Published in Monograph No 39: Policing for Profit, August 1999

The boundaries between public and private policing are becoming increasingly blurred. The establishment of a strong armed response component within the private security industry has moved the industry one step closer to performing some of the roles traditionally performed by the police. There are also a growing number of businesses and neighbourhoods that are employing private security companies to patrol their streets and suburbs. In a number of places around the country, such as Hillcrest (near Durban), security companies are part of the local community police forums.

In 1997, Richards Bay residents supported the idea of a private police structure for their town. The plan was drafted by Captain Uys of the SAPS’ Public Order Unit, and the manager of GCB Private Security Systems. The proposed fee for the project was R49 per month per ratepayer. Captain Uys stated that "a private force of well trained former police officers will patrol the streets on a 24 hour basis." The system would include electronic security for the town, and would be undertaken together with other private security companies and the police operating in the area. Several insurance companies agreed to reduce premiums in areas where the project was put in place. Captain Uys and GCB security presented the same proposal to several other local councils in KwaZulu-Natal.44 The proposal had not been implemented at the time of writing.

The political changes which have taken place in South Africa since 1994 have forced the police to redefine its role, and to project a new image as that of a ‘service’ rather than a ‘force’.45 Many communities experienced the police in the pre-1994 era as an instrument of repression.

One police officer who was interviewed, said the SAPS is hesitant, given its history, to become involved in ‘controversial’ areas of policing, such as the eviction of illegal tenants and the policing of strike actions.46 The police’s hesitation to get involved in such areas has resulted in some of these functions being carried out by private security companies.

The manner in which evictions and the policing of strike actions is carried out remains a controversial issue. Some private security companies have been involved in serious abuses while performing these functions. An example is the eviction of tenants from farms in northern KwaZulu-Natal. The evicted tenants alleged they were assaulted, had their property destroyed, and were served with false eviction orders by private security guards.

Extending powers

Private security providers should have limited powers and not see themselves as providing the same service as the police. One security company owner summed this up by saying: "We exist because our clients pay for our service. We can try to assist in general crime cases but this isn’t really our role, and it can’t be done at the expense of our clients."47

The debate around the extension of the powers of private security companies has received considerable publicity. The Security Officers’ Board has submitted a policy paper to the government requesting that "peace officer status be given to certain categories of private security guards." Powers that are being requested are full powers of arrest, and search and seizure; the right to demand the name and address from members of the public; and emergency status for security vehicles.

Private security companies police for profit and are accountable to their clients. Extending the powers of private security guards will effectively give those who employ these guards, powers and rights the general public do not have.

There have been calls from sections of the industry for greater access to firearms. Numerous robberies of cash-in-transit vehicles, where criminals used heavy calibre rifles, are cited as a justification for this request.48 There is some validity to this argument, particularly for companies involved in cash-in-transit operations. However, there is a need for caution in relation to a general relaxation of existing policy on the issuing of firearms to security companies: