The South African Police Service (SAPS): Part of the governmental executiveAs a part of the executive body of the state, the SAPS is a legitimate governmental organisation incorporated into the system of the state and under its general supervision. However, it is important to take a closer look at the legal basis the SAPS operate on. In Germany, the tasks of the police as well as their right to encroach upon citizens’ rights are codified in various laws, such as the Polizeiaufgabengesetz, Polizeiorganisationsgesetz or Polizeizuweisungsgesetz. These laws represent the basis for the actions of the Polizei (= German police) and are very detailed. South African legislation, however, does not have such a broad range of specific regulations concerning the SAPS. Nevertheless, provisions can be found in the South African Constitution and in various Acts that have been passed over the years. Very first, the duties of the SAPS are embodied in the South African Constitution:
Section 205 (3) of the Constitution of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996)
The objectives of the SAPS are to prevent, combat and investigate crime, to maintain public order, to protect and secure the inhabitants of the Republic and their property, and to uphold and enforce the law.
This constitutional section is a product of the introduction of the Bill of Rights in 1996 and reflects the intention of the lawmaker to protect and secure human rights that are codified in the Bill.
The two tasks of the SAPS that are most mentionable are the prevention and the prosecution of crime. An effective crime prevention and prosecution thereof are generally a result of a corporation between the three bodies of power of the state: the legislative, the judiciary and the executive. The legislative body sets the legal basis through various laws and provisions. The judiciary body has to put life into these laws by means of responsible and realistic court decisions. The executive bodies, such as the office for public affairs and the SAPS, put the legislative instructions into action and make sure that the general public observes these.
The preamble of the South African Police Services Act, 68 of 1995 designates the prevention of crime as the most important task of the police. This is due to a specific reason as the prevention of crime is much cheaper than its prosecution. Firstly, a crime not only requires large numbers of the police force to investigate the situation, but in addition a later imprisonment increases costs. Secondly, South Africa has one of the highest crime rates in the world. This is likely to lower South Africa’s reputation abroad. Therefore, it is necessary to create a hospitable atmosphere that counteracts this off-putting factor and as a result does not repel foreign investors or tourists from the country. The financial damage suffered from a decrease in tourism and investments abroad would be immeasurable.
The South African government is obviously aware of the necessity of crime prevention, which, in addition to the preamble of the South African Police Services Act, 68 of 1995, is reflected by the SAPS budget allocations. The budget of the SAPS is divided into five different areas, with the area “crime prevention” being apportioned the highest amount by far. However, expectations of a lowered crime rate due to extensive crime prevention cannot be raised as yet. The SAPS’ human and financial resources are too limited to alter the dramatic safety situation of the country in the near future. Due to her research, Julie Berg of the University of Cape Town stated during our interview, “The duties of the SAPS are always a contentious issue: in a transitional society such as South Africa, should they primarily play a peace-keeping and community-orientated role? Or should the SAPS be preoccupied with reducing the crime rate and specifically play a law enforcement role, which may not necessarily be in line with a human rights approach? Ultimately, to satisfy everyone’s expectations, what the SAPS are required to do is unrealistic. They will always play a law enforcement and bandit-catching role since they have been given the exclusive power to use force. They cannot then be expected to be a visible presence, prevent crime, play a social welfare role and simultaneously be accountable and effective at reducing crime. This is what they are expected to do. Somewhere along the line there must be a compromise as to what they can reasonably be expected to do.”
The second main task of the SAPS is the prosecution of crime. This is also reflected in the budget allocations of the SAPS. The investigation and detection of crime cannot be neglected in a country, which has one of the highest crime rates in the world. Effective criminal prosecution is an appropriate method of fighting crime as it demonstrates to society that committing a crime brings about punishment. Nevertheless, the numbers of committed crimes in South Africa are still overwhelmingly high and therefore the SAPS has problems to ensure an effective prosecution of a vast number of crimes.
The Private Security Industry (PSI) in South Africa: Subject to the civil law
The PSI has a completely different approach to its’ work in comparison with that of the SAPS. Like the SAPS, generally speaking, they offer protection and safeguarding for people and property. At first glance, this strongly resembles the work of the SAPS. Nonetheless, unlike the SAPS, which are an executive body of the state, PSI companies act on the basis of private contracts. Both, the companies and their contract partners are subject to the civil law. This, of course, assumes that the consumer has to pay for the actions of a PSI company, whereas the SAPS do not charge a fee for their services. One of the main differences between the PSI and the SAPS is that the PSI, in general, are neither interested in human welfare, nor do they have a mission to care for the safety of the general public. A governmental embodiment of the PSI as a law enforcement agency does not exist. A private security company is, like any other private business, always profit orientated and will not take action until it is paid for its services. Crime expert Anthony Minnaar states, “Underlying the two [the SAPS and the PSI] are completely different goals, namely private security companies who seek to protect the interests of their clients and have a profit motive and service provided for monetary gain, whereas police theoretically are there for the defence of citizens’ rights and to protect the individual from the depredations of criminals, crime prevention, combating and control functions.”
