Regulating Private Security in South Africa: context challenges and recommendations: a Policy Brief prepared for the African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum by Julie Berg and Vavariro Gabi
Regulating Private Security in South Africa: context challenges and recommendations: a Policy Brief prepared for the African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum by Julie Berg and Vavariro Gabi
17 April 2012
Introduction
On 9 August 2010 newspapers reported a ‘killing spree’ by security guards which left at least four people dead at Aurora Grootvlei Mine in Springs. It was later confirmed that security guards, who were part of a detail employed by the mine to curb illegal mining activity, killed four illegal miners. The guards were subsequently arrested and charged with murder for the deaths of four miners. In addition to the four recovered bodies, there were further reports that as many as 20 miners might have been murdered in the underground shaft by the security guards.
The Sowetan quoted an eyewitness as saying that when he went down a shaft with a group of miners they encountered the three guards. He said he heard one of the guards giving an order to ‘shoot everyone […] People started running all over when the first men fell’. He later pretended to be dead, thus escaping the killers. Under the current dispensation, instances such as these are dependent on individual charges being laid, investigated by the police and brought to court. The weakness of this system and the risks of impunity of the private security industry are demonstrated by the fact that prior to The Sowetan breaking the story, no complaints by the survivors, the private security company or Aurora Grootvlei Mines were made. In the absence of an external system of investigation and review there is no information as to whether this was an isolated incident and there is no data available on the number of people who have been injured or killed due to private security activities in any given year.
According to the Annual Report (2009/2010) of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) an annual review of legislation and regulations has been submitted to the Minister of Police for consideration. If the Private Security Industry Regulation Act 56 of 2001, which establishes PSIRA and regulates the private security industry, is to be reviewed it will be among Policy Paper APCOF a trio of new legislation strengthening the oversight of policing in South Africa. In March 2011, legislation providing oversight of the South African Police Services (SAPS) namely the Civilian Secretariat for Police Act (2 of 2011) and the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act (1 of 2011) were signed into law by the president and, at the time of writing, await proclamation by Parliament. While an expanded mandate for the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) and a reinvigorated Civilian Secretary of Police in theory counterbalance growing public concern of corruption, criminality and excessive use of force by the South African Police Services (SAPS) and Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) there is little comparable oversight of the private security industry.
The root of the problem is manifold. The private security industry has been and is increasingly engaging in duties primarily thought of as being the exclusive mandate of the state. There is a blurring of private and public policing practices as well as a blurring of the policing of private and public spaces. Mass private property, for instance, constitutes private space and is privately policed however, it is for public use (shopping malls for instance). This frontline interaction with the public as well as the increasing involvement of private security on traditional public spaces (such as within City Improvement Districts around the country) constitutes a challenge to current regulatory systems. Another challenge is the sheer pervasiveness and diversity of private security activities. Over the past few decades the private security industry in South Africa has grown to be one of the largest service industries in the country. Employee numbers and budget rival that of the state police: measured as a percentage of GDP […] South Africa is home to the largest private security market in the world it is now almost impossible to identify any function or responsibility of the public police that is not, somewhere and under some circumstances, assumed and performed by private police in democratic societies.
However, it was the attack on and murder of private security industry guards by other guards during the 2006 industry-wide strike and the inability of PSIRA to respond to it that brought the risks of weak oversight over the industry into sharp focus. The regulatory systems currently in place largely reflect ‘a business regulation model rather than a model of public service governance’, involving, amongst other things, licensing, certification and minimum standard setting, hence the inability of state regulatory systems to deal with the aftermath of the violent strikes and the Aurora mine incident. In the same way that one may ask of the police ‘who guards the guardians?’ so one should ask of the guarding industry; and increasingly this lacuna in oversight over the private security industry is becoming apparent. In light of this, the paper provides an overview of current oversight and accountability mechanisms for the private security industry, including past regulatory provisions. It examines the challenges and limitations of these mechanisms and highlights potential areas of focus to strengthen accountability in the private security industry, thus concluding with recommendations.
For the rest of the paper by APCOF click here>>>>>.