Fidelity Services Group CEO, Wahl Bartmann, has voiced strong opposition to the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority’s (PSiRA) proposed amendments to the Firearm Regulations under the Private Security Industry Regulation Act believing the amendments could lead to a dramatic increase in the already unacceptably high levels of crime South Africa is experiencing.
Bartmann says the changes proposed by South African Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, which are intended to tighten firearm and weapon controls while increasing regulatory oversight, could have far-reaching negative consequences for both industry operations and public safety and are raising concerns across the sector.
He highlighted five key areas of concern, starting with operational restrictions based on investigations. “The amendments propose that armed guards be prohibited from performing their duties if their employing company is under investigation – regardless of any proven wrongdoing,” he explains. “This could significantly disrupt security operations and potentially leave vulnerable areas unprotected.”
Another critical issue is the limitation on firearm use and ammunition. Proposed restrictions on firearms in public spaces and vaguely defined ammunition limits could hinder the ability of security personnel to respond to threats. “The lack of precision in defining a ‘reasonable quantity’ of ammunition creates room for subjective interpretation and inconsistent enforcement,” says Bartmann. “It is recommended that any such limits be clearly defined and adaptable to operational contexts.”
He also raised concerns about mandatory psychological evaluations, which require annual employer-funded assessments for all armed personnel. “There are no clear guidelines on the standards or criteria for these evaluations,” he points out, warning that the lack of clarity could lead to confusion and inconsistent application.
A further proposal targets the prohibition of specific equipment such as rubber bullets, water cannons, tasers, and semi-automatic rifles, unless individually registered and approved by PSiRA. “From experience, we have seen how these non-lethal tools are instrumental in de-escalating potentially violent situations while avoiding deadly force. We strongly recommend their regulated use should be maintained,” says Bartmann.
Bartmann also stressed the broader impact on public safety. Restricting armed officers in critical public spaces such as shopping centres, schools, healthcare facilities, and transport hubs will compromise frontline security. “These locations are frequently targeted for crime, and armed personnel act as both a deterrent and rapid response mechanism,” he notes.
He further warns that the proposed imposition of tracking devices on all firearms would place significant operational and financial strain on private security companies.
In addition to these operational concerns, Bartmann raised concerns around the legal and constitutional implications of the proposed amendments. “As an industry we are concerned aspects of the proposed amendments may contravene constitutional rights, particularly the right to fair administrative action, the right to security of the person, and the right to practice a lawful trade or occupation,” he says. “There may also be inconsistencies with existing statutory frameworks.”
Rather than implementing blanket prohibitions, Bartmann advocates for constructive alternatives and emphasised the need for collaborative regulation where the private security sector can continue as a key contributor to national safety and a strategic partner. “The focus should be on differentiated regulatory mechanisms targeting non-compliant operators, such as increased oversight through targeted audits, compliance monitoring, and sanctions without penalising the broader industry,” he adds. Bartmann says bona fide companies like Fidelity have over the years invested millions in staff training and development which need to be viewed within the current framework.
He further cautioned against the economic and developmental implications of the amendments. “Overly burdensome regulations could lead to job losses, business closures, and reduced local investment within the private security sector – a significant employer in vulnerable communities. This contradicts national policy objectives like the National Development Plan and the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan.”
Fidelity will be opposing the proposed regulations through its legal team, and will also be supporting the opposition led by the Employer Organisations within the Private Security Industry namely, the South African National Security Employers Organisation (“SANSEA”) and the Security Association of South Africa (“SASA”), both of which Fidelity is a member.
“We believe these amendments if implemented in their current form could seriously undermine the stability and effectiveness of the private security industry, and by extension, the safety of South African citizens. We urge government to work collaboratively with the sector to find solutions that support both accountability and operational viability,” Bartmann concludes.