The PSI: A growth industry
The early beginnings of the PSI in South Africa can be traced back for many years. Jenny Irish-Qhobosheane is quoted in the “Mail and Guardian online”, ”The initial formation of the private security industry was encouraged by the apartheid regime. This was done because the police had to concentrate on political opposition. Private security had to fill the gap that was left by the public police [...]”. Nowadays, the police do not chase or fight political opposition anymore but they have to deal with the high crime rate.
The economic situation in South Africa, particularly the clash of the rich and poor as it is typical of an emerging nation, is one reason for the growth of the PSI. Especially in the country’s big economic centres like Johannesburg, Durban or Cape Town wealth and destitution often collide in a dramatic way. In the northern Johannesburg suburb of Sandton, for example, the township of Alexandra is embedded into one of the wealthiest areas of Africa. This inevitably leads to a rising crime rate as a process of redistribution is created. Therefore, people who can afford it develop an increased demand for custom-made safety and security. This is where the PSI are involved.
Within the last decade the PSI became one of the biggest industries of South Africa. The impressive increase of active registered security officers is shown in the following graph:
|
www.policeaccountability.co.za
These numbers become even more significant in comparison with the numbers of registered SAPS officers. In May 2004, the number of registered PSI officers stood at 265000, whereas 106200 SAPS officers were registered. Today the number of PSI officers in South Africa is nearly four times higher than the number of SAPS officers and the industry is still growing.
Another reason for the growth of the PSI is the shift of the SAPS policing. After the apartheid system collapsed, police started patrolling and showing presence in the huge and formerly neglected black areas of the cities. The aim of the state was to create an atmosphere of safety and security in these suburbs, as people there deserved it. As a consequence police services went downhill in the formerly overprotected rich areas. This created a feeling of a sudden lack of presence of the police. Therefore order books of the PSI were rapidly filled with regards to securing wealthy suburbs.
Another important factor for the increasing demand of PSI services is the perception of crime in the country. The media and the PSI itself often influence the existing perception. Stefan Badenhorst, manager of the law enforcement division of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) gave his view concerning this subject in our interview, ”More and more people start employing private security businesses for their protection and that is not because of the increase of crime but more out of the perception that crime is out of control and therefore we need protection. That is not the case. The SAPS and the ministry have given lots of figures that crime in certain areas is going down. But the increase of private security is still ongoing. So it is more a question of perception of crime.” Concerning the question of who the major players in creating a specific crime perception are, Mr. Badenhorst states, “Well, it is the media, obviously, but the PSI does also play a role in that [...] they create that feeling: if I don’t take that alarm system I will get trouble [...] the bigger that perception the more the industry will grow and that is reality [...] the security industry can never grow without the perception that it is needed.” The following facts should prove that public perceptions, namely that the state has completely lost control over the country’s security situation and that it is not doing enough to fight crime, do not correspond with reality. For example, the average number of police officers in England is 3,5 per one thousand people. In South Africa, this ratio is 3,1 to a thousand, which is quite similar to that of England. Furthermore, “the amount of money spent [by the State] on the three core components of the criminal justice system (justice, prisons and the police) has increased considerably in real terms [...] an increase of 450 per cent [...] The proportion of the national budget devoted to these three sectors of the criminal justice system has more than doubled over the last twelve years, from 4,8 per cent [...] to 10,8 per cent [...] “, states Martin Schönteich from the Institute for Security Studies.
The growth of the industry itself automatically leads to another reason of the increased demand of the PSI, as “security breeds security”. Assuming that the neighbours on your left, on your right and on the opposite side of the road all have contracted a PSI company, you certainly will start thinking of signing up with one as well.
In addition, insurance companies offer much lower rates for house and private property insurance, where the customer has signed a contract with a PSI company. The insurance industry is reassured by the fact that their clients have some form of external protection. Pressure of the insurance industry on the customer is large enough to benefit the PSI, especially since the arrival of democracy in 1994 more and more people have been acquiring private property.
Besides pressures of the insurance industry concerning their rates, the huge expansion of all kinds of property ownership carries another reason for the increased demand of PSI services. Facilities such as shopping malls, entertainment- or parking areas are privately owned but at the same time, these are open to the public. Therefore, much of the social life has moved from the SAPS patrolled public streets to these new areas. The owners hire PSI companies in order to guarantee security and safety in these privately owned places.
