain management (SCM) regulations and yet there is little or no action undertaken to ensure consequence management. An environment that lacks consequence management will breed impunity, and unfortunately, this seems to be the case at SAPS and PSiRA,” said committee chairperson Ian Cameron.

The Office of the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) briefed the committee that both SAPS and PSiRA continue to show a “persistent lack of improvement” in their audit outcomes, despite years of repeated recommendations.

This pattern, the AG said, raises questions about whether the institutions’ audit action plans are being implemented effectively.

Audit action plans are designed to correct weaknesses identified in previous years.

Yet, the committee found that both entities had either ignored or inadequately implemented them, resulting in a cycle of repeated findings, non-compliance, and wasteful expenditure.

At SAPS, the committee acknowledged the unqualified audit opinion but expressed alarm that systemic failures within supply chain management continue to undermine credibility.

“The fact that there is endemic manipulation of evaluation criteria points to corruption within the system. We have recommended lifestyle audits, starting with high-risk officers, to expose irregular appointments and procurement manipulation,” Cameron said.

The committee further noted that the lengthy processes involved in acting on material irregularities often weaken accountability and allow misconduct to persist.

It called for streamlined mechanisms to ensure that irregularities are dealt with swiftly and decisively.

Turning to PSiRA, members of the committee welcomed the Auditor-General’s decision to refer the authority’s R129 million Unemployment Insurance Fund-linked training scheme to the Special Investigating Unit (SIU).

The training programme, designed to benefit unemployed youth, was found to have serious irregularities.

Out of 6 507 learners enrolled, only 118 were accredited, raising serious questions about the competence of the service provider and the oversight of the project.

The committee heard that PSiRA failed to perform due diligence in appointing the service provider, which later proved incapable of delivering the promised training outcomes.

“It is unacceptable that even after the authority has admitted that no due diligence was performed for the awarding of the contract, nothing tangible and no practical interventions have been made. It is in this context that the referral to the SIU is welcomed,” Cameron said.

The committee also noted with concern that since 2019, PSiRA has failed to implement sufficient safeguards to prevent similar irregularities.

Members said this reflects a culture of tolerance for failure within the entity’s leadership.

The committee expressed disbelief that the position of Supply Chain Management Manager at PSiRA has been vacant for more than two years, even as the authority continues to underperform in key SCM compliance areas.

The vacancy, coupled with over-reliance on external service providers for debt collection, has led to further inefficiencies and financial losses.

In-year spending was poorly monitored, leading to overspending on operational expenses, something the committee described as a mundane dysfunction that should not persist year after year.

Members warned that the repeated financial mismanagement and lack of internal capacity were clear symptoms of weak leadership and a failure of governance.

The committee confirmed it will continue engaging with the leadership of SAPS, PSiRA, the Civilian Secretariat for Police, and the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) to ensure full accountability and corrective action.

The post SAPS and PSIRA record over R667 million in irregular spending appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

In a formal reply, the Minister cited a 2016 empirical study conducted by the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSiRA), titled The Barrel of the Gun: Improving the Regulation and Control of the Use of Firearms within the Private Security Industry in South Africa. The study provided evidence-based recommendations to strengthen regulation of firearms in the industry and was supported by additional academic research, including studies on the health risks of TASER use (Jauchem, 2010; Zipes, 2012) and the broader implications of firearm regulation in private security (Minnaar, 2008).

The proposed regulations do not ban firearms in the sector but aim to tighten controls and increase accountability. They include requirements for private security companies to ensure officers are fit, trained and legally compliant before issuing firearms. The regulations would also mandate strict record-keeping on the issuance, use and tracking of weapons, reduce the risk of loss or theft, and enforce adherence to the Firearms Control Act, particularly in gun-free zones.

The Department emphasised that the changes are intended to promote responsible firearm management and do not undermine the industry’s operational capabilities. It also clarified that the restricted non-lethal weapons, such as those used in crowd control, are classified as potentially lethal and are not standard issue for private security. These remain the responsibility of specialised police units.

Under Section 35(1)(m) of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act (Act 56 of 2001), the Minister is authorised to introduce regulations relating to the use and possession of weapons in the industry. The Minister argues that the new framework will allow PSiRA to maintain a comprehensive, updated national database on firearm use within the sector, thereby improving regulatory oversight and public safety.

