Regulation in South Africa

In the late 1980s, the private security industry was regulated in terms the Security Officers Act of 1987. (The Act was amended in 1992 to allow for a change in the composition of the Security Officers’ Board.) The main objective of the Act is to establish a Security Officers’ Board which exercises control over the occupation of security officer, and maintains, promotes and protects the status of the guarding industry.

The Act covers companies and individuals who provide a security service for gain. In terms of the Act, a board consisting of representatives of employers, employees, consumers, and two representatives appointed by the Minister for Safety and Security, is elected every five years.

Regulatory mechanisms set up through the Act include:
  • registration of security companies and security guards;
  • regulation of minimum training standards; and
  • creation of an inspectorate to enforce regulations.
The Board is funded by the industry through fees and fines paid by companies and security guards.

Changes in regulation

Under the 1987 Act, the police could influence the composition of the Security Officers’ Board. Nominations to the Board were prepared by the Commissioner of Police and sent to the then Minister of Law and Order for appointment. The police also had direct representation on the Board.

In 1992, a decision was taken, largely influenced by the Transport and General Workers Union,55 to do away with police representation on the Board. The Act was amended to accommodate changes in representation on the Board. The amendment granted the Board more independence, and enabled it to issue regulations in concurrence with the minister.

In 1994, a security forum was established under the Board. The forum consisted of industry representatives and public security personnel representatives. The security forum established three task groups to look at the transformation of the private security industry. The task groups focused on:
  • restructuring the Security Officers’ Board;
  • in-house security (which is excluded from regulation); and
  • possible amendments to the Act.
The recommendations of the task groups were finalised in 1996 and led to a further amendment of the Security Officers Act, which was passed by Parliament at the end of 1997.56

Key provisions of the 1997 amendment include:
  • A Security Officers’ Interim Board is to be established to replace the Security Officers’ Board. The Interim Board has increased employee and consumer representation.
  • The Interim Board must submit reports to the Minister for Safety and Security on how the industry should be regulated in future.
  • In terms of the objectives of the Interim Board, specific reference to the guarding industry has been removed to avoid the impression that preference is given to this component of the industry.
  • The Interim Board must be chaired by an independent person who does not come from within the private security industry.
  • The Minister for Safety and Security must prepare legislation within eighteen months of the setting up of the Interim Board, for presentation to Parliament on future regulation of the industry.

Problems with regulating the private security industry

South Africa has tried to balance the non-interventionist model with that of minimal intervention. That is, permitting regulation while, on the whole, giving industry representatives the responsibility of enforcing the regulation.

In South Africa, the organisation tasked with regulating the private security industry — the Security Officers’ Board — until recently consisted mainly of representatives from within the industry. In addition, the Board is funded solely by the industry itself. This has raised concerns about the Board’s ability to act as an independent regulatory body. It also created tension within the industry as Board members, who run private security companies, could misuse their position on the Board.

A flaw in the legislation is in the objectives set out in the Security Officers Act. One objective is to maintain, promote and protect the status of the occupation of security officer. Legislation’s primary function should be the protection of the public and not the protection of a particular trade. Other problems with the legislation include:
  • Several categories of security are excluded from regulation, in particular in-house security.
  • The Security Officers’ Board lacks the power and capacity adequately to enforce statutory regulations and its code of conduct for the private security industry. Between March 1995 and March 1996, charges were brought against 21 private security companies but none were deregistered. Some members of the Board are of the view that additional legislation is required to give the Board the power to clean up the industry.57