Fields of activity of the PSI
The PSI deal only partly with the same fields as the police do. A closer look at the PSI’s fields of activity will help to explain the industry’s nature and, when compared, the way in which it differs from the SAPS. As mentioned above, there is no constitutional embodiment of the PSI as an executive body of the state. Consequently, the duties and spheres of activity of the PSI cannot be dictated by the state, as it is not the industry’s superior. Therefore, it is helpful to investigate the official definitions of the PSI and its’ activities provided by the Private Security Industry Regulatory Act, 56 of 2001. The act defines a security service provider as a “person who renders a security service to another for remuneration, reward, fee or benefit”. In addition, it not only describes the particular security sectors, but also the broad range of services that belong to the field of the PSI, in detail. These services consist of many more, in number, than one would expect. Some of the fields of activity of the SAPS and the PSI are similar, namely patrolling, responding to alarms, composing crime reports and securing people as well as property. Other services such as body guarding, the provision of locks or installing, servicing, and repairing security equipment are only offered by the PSI. In addition, PSI companies are able to offer a broad range of security and protection services that are custom-made for their clients. In contrast to the SAPS, PSI companies have the advantage of being able to provide people with very much personalised services. Clearly, the PSI’s work and duties focus on crime prevention. Stefan Badenhorst said the following concerning this subject, “[...] the SAPS is more dealing with crime investigation, whereas the PSI is more dealing with the prevention of crime. If you have security alarm systems in your house the chances to get broken into are less than without it [...] The SAPS investigates crime - the task for the security industry is to prevent this sort of crime [...] So the private security industry plays a very important role when it comes to that.”
The PSI’s effect on the State, the SAPS and Society
The question, whether and how this huge industry affects not only the daily life of South Africans but also the work of the SAPS, arises. As PSI vehicles and officers are omnipresent, patterns of SAPS policing have changed. The actions and operations of the PSI cannot only be seen in the sphere of their customers and their properties, but nowadays also include public areas like streets and car parks. As a consequence the distinct feeling arises that the PSI appears where the SAPS is not present, or vice versa. In other words, as the SAPS are leaving the scene, the PSI begins patrolling the same area. PSI companies seem to do more than only fulfilling the duties they have concerning their customers. It seems that the PSI has manoeuvred itself into a position, which entitles them to play a major role in terms of the general public and in the security situation of South Africa. This is confirmed by Keith Alberts, national operations director of ADT, during our interview, “[...] Our responsibility is to make the country as secure as possible [...]”. The grandiose thoughts of the director of the biggest PSI company in South Africa and the method in which he regards his industry as the saviour of the country, is understandable. It needs to be taken into account that PSI officers outnumber the SAPS officers by nearly four times and thus a modern South Africa without the PSI is barely imaginable. At the same time it has to be seriously doubted that the PSI feels responsible for the security of the country. Once again, this would assume that the PSI is interested in public welfare, which definitely is not the case. The PSI’s mission is not to be the benefactor of society and to take over responsibility in terms of security. Whatever PSI companies do and whatever action they take: they simply do it for the sake of money.
Due to the sheer size of the PSI, the state cannot ignore the existence of this powerful industry anymore. However, it is highly problematic that a misleading impression of private security companies being law enforcement agencies, such as the SAPS, has arisen. As PSI companies are increasingly behaving like bodies of a special status having extended rights, it is important to have a closer look at the existing legislation that regulates this huge industry.
Legislation and provisions concerning the PSI
The constant growth of the PSI in South Africa and its’ rising importance and influence on daily life led to the recognition that the state wanted to regulate this industry. As a result the Security Officer’s Act, 92 of 1987 was passed by the parliament. The Act was eventually promulgated two years later in 1989. This Act represented the first legislation concerning the PSI in South Africa and although it was a respectable beginning and an attempt to professionalise the industry, it was only a minor step forward to a serious regulation.
On the basis of the Act the Security Officer’s Board (SOB) was established. This Board dealt with the maintenance, promotion and protection of the occupation of security officers. The SOB established a range of different training courses for security guards. The aim was to set standards in qualification. Therefore each passed course was awarded and the opportunity to gain gradual qualification existed for security officers. Another achievement of the SOB was the creation of a first Code of Conduct for security officers. In compliance with Anthony Minnaar this Code “remains a dead letter without any strong powers of sanction, or the ability to enforce disciplinary measures such as expulsion/suspension or fining”. Although the establishment of the SOB as a controlling body, that overlooks the PSI was an appropriate promise for a decent step forward to professionalise the industry, it suffered from a major weakness. The members of the SOB were all representatives of the PSI and therefore safeguarded the interests of the industry. Hence, the SOB was by no means a neutral body and would have avoided decisions that were a disadvantage to the PSI.
Due to the Act the following regulations concerning the PSI were introduced for the first time:
1. Registration of security companies and individual security officers
This regulation was the most important one. According to Anthony Minnaar “it is the process of registration that is the central component of the regulatory model currently used in South Africa”. The aim of a comprehensive registration was to give transparency to the industry and guarantee that individuals with a criminal record do not enter the PSI. To this day, this is still reflected in the actual legislation (see below).