While the government frames the changes as a response to long-standing regulatory gaps, critics remain concerned that the restrictions could limit private security firms’ effectiveness in deterring crime at a time of rising national violence. The debate continues over how best to balance security, public safety and regulatory control.

The post Government Defends Tighter Private Security Gun Controls Amid Rising Violent Crime appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

Expanding a Vital Sector

PSIRA estimates that over 250,000 new security officers and more than 3,000 new security businesses will be registered across the medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) period. To manage this, it plans to open three new provincial offices in the Northern Cape, North West, and Limpopo, thereby increasing its national footprint.

PSIRA Director Manabela Chauke explained that the regulatory body aims to professionalise the sector while safeguarding public interest. “Our mandate is to ensure transparency, public safety, and lawful conduct in one of the largest security sectors on the continent,” Chauke told the Committee.

Strategic Focus Areas

PSIRA’s five-year strategy focuses on:

• Strengthening law enforcement capacity, including the creation of a K9 unit and enhancing firearm compliance

• Introducing a business intelligence unit to support enforcement and risk management

• Upgrading training standards across the industry

• Promoting public awareness and community engagement

• Digitising vetting processes, including fingerprint verification

• Establishing a Guarantee Fund for public liability insurance

To support these objectives, PSIRA is also investing in infrastructure, including the procurement of drones, vehicles, mobile offices, and the refurbishment of its multipurpose centre.

Budget and Operational Expansion

PSIRA’s expenditure is projected to grow by an average of 34% between 2024/25 and 2025/26, largely due to increased personnel costs, digital infrastructure upgrades, and operational expansion. Employee costs alone will rise 26%, with substantial additional spending forecast for communication systems, printing (ID cards and training certificates), background checks, and stakeholder workshops.

Key operational cost drivers include:

• 45% of the budget for personnel

• 10% for bad debt

• 7% for consultancy fees

• Increases in travel and accommodation, cleaning, and digital communication costs

A notable increase in legal and vetting costs was also recorded, reflecting the sector’s growing complexity and the need for regulatory enforcement.

Committee Feedback and Outlook

Committee members largely welcomed PSIRA’s modernisation plans and proactive posture. However, questions were raised about how the authority intends to ensure compliance across such a large and diverse industry, especially as many security operations operate in semi-regulated or informal environments.

In response, PSIRA reiterated its commitment to stronger law enforcement and inter-agency cooperation, as well as its drive to build trust with both the public and private clients of the industry.

The Committee is expected to follow up with PSIRA in future sessions to evaluate progress, particularly on its enforcement metrics and public engagement outcomes.

The post PSIRA plans to expand oversight as private security sector grows appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

Industry Overview and Growth

Botes began by detailing the substantial growth of the private security sector since 2001. Despite the absence of direct government funding, the industry has expanded to support state law enforcement, effectively plugging the gap left by a chronically under-resourced South African Police Service (SAPS). This growth, however, comes at a steep cost, both financial and human, for the companies and officers involved.

Regulatory Clampdown

The most contentious part of Botes’ presentation centred on proposed amendments from the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA). Without prior consultation, PSIRA has published regulations that significantly restrict the operational capabilities of private security firms. These include:

• Limitations or outright bans on the use of semi-automatic firearms,

• Prohibitions on non-lethal weapons such as water cannons, rubber bullets, and even handcuffs and batons.

These moves, Botes argued, are not only impractical but also duplicative, given that similar restrictions already exist under Section 21 of the Firearms Control Act.

Botes also questioned PSIRA’s ability to enforce these rules, citing its already overstretched inspectorate and failure to address the proliferation of unregistered security providers.

Legal Battles on the Horizon

SASA and various industry stakeholders are preparing to oppose these regulations through the courts. Botes made it clear that the fight will go all the way to the Constitutional Court if necessary.

He also criticised recent moves by the Department of Trade and Industry to ban the importation of blank firearms, calling the rationale “ludicrous”, and noting that the draft legislation does not yet ban possession, but likely will.

Employment Equity Targets and Data Control

Further concerns were raised about the Department of Labour’s new Employment Equity targets, which Botes described as “unconstitutional, unrealistic and unattainable”. Legal challenges from both employers and civic bodies are expected.

Lastly, he highlighted a newly published gazette by the City of Johannesburg, claiming ownership of all CCTV footage from public roads, including footage captured by privately funded and maintained cameras. Botes criticised the lack of consultation and questioned whether this move amounts to “expropriation without compensation”.

Botes closed by reiterating the private security industry’s vital role in national safety and civic stability, and by stressing the need for continued legal vigilance and unity within the industry.

His message was clear: the sector stands at a crossroads, facing a wave of impractical and overreaching legislation that threatens its ability to function. But it is also prepared to fight, legally, publicly, and collectively, for its survival and continued contribution to national security.

The post South Africa’s Private Security Industry Facing Regulatory Storm appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

Budget and Staffing Deemed Sufficient

According to the Minister, the Law Enforcement Unit within PSiRA has been allocated R203 million for the 2024/25 financial year. This budget primarily funds inspector salaries, travel, and equipment, and includes provisions for the recruitment of 30 additional inspectors. A further R5 million is earmarked for law enforcement vehicles and other operational resources.

The unit currently comprises 68 inspectors, six prosecutors, five forensic investigators, three legal advisors, and 34 interns. The Department claims this staffing level is sufficient to regulate the industry, particularly when supported by inter-agency collaboration with the South African Police Service, Department of Employment and Labour, and Department of Health.

However, questions remain about whether this capacity is adequate for the scale and complexity of the sector, which now includes actors operating at the edges of legality. The Authority also relies on broader regulatory tools such as self-assessments and compliance forums, which are useful, but inherently dependent on voluntary cooperation from the industry.

Enforcement Claims and Transparency Gaps

The Minister described the Law Enforcement Unit as “highly effective,” pointing to a 93% compliance rate within the private security sector for 2023/24. Yet, such figures may warrant scrutiny, given the reported rise of security operations linked to taxi violence and unregistered training camps.

By the end of February 2025, PSiRA had conducted 8,221 inspections of security businesses and 41,450 inspections of security officers. While these figures appear robust, the Authority admitted that it does not disaggregate inspection data specific to the taxi industry, limiting transparency in one of the most controversial areas of the sector.

This omission is notable, particularly given long-standing concerns about the use of security personnel in taxi-related violence and intimidation. Further, at the end of March 2025, over 639,000 registered security officers were registered with PSiRA, according to figures from the Security Association of South Africa (SASA).

Paramilitary Training Under Watch, but Not Clearly Regulated

PSiRA does not accredit or recognise paramilitary training as part of its regulatory mandate. Nevertheless, it did take action against one accredited training provider found to be offering such training in the past financial year. The provider was charged and prosecuted.

Two other complaints, one each in Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal, were investigated but found to fall outside the PSiRA’s jurisdiction. This highlights a critical legal grey area, as paramilitary training remains largely outside PSiRA’s formal oversight, raising questions about the adequacy of current legislation in addressing the full scope of security-related risks.

The Authority does inspect accredited training providers to ensure they adhere to legal standards. Yet it concedes that resources remain stretched in covering all providers comprehensively.

Prosecutions and Key Violations

In the current financial year, 1,219 security providers were prosecuted, with a 99.8% success rate, 1,216 successful cases. While this appears impressive on paper, it offers little insight into the severity or nature of the offences involved.

Violations linked to paramilitary training largely involved non-compliance with approved training standards and breaches of the Immigration Act and Foreign Military Assistance Act. Meanwhile, violations associated with the taxi industry were primarily related to the unlawful possession and use of firearms, an issue governed by the Firearms Control Act.

The Minister also cited lack of integrity, criminality, and greed as underlying drivers of these violations, though it remains unclear how these systemic problems are being addressed at a policy level.

Broader Questions of Oversight

While PSiRA appears to have the basic infrastructure and authority to manage conventional regulatory tasks, the expanding scope of private security, particularly where it intersects with organised transport and quasi-military operations, raises important questions about regulatory sufficiency.

Current oversight mechanisms may be adequate for standard compliance, but may fall short in confronting actors who deliberately operate beyond the boundaries of the existing framework. The lack of specific data on high-risk sectors and the legislative limitations surrounding paramilitary training suggest that further reforms may be necessary to prevent abuses and ensure public safety.

The post Concerns Persist Over Oversight of Private Security Linked to Taxi Industry and Paramilitary Training appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

The committee’s recommendation was anchored on the view that the Director and the CFO, as the delegated officials for the management of day-to-day operations of PSiRA as per the founding Act, cannot objectively oversee the investigation of the programme they led. Furthermore, the committee is of the view that suspensions are necessary to ensure openness and accountability, as well as to safeguard the credibility of the investigation.

Meanwhile, the committee was critical of the council’s inability, as the accounting authority, to exercise its fiduciary responsibilities relating to the training programme. The committee considers it unacceptable that PSiRA and the UIF authorised the payment of over R30 million as an advance payment to the service provider before services were rendered. This was in contravention of Treasury Regulation 31.1.2(c) and section 57(b) of the Public Finance Management Act and shows disregard for sound financial management of taxpayers’ resources.

The fact that this programme and connected irregularities have been ongoing since April 2019, yet no official has been held to account, is also worrying. “The fact that the only officials who have now been suspended are those who attempted to leak the forensic report points to a lack of willingness to ensure accountability on the matter,” said Mr Ian Cameron, the Chairperson of the committee.

The mismanagement of the programme is also concerning in the context that it robs the country’s youth of training programmes that can be a stepping stone towards improving their socio-economic status and their prospects of being gainfully employed. The information that only 118 of the trained 6 507 learners were accredited also points to the inadequacies in the supply chain process that appointed a service provider incapable of rendering services. It is unacceptable that the authority has admitted that no due diligence was performed for the awarding of the contract. This is standard protocol and the authority failed to safeguard the state’s financial resources.

The committee is also concerned that, besides the irregularities, the authority has had to spend additional resources to contract a law firm for the recovery of the advance payment as well as contract a firm to undertake a forensic audit of the programme. The committee has always advocated for responsible spending of limited resources. It is unconscionable that PSiRA had to spend additional resources that could have been better used to advance the object of the authority to undertake an investigation and recovery of monies, something that could have been prevented.

Meanwhile, the committee unanimously agreed that there is no basis in law or National Assembly rules requiring the committee Chairperson to recuse himself from a meeting dealing with material irregularities within the PSiRA and the UIF training programme.

The committee’s decision follows a letter sent to the Chairperson requesting that he recuse himself from the meeting. Members of the committee were steadfast that the request was irrational and had no standing in law and was not supported by the rules of the NA. Additionally, the members emphasised that the committee had a constitutional responsibility for oversight, and this was not limited to committee meetings and National Assembly sittings, as confirmed by the recent Western Cape judgement in Malema v the Speaker of the National Assembly and Others.

The committee has resolved that it will write a letter to the Minister of Police to highlight the shortcomings of the PSiRA Council and the recommendations made by the committee with regard to the suspension of the Director and CFO.psirt

The post Police Committee Recommends Suspension of PSIRA Director and CFO for Material Irregularities in UIF Training Programme appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

According to a statement issued by Sakeliga, the proposed changes are neither in the public interest nor in the interest of private security operators, and risk undermining both public safety and economic stability.

The draft amendments were introduced by Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu, following consultations with the Council of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA). However, Sakeliga argues that the proposals impose excessive constraints on the private security industry, contradicting PSIRA’s own mandate to promote effective and professional security services.

Among the key concerns highlighted by Sakeliga is a provision that would prohibit the issuance of firearms even when a security firm or officer is only under investigation for an alleged offence, rather than convicted. Other contentious proposals include restricting private security officers from carrying firearms in public places such as schools, shopping centres, taxi ranks, hospitals, and stadiums unless stringent conditions are met.

Sakeliga warns that such measures could leave security officers unable to protect themselves, their clients, and members of the public against violent crime. Additional criticisms focus on the reclassification of handcuffs as weapons, restrictions on the use of non-lethal defensive tools such as tasers and rubber bullets, and severe limitations on the operational use of semi-automatic rifles.

The draft regulations would also require every security business to install a tracking device in each firearm, using only PSIRA-approved providers. Questions have been raised about the technological feasibility and the significant cost burden this would place on operators. Furthermore, security companies would have to shoulder the financial costs of additional annual medical, psychological, and psychiatric evaluations for employees.

Sakeliga contends that these measures, taken together, would impose a financially crippling burden on security companies while simultaneously diminishing their effectiveness.

While PSIRA, in a press release dated 11 April 2025, defended the amendments as necessary for strengthening compliance and oversight, Sakeliga maintains that the proposals are disproportionate and could seriously undermine security provision across the country.

The organisation argues that the private security sector plays a vital role in maintaining safety in both public and private spaces, and that excessive regulation threatens not only the sector’s viability but also broader social and economic wellbeing.

Sakeliga has submitted comprehensive written objections to the draft amendments and has urged the government to reconsider the proposals in their entirety. The organisation emphasised the need for regulatory measures that are both proportionate and reasonable, crafted with a practical understanding of the realities faced by security providers in South Africa.

