Private Security Industry Regulator Authority on Activities of Private Security Industries: briefing

Security officers applied for registration for training, and before SIRA considered the matter it sent inspectors to evaluate the training centre, for instance surrounding safety, how many students could be accommodated in one session, what grade would be instructed etc. The certificate granted was thus very specific. When SIRA followed up on infrastructure after registration, it would be able to detect areas in which the private security company was not complying with requirements.

Mr Kgauwe asked how SIRA could spend so much each year on travelling costs of its Board and Council members. He asked whether their travel claims were properly checked.

Col Hadebe responded that the presiding officers were independent from SIRA. Contracts had been concluded with some of them, and their mandate required them to travel extensively to all provinces to do prosecutions. SIRA paid for their travel, accommodation and fees as many worked independently.

Adv Vilakazi added that a few months ago SIRA advertised nationally to cut down on travelling costs. SIRA would now be seeing a decrease in its travelling expenses. Consultants' services need to be retained because it was in the interests of justice and fairness that independent persons look at the case.

Mr Kgauwe stated that it was problematic that security officers still worked after being trained at those training centres that fell outside SIRA jurisdiction.

Ms J Sosibo (ANC) asked about the highest training grade.

Adv Vilakazi replied that the training centres were independent. They were required to register with SIRA like any other company. SIRA insisted that that the owners and instructors of training centres had to have a Grade B licence which dealt with the management. Should SIRA find that one of the stated requirements was missing, that training centre would be penalised. The inspectors were also not allowed to "mix the grades" by lecturing all three at the same time or their registration could be withdrawn.

Ms M Molebatsi (ANC) asked whether the security companies were responsible for paying car guards.

Adv Vilakazi replied that he had recently requested the SIRA Deputy Director to ensure that the law enforcement department visit car guards. A number of shopping malls were visited and the impression received was that guards paid the company and were then allowed to guard cars. This was contrary to the spirit of the Act. Fortunately those car guards investigated were registered and were paid. This required sensitive questioning because SIRA suspected most car guards were foreigners and had been instructed by their employers not to disclose any information. He was awaiting an extensive report from the Deputy Director on this matter. The aim was also to expose companies exploiting these employees.

Ms Sosibo requested the Members be provided with a list of the 4 271 private security companies currently registered with SIRA.

Adv Vilakazi responded by stating that this data was up to date and was available, and could be provided to Members. The decrease in the number of registered companies could be attributed to the mergers taking place between various private security companies.

The Chair asked SIRA to indicate exactly who the "20 big companies" were, how many of them were South African and also how many were owned by non-South Africould companies..

Adv Vilakazi replied that the "20 big companies", especially those that were foreign-based, were not registered as they were with SIRA. Instead they entered the South African private security industry, they would find a willing partner or South African individuals who then become their MD's, CEO's and Directors, yet their shareholding remained in the hands of the foreign company. The management requirements of the operationals such as Securicor, ADT and Chubb, were fulfilled, because those senior management officials were South African citizens and did take up permanent residence in South Africa. SIRA had not really looked into how many of these big private security companies do have South African equity shareholding, and the extent of such ownership.

The Chair stated that the issue here was ownership, and this Committee would be calling the SIRA Chairperson as well as the councilors to account on this matter.

Dr S Pheko (PAC) asked SIRA to provide examples of the "improper conduct" and instances of false information provided by security companies.

Adv Swart stated that SIRA had previously indicated that the average processing time for the taking of fingerprints for registration application SIRA was 4-8 weeks, yet SAPS stated that this would take only 3 weeks. He asked whether this had been resolved?

Adv Vilakazi responded to these two questions by stating that this license was a shortcut, because they would go to a police station and take the necessary fingerprints and be given a temporal clearance. They would then be registered with this authority on the proof of this clearance. It was only afterwards, when SIRA received their proper record, that it would be discovered that the person was actually a convict of a very serious nature, for example. The license would then again be withdrawn and they would be deregistered. The current status was to no longer take this into account, despite the initial intention to provide this clearance so as to provide employment at a much quicker rate. All applicants now had to go through the SIRA process at the SIRA offices, so that all the relevant information on them could be assessed before granting the license. There were many kinds of activities that could be regarded as Improper conduct, and this could be one example of such a contravention. It could include instances in which employers did not pay their employees properly.

Adv Swart stated that his question had not really been answered. He would like to know what the average processing time was for this registration.

Adv Vilakazi replied that there was a SAPS backlog here, and they then bought equipment in an attempt to speed up the process. Matters operated smoothly for about a month or so when that equipment fell into disuse, and SAPS now reverted to its manual system. It was for this reason that the turnaround process had returned to square one.

The Chair asked SIRA to explain how many weapons the 248 025 active registered security officers and the 4 271 active registered security businesses were using. He asked what had happened to the facilities, weapons etc of those service providers whose registration was withdrawn by SIRA.

Ms Sosibo asked whether SIRA reconsidered the new application for registration of those private security companies who had withdrawn their applications on a previous occasion. If not, what happened to the equipment of those companies after their withdrawal?

Adv Vilakazi replied to these two questions by stating that this was a major problem facing SIRA, and it had a specific impact on the safety of the public and national safety. There were certain steps that SIRA took to address the improper conduct, and the private security company was then engaged in order resolve the issue. There were a number of issues that constitute improper conduct, but the serious contraventions included: the utilisation of the services of unregistered employees, underpaying of employees and private security companies themselves that operated without the necessary registration. SIRA was very harsh on these contraventions, and the penalties imposed were also harsh.

He stated that these private security companies were then granted some space, and if they then complied with the registration requirements thereafter, they would then continue operating. SIRA then became more vigilant by checking up on them to ensure they did not repeat their offences. Those private security companies that were either not willing or had no capacity to come back and address their shortcomings would be suspended by SIRA. They would then be granted a 30 day period within which to evaluate and improve their operations, and then reply to SIRA. If there had been no other feasible remedy beyond suspension, SIRA would have no option but to withdraw its authorisation. There were private security companies that would withdraw before SIRA could suspend them, and this depended on the nature of the offence committed.

Adv Vilakazi stated that concern did become apparent with withdrawals, because SIRA would then lose track of those private security companies. SIRA was currently working with SAPS to investigate whether these private security companies have the right to possess equipment, especially firearms. In the past SIRA did not have the necessary infrastructure to locate these types of private security companies, but this infrastructure had now been made possible by the new Act. There were also those private security companies that SIRA was totally unaware of before. This was frightening especially if one looked at the huge amounts of firearms acquired by those private security companies, and there was thus no way for SIRA to keep track of these firearms. SAPS was thus being engaged to ensure that either their registration system or SIRA's was able to limit the ownership of the firearm to the person in whose name it had been registered.

He stated that those private security companies that came for voluntary suspension were also a cause of concern of SIRA. They registered with SIRA, existed for a few months and then informed SIRA that they were no longer able to operate, for whatever reason. They then requested a voluntary suspension, and then disappeared. There were those private security companies that were established merely with the intention of purshasing firearms, and they then disappeared. This was thus a matter which SIRA was busy looking into in consultation with SAPS and other State agencies to jointly address this problem.

SIRA did send in inspectors to check up on those firearms that it was currently able to locate. It was hoped that with time, when annual or even bi-annual renewals became possible, this issue could then be addressed in one go. Adv Vilakazi stated that he had recently requested SAPS to provide SIRA with a list of all the firearms possessed by each and every private security company, so that SIRA could have a clearer picture of the volumes per company. SIRA was currently looking into this.

The Chair asked whether Adv Vilakazi was saying that SIRA did not know how many firearms were possessed by private security company, and that it was SAPS that has this information.

Adv Vilakazi answered in the affirmative.

The Chair asked whether SIRA took stock of all the firearms possessed by the private security company before it withdrew its authorisation, because this would allow SIRA to keep better track of the firearms.

Adv Vilakazi conceded that this was not the current practice followed by SIRA. This process was being introduced.

Mr Kgauwe asked whether SIRA's application forms required the private security companies to state exactly how many firearms were needed, or was this simply left open-ended. This was a problem.

Col Hadebe replied that the following process was usually followed by SIRA: once the private security company acquired firearms they would then apply to the SAPS central firearm registry, which would in turn forward to SIRA the name and particulars of that private security company as well as its request for clearance. This was done because SIRA had to check whether this particular business was registered. Unfortunately the form that the SAPS forwarded to SIRA did not include a breakdown of the types of weapons the private security company was requesting, but did indicate the number of firearms required. Once SIRA had cleared the private security company, the information was sent back to the central firearm registry and the company was then issued with a certificate to purchase those firearms.

Adv Vilakazi added that SIRA was currently engaged in discussions with the SAPS. The clearance form provided by the SAPS only indicated whether the private security company owed SIRA any outstanding fees or whether the private security company was already registered with SIRA. It was on record that he had requested the SAPS to inform SIRA of the nature of the firearms applied for by the private security company, how many firearms the private security company had in its possession at the time of application, and why it needed additional firearms. SAPS had responded positively in this regard.

The Chair asked whether the SIRA delegation was saying that it did not know how many firearms were currently in operation in the private security industry.

Adv Vilakazi and Col Hadebe answered in the affirmative.

Adv Swart proposed that the clearance form should also include other information, such as the number of employees etc. This would be in line with this Committee's discussions on the Firearm Control Amendments Bill which was dealing with the possible inclusion of such information on the forms.

Ms Sosibo asked whether member companies of SIRA were allowed to join unions.

Adv Vilakazi responded that SIRA's legal team was currently engaged in negotiations with unions and some member companies were unionised. SIRA had not taken a definite policy stance for or against this.

Ms Morobi asked why the SIRA regional offices were not geographically located, as this might hinder SIRA's performance.

Adv Vilakazi replied that SIRA was currently undertaking a feasibility study for another office in the Johannesburg area. The aim was to identify means to improve access because many people currently travelled the far distance to Pretoria. East London was also being considered. The feasibility studies on these two offices should be finalised soon. This was an ongoing process, which took into account the geographical spread of the members. The progress made thus far could be provided to Members.

Ms Morobi asked whether the 946 security businesses that provided bodyguarding, as indicated in the presentation, included those businesses that provided VIP protection for Ministers etc.

Col Hadebe replied that SIRA did not handle this at all. These persons were not registered with SIRA and their services were provided by the State security system.

The Chair stated that this Committee had requested Mr Josiah Jele, the SIRA Chairperson, to be present today but he had failed to appear. Perhaps this Committee should invoke Section 10(1)(c) of the Act, because that provision required the SIRA Chairperson to "table a copy of the annual report contemplated in paragraph (b)(i) in Parliament and present such further reports to Parliament as Parliament may request." Mr Jele had to be called in to appear before this Committee to discuss very important matters that had to be considered, such as granting a stake to South African companies in foreign security industries and improving the conditions of service of employees in the South African private security industry.

Adv Vilakazi replied that conditions of service was a concern shared by SIRA, and this issue did therefore fall within the ambit of "improper conduct". SIRA had inspected the wages of employees and any deviation by the employer would result in a charge of improper conduct. SIRA therefore picked up on harassment and exploitation of employees. Instead of visiting the private security company, SIRA inspectors now consulted the employees themselves. This information was then presented to the private security company. SIRA did not have any concrete data on this at present because it was a new initiative. It was hoped that SIRA would at some stage be able to address the relationship with foreign security companies.

The Chair thanked SIRA and expressed the Committee's hope that the delegation would have settled into their new posts by the next meeting. The SIRA Chairperson had to attend the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.