2. Establishment of minimum training standards for security officers
3. Creation of an inspectorate to enforce these regulations
The Security Officers’ Act, 92 of 1987 turned out to be ineffective as its regulations were not strict enough and a threat of punishment in case of non-compliance of the regulations was missing, thus the state passed three amendments. These were the Security Officers’ Amendment Act, 25 of 1990, the Security Officers’ Amendment Act, 119 of 1992 and the Security Officers’ Amendment Act, 104 of 1997. In sum, these amendments carried regulations concerning stricter registration obligations. An additional result of these amendments was the abolition of the SOB and the establishment of the new Interim Security Officers’ Board (ISOB). This Board consisted of a larger number of employee and consumer representatives than the SOB. Furthermore, the Board had to submit reports to the Minister for Safety and Security on how the industry should have been regulated in the future. Apart from that the ISOB had to be chaired by an independent person who was not part of the private security industry. The new Board’s main objectives were the introduction of a registration system and a database of all registered security companies and officers. A second goal was the application of fingerprint classification for those who wished to enter the PSI. In addition, regulations concerning the training standards of officers were to be improved. Furthermore, a provision regarding the inspection and prosecution of law-breaking PSI companies had to be developed by the ISOB. Due to the lack of compliance with the existing Code of Conduct, the ISOB eventually promulgated the “Improper Conduct Enquiries Regulations, 2001”. In spite of the large number of amendments of the original Act and the replacement of the SOB by the ISOB, the impression remains that the regulation of the PSI from 1987 to 2001 resembles a patchwork.
The lawmaker was clearly of the same opinion and therefore released a new legislation to professionalise the PSI: the Private Security Industry Regulation Act 56 of 2001. With the promulgation of this Act the state attributed playing an important role in safety and security to the PSI. An excerpt of the preamble of the Private Security Industry Regulations Act, 56 of 2001 proves this:
And Whereas security service providers and the private security industry in general play an important role in protecting and safeguarding the aforesaid rights;
[…]
And Whereas it is necessary to achieve and maintain a trustworthy and legitimate private security industry, which acts in terms of the principles contained in the Constitution and other applicable law, and is capable of ensuring that there is greater safety and security in the country;
The essential revisions of this Act were an improved and stricter regulation concerning the registration of every security service provider. In addition, the Act contained the basis for a new Code of Conduct and the Improper Conduct Regulations. A new inspectorate with massively increased powers was also established. Finally and most importantly, the Act provided the fundamentals for the establishment of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA).
PSIRA - This new Pretoria-based key supervision body of the PSI is the successor of the former SOB and the ISOB. This is the reason why their tasks are similar to a certain extent. All tasks and duties are codified in Chapter 2 (3) of the Act. The most important task of PSIRA is to ensure that the PSI sticks to the regulations of the Act and that they do not deviate from constitutional guidelines. In accordance with this, an excerpt of Chapter 2 (3) of the Act states that:
The primary objects of the Authority are to regulate the private security industry […] and for that purpose, subject to this act, to
a) promote a legitimate private security industry, which acts in terms of the principles contained in the Constitution and other applicable law;
A definite step towards effective monitoring of the PSI is that the PSIRA council only consists of members who are not involved with the PSI. As the new council is completely neutral, it is independent from the industry. PSIRA directly falls under the Ministry for Safety and Security and regularly reports to the minister regarding their work and function.
In addition, the Code of Conduct for Security Service Providers, 2003 as well as the Improper Conduct Enquiries Regulations, 2003 were created on the basis of the Act 56 of 2001. The Code of Conduct codifies a range of penalties in Chapter 5 (25). It is of great importance that this Code contains an appropriate selection of penalties and possibilities of fining and prosecution in cases of non-compliance, especially as the previous Code of Conduct was more of a “dead letter”. We asked Stefan Badenhorst whether the new Code is a decent instrument to enforce the Act’s regulations in practise, “Look, the previous Act also had provisions but it was not a very extensive document to enforce the rules or obligations the industry had towards the absence of the security services of the SAPS, towards the public and all the new role players within the industry. So our new Code of Conduct gives adequate powers to penalise them and we do. We probably got in the region Gauteng about 2000 investigations against the industry. We finalise our improper conduct inquiries right now. But there is still a huge growth in the number of non-compliance that we determine in doing our investigations. One reason for that may be that we changed from the previous low tolerance policy to a zero tolerance policy. So if we do an investigation and detect non-compliance we do charge them. They don’t get that opportunity to clean their file whatever they did wrong. They need to come and explain themselves in one of our inquiries.”
