The Pretoria High Court on Friday turned down an application by 15 refugees to set aside a refusal by the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority not to register them as security guards.
Their registration was earlier refused on the grounds that they were neither South African citizens nor permanent residents.
Judge Ronnie Basielo said: ”It is understandable, in my view, that due to the high level of trust required by … private security officers, there must be some strict criteria as to who can qualify for such positions, so as to exclude undesirable persons.”
The judge said he has sympathy for refugees and their vulnerable position, but viewed against the security and safety of the public, the limitations in the Security Industry Act are justified.
Bosielo said the Act does in certain instances allow the services of non-citizens to be considered. He said the onus is on a non-citizen applying for the position of a security guard to show good cause why an exception should be made in his or her case.
Many sections in the Constitution make clear provision for a differentiation between citizens and non-citizens. He noted that for one to qualify to become a member of the South African Police Service, one needs to be a permanent resident.
The refugees, from countries including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi and Rwanda, said the refusal to register them was inconsistent with the Constitution.
According to the Act, anyone applying for registration as a security service provider (security guard) has to be a citizen or have permanent residential status.
Advocate Paul Kennedy, SC, appearing on behalf of the 15, earlier argued that refugees by definition are not and cannot be citizens or permanent residents.
He said a rigid and inflexible application of the Act would inevitably result in a blanket exclusion of all refugees from the security service industry.
He said this would be in conflict with the Constitution, which provides that a refugee has the right to seek employment. Their exclusion from the security industry unfairly denied them the right to work and eroded their human dignity.
Advocate Wim Trengove, SC, arguing for the security industry, conceded that the Act favours citizens and permanent residents over refugees.
However, he said there is just cause for such differentiation. It is a safeguard, as some of the refugees did not provide criminal clearance certificates as required by the Act.
Trengove said it is difficult to obtain reliable information regarding a refugee’s background. The industry is a highly sensitive one, where extreme caution is required to ensure that only the most reliable persons are permitted.
This does not mean that refugees cannot seek employment in other industries of their choice, he said. — Sapa