You can read Sakeliga’s full submission to the office of the Director of Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority on this matter here.

The post Sakeliga Calls for Withdrawal of Draft Private Security Regulations appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

The post Draconian PSIRA Amendments Threaten Public Safety appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

The draft regulations, currently under review, seek to impose strict limitations on private security firms, restricting access to essential equipment such as tasers, less-lethal options, and certain types of firearms. According to the DA, these changes would severely undermine the industry’s capacity to respond effectively to criminal threats.

“These regulations effectively mean that while criminals may be armed with high-powered weapons such as AK-47s, security personnel would be expected to respond with basic sidearms like 9mm pistols,” the party stated. “This puts not only security officers at risk but leaves entire communities more vulnerable to violent crime.”

In addition to safety concerns, the DA has raised alarm over the potential economic fallout. The proposed rules could lead to the arbitrary suspension of private security operations, which, in turn, may jeopardise short-term insurance coverage and destabilise an industry that employs over half a million South Africans.

“Private security plays a critical role in supporting the South African Police Service (SAPS), particularly given the high crime rates and limited capacity of public law enforcement,” the statement continued. “These regulations risk triggering massive job losses and undermining one of the few sectors effectively helping to keep communities safe.”

While acknowledging the existence of rogue elements within the industry, the DA argues that these can be dealt with under current legislation, without penalising law-abiding operators. The proposed amendments, it says, would do more harm to legitimate service providers than to the criminals they are meant to curb.

The party has also questioned the credibility of PSIRA, noting that the regulator has previously faced material findings by the Auditor-General. “It is deeply troubling that an entity with its own oversight challenges is now pushing through overreaching, impractical rules that threaten to cripple the very industry it is meant to oversee.”

The DA is urging all South Africans concerned about crime and community safety to join the campaign against what it describes as “draconian” new regulations.

The post DA launches petition against PSIRA’s proposed Security Regulations appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

The proposed amendments relate to the Private Security Industry Firearms Regulations, which were published in the Government Gazette on 28 March 2025 by the Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu. The regulations are currently open for public and stakeholder comment until 25 April 2025. Reaction to the proposed amendments has been strong, with criticism coming from the SA Gun Owners Association, and the Democratic Alliance (DA). Ian Cameron, DA member of Parliament and Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Police, stated the “recently published draft regulations will make it harder for private security companies to keep communities safe and must be opposed.”

PSiRA sought to clarify that the proposed regulations do not constitute a ban on the use of firearms by private security personnel. Rather, they are intended to introduce specific conditions under which certain calibres may be used, with the aim of enhancing oversight, not restricting lawful operations.

Additionally, PSiRA states the regulations do not limit the quantity of ammunition issued to security officers. Instead, they aim to ensure personnel are adequately equipped in line with operational requirements, with the amendments stating officers must be issued a “reasonable quantity” of ammunition. However, that which constitutes a reasonable quantity is not defined. The SA Gun Owners Association notes the lack of clear guidelines, which it states will create uncertainty and the potential for arbitrary enforcement.

“These proposed changes form part of a broader effort to improve compliance and oversight, guided by a thorough analysis of industry needs,” the statement explained.

PSiRA acknowledges the high level of public interest the draft amendments have generated and welcomed the volume of feedback received. “We urge the public and all stakeholders to engage on the basis of facts,” PSiRA said, adding that constructive input will help shape effective and fair regulation.

The draft regulations remain in the proposal stage and are subject to the full legislative process, including consultations, a comprehensive review of submissions, approval by relevant authorities, and finalisation prior to implementation.

PSiRA highlighted that the proposed measures align with international norms, noting that other jurisdictions often enforce far more stringent requirements on private security operations. Furthermore, the statement reiterated PSiRA’s intention to use the current proposals as an opportunity to foster dialogue and craft a balanced regulatory framework.

The private security industry is a vital part of South Africa’s safety and economic infrastructure. With roughly 543,000 registered security officers and an estimated value of R50 billion, the industry is a significant employer and a key provider of entry-level opportunities.

PSiRA emphasised that the proposed changes are designed to support responsible operators, improve industry standards, and ensure the safety of the public, without undermining the ability of lawful businesses to operate.

The post PSiRA rejects concerns over Firearms Regulation Amendments appeared first on ProtectionWeb.