Mr. Badenhorst’s statement sounds promising in terms of the professionalisation of the PSI. Other opinions about how effective the work of PSIRA is, exist. According to Keith Alberts the work of PSIRA mainly focuses on the process of registration, “If you ask me what does PSIRA do for us I say nothing. You have to be registered. What they do is to ensure that the person you employ is not a criminal. But the moment that person is registered and he proved that he has certain qualifications then he is going to be registered. So all they do is to ensure he has no criminal file and they come and ensure all your employees are registered and have the right grading - but that's all they do. They do nothing further. The problem we have is that if you have registered a person with PSIRA five years ago, in the meantime he committed a criminal offence you'll never know because it is not reported there. Unless his registration has fallen apart and he has to re-register [...]”.
Julie Berg gave a more moderate opinion concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the new legislation and the establishment of the PSIRA during our interview, “I think the state is taking it seriously. By introducing a range of new laws aimed at regulating the industry I think this should be a sign of the state's lack of trust of the industry. Since prior to the new legislation it was accepted practice that the industry was largely self-regulatory through its associations. Due to common perception that the SOB and the ISOB were largely inefficient, even accused of being corrupt and working in the pockets of the industry they were meant to oversee. So, they seem to be trying to professionalise and take control of the industry […] However, the fact that PSIRA simply does not have the resources and manpower to effectively oversee the whole industry places some doubts as to how committed the state really is, or perhaps the state is underestimating the growth and size of the industry.”
After passing the central Act 56 of 2001 the parliament passed another two Acts dealing with the regulation of the PSI. The Private Security Industry Levies Act, 23 of 2002 supplemented the above Act with the requirement that formal levies be paid by every registered security service provider and for each of their registered security personnel. This Act also provides for the suspension of any company that does not pay its’ levies.
Weaknesses of the new legislation, required provisions for the future and unsolved problems concerning the process of professionalising the PSI
Although the Act 56 of 2001 with its’ amendments was a definitive step forward in terms of professionalising the PSI, there still is a large need for regulations in various fields of this industry.
1. Policing
There is no regulation concerning the policing of private security vehicles and officers in the streets. Despite the fact that the PSI is acknowledged and obliged by the state as a force to fight and prevent crime in South Africa (see above, preamble of the Act 56 of 2001), the policing of security company vehicles and officers happens on no legal basis. Julie Berg explains, “There is no legal basis for what they do. They have the same powers as ordinary citizens, yet they act on these powers whereas ordinary citizens would not [...] They have simply been allocated as the representatives of those who own the property they have been paid to protect. What becomes even more problematic is that private security companies are now patrolling public and quasi-public space, yet no one has challenged this, possibly due to the realisation that much of what the police do depends on the cooperation of other agencies and the community [...]”. The society may be impressed and even lulled into a false sense of security by patrolling PSI vehicles, as it does not realise that a patrolling vehicle in a public street is no more than a paper tiger. In case a crime occurs, a PSI patrol is only allowed to take action according to the contract it has with the customer. This means that action is only taken for the client and on the property of the client. Assuming a patrolling PSI vehicle witnesses a crime in the street, no action is allowed to take place as the officer’s hands are tied. The next time you see a PSI vehicle rushing through urban streets at a 100 km/h, reacting to the call of a customer, be aware that there is no legal basis for this speeding. A PSI vehicle does not have the same rights as a SAPS vehicle.
The PSI certainly is in a dilemma. On the one hand it creates a public perception - due to behaving, equipping themselves similarly to and dressing like the police - that it is a serious force to fight and prevent crime with rights equal to the SAPS. On the other hand, the parliament has not yet given the industry the legal tools to fulfil the existing perceptions and expectations of the public as well as the state.
2. Right to use firearms
Most of the private security companies promote themselves as “armed response” companies and therefore pretend to have a special status concerning the usage of firearms. However, the right to use firearms in South Africa is heavily restricted by the Firearms Control Legislation, Act 60 of 2000. The Act is effective for the PSI without exception. Without a doubt the introduction of the Act made sense in a country like South Africa where forty people die every day due to firearms. Thus, an armed security officer is basically only allowed to open fire in a self-defence situation or in a case of emergency protective measures for the customer. The expert, Keith Alberts of ADT, explains, “[...] If you look at the new legislation regarding firearms, it becomes very difficult for us [...] to use guns because the legislation says without an immanent danger you cannot shoot. Let me give you an example: Something happened on the property [of the client] and you see the guy doing what he is doing. You must go on and arrest him before you can shoot. But let us imagine that there is a fire started at you and the guy turns around and he runs, you are not allowed to shoot him. Either you catch or you leave him. That is the choice you have [...] They made it really difficult for us to fight these people.” Obviously, on the basis of his statement, Mr. Alberts would like his security officers to have more rights in terms of firearm use. From an objective point of view having no exception clauses for the PSI is an advantage with regards to the safety of the country. The image of 300000 private security officers roaming through the country with extended rights on using firearms is certainly not a pleasant one.
3. Right to arrest
Once again, PSI officers have no more rights in arrest situations than average citizens. Going on the assumption that a private security officer catches an offender red-handed on a customer’s premises, he is only allowed to detain the individual and must wait until the police arrive. The PSI officer is not even allowed to take the offender to the police himself. Hence, reality inevitably sets in and comes up with some strange effects. During our investigations we spoke to Lienhard K. from Pretoria. He is a client of a very specific, locally operating private security company. “What my security provider does and what he is famous for, is when its’ officers catch a perpetrator they do not arrest him nor wait for or rely on the police. They simply beat the hell out of the guy, possibly breaking some bones. Their message is: Do what you have to do but if you do it on our customers’ premises you are going to pay for it. If we catch you a second time, punishment will be more severe. We are the boss in this area; we are the law”, he says. Of course this is highly illegal but nobody seems to care. In fact, this particular philosophy even serves as an advertisement for the company as its’ “fighting fire with fire” strategy is highly successful after all. “The customers as well as the criminals know what to expect. The company’s doors are broken down as the demand for their services is so overwhelming”, says Lienhard. On the basis of this report it is obvious that the public longs for PSI companies with extended rights. Nonetheless, the above described western style behaviour includes elements of self-justice and bodily harm. Although this may satisfy the customer, it is a dangerous departure from existing legislation. Herewith we are automatically led to the next field of problem within the PSI:
4. Crime and corruption within the PSI
In a huge industry such as the South African PSI clearly it is not avoidable that criminal elements infiltrate to a certain extend. Yet, the industry seems to be especially open to it as proved by the past. One explanation can be found in both the salaries and the working conditions of the security officers. The average private security officer works seven days a week, alternatively working day and night shifts lasting up to twelve hours. Besides, the salary is by no means tempting. Depending on the individual qualification of the officers, the wages range between R1400 and R2800 a month. These conditions give free reign to bribery, aiding and abetting, and turning a blind eye to crime in return of a reward. One of the most spectacular cases in the recent past was the airport heist at Johannesburg International Airport where private security officers were heavily involved in the crime. Cases of Trojan horses, who infiltrate into urban fortresses and cooperate with the PSI company in charge are often reported. Fly-by-night security companies harm the industry on a regular basis. Therefore it is of great importance that the established PSIRA put in a large amount of effort to fight and prosecute any criminal activities within the industry. For this purpose an increase of the Board’s manpower level is urgent. The most effective solution for the problem would certainly be to improve the working conditions and salaries of the PSI officers. The actual strike of these officers in South Africa is only an understandable consequence of the above-described conditions. It only proves how unbearable their situation has become.
5. Standards of training
The legislation regulating the PSI also provides provisions concerning the standards of training and education of security officers. However, ADT director Keith Alberts complains about the low standards of these provisions, “[...] PSIRA provides certain curricula for training. But they are too basic. We ignore them. We have advanced training that is scenario based. We have combat training. So our standards are very very high, you have to have matric and be very disciplined. Usually if a guy is educated regarding the PSIRA provided training methods I promise you he is going to fail our examens [...]”. These “very very high standards” of ADT, which Mr. Alberts refers to, have to be put into perspective. We accompanied the patrol of an ADT vehicle during a shift. Meanwhile the officer in charge gave away a few little secrets. According to the officer, ADT sends every security officer with the qualification to carry a firearm to a one-day shooting practice twice a year. Every two weeks there is physical training for the guards. In addition, once a year the security guards participate in psychological training. If this is regarded as a high standard, the effectiveness of the PSIRA guidelines has to be questioned, as they are even lower than the above-described ADT standards. Therefore, it can be doubted that the provided PSIRA standards represent a serious attempt of professionalising the PSI. All in all there is an obvious need for stricter regulations concerning the standard of education of South African PSI officers.
6. Boom gates, urban fortresses, CID’s
The phenomenon of boom gates being put up in public streets by private security companies has increased throughout the past few years, especially in the suburbs of Johannesburg. Again, the companies create a public perception that they are permitted to do so and that they are allowed to ask trespassers questions concerning their names and where they are going. Nonetheless, this would be behaviour of no legal basis. They act because the local neighbourhood pays them in order to erect these booms and barricade the road. In most cases this happens illegally and does not accord to any agreement with the municipality. Urban planning expert Karina Landman states, “It is estimated that there are presently approximately 300 road closures in the City of Johannesburg. Only 79 neighbourhoods have formally applied and to date only 23 have been officially approved. Many neighbourhoods are closed off illegally.” Yet, many people attach great importance to these barriers, as they are often not aware of the fact that anyone is allowed to pass these booms without having to justify this. Urban fortresses (or: gated communities) with access restrictions are legal as long as the whole entity and the property, which it is built on is privately owned. Still, there is no national policy to guide decision-making on gated communities in South Africa.
