The security industry is pressing for some policing powers, writes Ann Eveleth
The burgeoning private security industry which employs about one in every 200 South Africans, many former police officers and paramilitary members wants the government to give its members arrest and search-and- seizure powers.
It also wants the power to demand a name and address, as well as wider access to automatic weapons and armoured vehicles.
More than 180 000 private security officers are registered with the Security Officers Board which regulates the industry. More than 120 000 are actively employed in a full-time capacity by one of about 4 000 security firms. A further 50 000 to 100 000 security guards are employed directly by businesses across the country.
Many of these security officers currently effect citizens or private arrests of suspects in the course of their work, before handing them over to police.
But this week the board said these powers were insufficient. In a position paper, it called on the government to extend at least the power of arrest without warrant, the power to demand a name and address and the powers of search/seizure after arrest to senior private security personnel in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act which governs the South African Police Service (SAPS).
Safety and Security Ministry representative Maxwell Malaudzi said, however, that these powers remained the responsibility of the SAPS and would not easily be handed over to private security companies.
I dont think the ministry is going to be stampeded into acceding to the demands of the private security industry, he said.
The board said the states failure to grant these powers may possibly constitute some kind of unfair discrimination and that the state may have a constitutional duty to extend these powers in a bid to bolster an overstretched SAPS in the fight against crime.
Where the states financial, human and other resources are insufficient to provide a comprehensive police service on its own, it may be seen as [the states] constitutional duty to assist private security in any other reasonable manner possible to extend the protection of rights of the members of society, the board argues.
Ironically, say critics, the proposal to effectively privatise public policing function follows hot on the heels of the first legislative steps toward the external regulation of the industry.
For the past five years the security industry has been regulated by a body consisting mostly of people inside the industry. It has also been governed by legislation that has as its objective the maintenance, promotion and protection of the occupation of security officers.
Last week the National Assembly unanimously amended existing legislation to provide for the dismantling of the current board, the appointment of a more representative interim board with an independent chair appointed by the Ministry of Safety and Security, and an 18-month overhaul of laws regulating the industry.
At stake is the future of the industry, and as the Network of Independent Monitors (NIM) argues, the interests of the general public. NIM director Jenni Irish said the current boards domination by members of the industry has meant it has served the industrys vested interests rather than those of the public.
While security board registrar Patrick Ronan argues the existing body is no more a vested interest body than other self- regulatory professional bodies like the Law Society, the fact that board chair Mick Bartmann is also a major player in the industry through his ownership of Khulani- Springbok Patrols has bred dissent even within the industry.
Jenny Ibbotson, a representative of industry leader Gray Security and board member, went further than the government this week when she said the existence of the board itself needs to be questioned.
The issue of the legislation and regulation of the industry should not be about the protection of the practitioners, but about the protection of the public. If your focus is the protection of the public then that is clearly a state function, she said.
The interim board will consist of three security employers representatives, three employee representatives, three private security users, three additional fit and proper persons and one independent chair.