A true legal facility is the development of the CID (City Improvement District). In the CID the community takes over the responsibility for the security in a specified suburb. Before this can occur the inhabitants of the specific area have to apply for a CID status and fulfil certain requirements. The local government creates a business plan for the whole CID. There is a strong sense of cooperation amongst the community, the local people, the SAPS and the PSI companies, which are hired to secure the CID. Permission to become a CID is seldom granted, as currently only three CID’s are officially recognised in South Africa. The main problem in approving a CID is that the roads in this area become closed off and therefore are no longer freely available for the public traffic. However, in theory there is no physical restriction in entering a CID. This is not to say that there are no consequences for violating the rules of the CID.
Nonetheless, despite the permanent presence of private security officers at gates, booms and road closures they are not permitted to restrict a citizen’s constitutional right to freedom of movement in any way. Despite the fact, they permanently make pretence of having permission as such.
7. Cooperation between the SAPS and the PSI
As the legislation places an obligation on the PSI to make the country a safer place, it would be practical if they worked with the SAPS. A cooperation of these two strong forces could heavily increase the effectiveness of crime prevention and persecution. According to Minnaar and Ngoveni in Acta Criminologica 17 (1) 2004 “[...] there is, in fact, no formal national cooperation agreement in existence between the SAPS and the private security industry [...] There is also no mandate from the SAPS that supports or gives any proposed guidelines regarding the expected standard service delivery in terms of outsourcing any policing functions to the private security industry. Moreover, there are no clear guidelines regarding the role of the security industry and the police or any clear-cut instructions defining the exact relationship between these two entities [...]”. The state certainly makes use of the PSI as an instrument to fight crime and the prevention thereof. Nonetheless, it refuses to put its expectations of the PSI in concrete terms nor substantiate or support any cooperative work between the SAPS and the PSI. Therefore, the SAPS and PSI do not work hand in hand but are forced to work parallel to each other. Any provision for cooperation between the SAPS and PSI would be worthwhile and definitely appreciated by the two forces. It would be to the benefit of both and would represent a multiplied force. In addition, equipment, vehicles and experiences could be shared, and security personnel could serve the function of being the radar of the police by passing on information regularly. Despite the lack of provisions regulating this field, there is a de facto cooperation on a small local scale. According to Minnaar and Ngoveni “in certain areas the SAPS and specific security companies launched Community Police Forum (CPF) sub forums (e.g. “Together Against Crime”) to coordinate and cooperate in anti-crime initiatives, crime combating and prevention exercises.” This is confirmed by Keith Alberts of ADT, “We [ADT and the police] have several meetings on a weekly or monthly basis regarding topics like ‘what can we make differently?’ or ‘how can we help each other?’. So a lot is going on [...] We have the community police forums where all the security companies of a certain area all meet together with the local police station [...]”. Furthermore, especially in the above mentioned CID’s the cooperation between the SAPS and the private security companies is highly developed and practiced daily. Regular meetings and the sharing of information and resources are routine.
Conclusion
Fear, distrust and uncertainty are going on in South Africa. Individuals fear becoming victims of brutal crime. They distrust the state, as it seems not to be able to sort out the situation. Uncertainty is created by continuously hearing frightening news through the media, friends, family and the security company next door, which has just managed to save a customer’s life and to repossess his belongings and without whom the country would have gone under long ago, in any case.
The above-mentioned situations are experienced throughout the society of South Africa. A small but exclusive group of society, namely high-income earners, has been trying to rid itself of these experiences for some time now. This group of individuals is using its’ income to free itself from fear. It buys security from a private security company. This costs an arm and a leg but money is certainly not an issue for this fifteen percent of the population. Thus, the offered security consists of a surrounding wall, electric fencing, a panic button and a continuously patrolling guard – the police do not offer this. But why was one of the neighbours burgled although he is a client of a private security company? Why was a friend high-jacked in his driveway even though his gate has an “Armed Response” sign hanging from it? Where was security in these situations? This is simply not asked, as it would require some thought. Perhaps this would also lead to the recognition that the security being dealt with is a let down. In addition, this thought could lead to the conclusion that the feeling of security can be bought but not in fact actual security. Of course, this is very irritating and therefore certain individuals decide to take action by for example building up their wall by an additional meter. Or they may even decide to move to a different urban fortress where it “must” be safe.
Why crime did not drop while the number of security guards increased immensely over the last few years is also a question, which has not been asked. South Africa’s crime statistics are rising in an unchanged manner. The PSI is supposed to have the responsibility of creating more security in the country; even the government has approached it about this topic. For this reason an impressive army of over 300000 private security officers patrol the country. It is frustrating that this huge fighting force, which is much larger in number than the police force, does not have a positive influence on the crime statistics. One could have the impression that the PSI is just not capable of fighting crime effectively, even though they are so large. The truth however is much worse: The PSI does not want to fight crime.
A high crime rate is the best advertisement for the PSI and serves the industry in terms of making higher profits. Crime creates fear, which in turn creates private security companies, and therefore an improvement of the country’s crime situation logically cannot be in the interest of the PSI. The case seems to be precisely the opposite: a noticeable lowered crime rate in South Africa would neither be published, nor promoted by the PSI despite making pretence of the contrary. In the case of a significantly improved crime situation within the country, it is likely that it would be blurred by the PSI through manipulation of public opinion and the use of fear-provoking tactics. The following question remains: Is it not highly frightening and absurd that one of the biggest industries in the country, which deals with crime prevention, protection, and safe-guarding is not interested in improved criminal statistics at all? Since if it did have an interest in the phenomenon, it would mean that the industry would have to “saw off their own branch”!
Besides the above, including the PSI into effective crime prevention would make sense but it is not possible as governing laws are not explanatory enough. In general, a PSI officer has no more rights than an ordinary person with regards to work. This is also not changed by the police-like, almost military image of the PSI. Even though it may be a strong interest of the PSI to request special rights, such as policing, usage of firearms and arresting, for their officers, the government has long decided against this. The state has nevertheless given the industry the general responsibility of securing the country. On the other hand, a comprehensive law, which concerns the tasks, duties and rights of the huge industry and gives them a special status, is missing. Thus what remains is that the PSI is not the SAPS and a PSI officer is not a SAPS officer. Due to insufficient provisions, the PSI is a de facto “lion without teeth and claws” in various areas of their work. Nonetheless, the PSI is lucky that their clients mostly are not aware of this as to many individuals in South Africa there is no difference between a SAPS- and a PSI officer. This alone is a reason to be worried.
Never mind the circumstances, the PSI blooms on. Even though they have weaknesses, individuals who can afford it continue paying a lot of money to private security companies in order to receive untrustworthy security. The trust of these individuals in the work of the SAPS is clearly not present. They also do not trust the state to be a man about the problem and take action against crime. Thus, individuals prefer to rely on themselves and their money. They pay a PSI company, buy a flat in an urban fortress, hide behind higher and higher walls and isolate themselves from society and the reality within the country – the reality on the other side of the wall.
Turning away from the police but towards a security company is the beginning of individuals turning away from the state. Individuals who do not rely on the state for public safety and order any more, even though it traditionally brings about rules and regulations, have begun to lose all hope of a functional government. The next logical step would be for the individual not to be prepared or even refuse to serve and contribute to the state. Why should individuals have to pay taxes if basics such as safety, education and medical aid have to be paid by the individual in any case?
Turning away from the state through the use of private financial urban fortresses is fatal. Even though this group of society is small, the reason for its’ actions being fatal is that it is financially and intellectually at the top of the country and thus has a large influence on society and public opinions. The elite, who are actually supposed to belong to the country, isolate themselves from society or the masses. This results in comfort behind the walls of gated communities, also with regards to thought and feeling. The development of private areas, within which the state becomes more and more illegitimate, is the beginning of the end of the state’s unity.
Not much being expected from the state can generally be seen as a refreshingly positive approach especially in comparison to the widespread but outdated, very much union-like views of Western Europe. It is also worthy of note that as private security companies have taken over the policing of rich areas, the availability of individual SAPS capacities to patrol in the much larger but underprivileged areas and provide security and presence there, is increasing. The poor therefore indirectly benefit from the growth of private security. Even so, the reality of the situation is that the security of South Africa has double standards regarding class.
For the rich, relying on private security and moving into modern urban fortresses and enclosed areas is an unreliable solution. Through this isolation, obvious disinterest in the rest of the community is shown, and this creates jealousy, anger and hatred. On the contrary, fear matter grows amongst the wealthy, which results in a pressure to barricade oneself even more. No matter how high the walls are, they will not be able to reduce crime, at most it is moved into another area. And even if the walls are double as high, the unfortunate will not resist the temptation of the idea that within these boundaries lay hidden treasures and breadbaskets - which are waiting to be snatched.
The huge PSI is a reality of South Africa, which cannot be neglected. It is unbelievable that in time to come, the industry will lose its meaning. However, it is possible to make the PSI a responsibility of the state in order to use its’ energies productively. They could become an important partner of the police in fighting crime. A requirement for this would be to professionalise the PSI a lot more so that it complies with international standards and to make sure that it is supervised by the state. In addition, the state would have to come up with a concrete formulation of its’ expectations of the PSI in the future and the way in which it sees the industries’ role. With regards to this a comprehensive law would have to be established and enforced. Only if the state knows what it expects from the PSI and if the PSI knows what their responsibilities are, the state and this enormous industry will be able to work together in a healthy manner and to the benefit of South Africa.
