Speaking at the recent Stallion Integrated Technology Day in Johannesburg, he focussed on the human and legislative pressures shaping the arena in which companies like Stallion operate.

Botes began by reminding the listeners of the industry’s scale: 17 389 registered companies and 632 000 active security officers, one of South Africa’s largest employers (the South African Police Service has just 190 000 active members). The size of the private security industry has doubled in the last six years, but behind the numbers is a worrying picture.

“We are still one of the largest employers in the country,” responded Botes, “but we are also burdened with non-compliance, exploitation, and ineffective enforcement. There are too many short-cut employers, and it is the officers – the men and women on the streets – who get hit with it.”

He cited the growing abuse of so-called “disguised employment relationships”. Some businesses, he added, are classifying officers as ‘independent contractors’ or ‘learners’ in a bid to escape labour obligations like UIF, provident fund, and minimum wage statutes.

“Greed is the root of much of these abuses,” he cautioned.

“But the tide is turning. The National Bargaining Council for the Private Security Sector (NBCPSS) has already collected fines in excess of R1 million against the culprits. To those who are still engaging in such practices: Big Brother will catch up with you soon enough.”

Botes also aimed his anger at the regulatory environment. Draft amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulation Act (PSIRA) propose restricting the use of firearms and, in fact, barring even non-lethal items like batons.

“If passed, these bills will essentially emasculate private security at a time when South African Police Services (SAPS) can’t keep pace with a growing crime tide,” he argued.

“We cannot allow overreach by regulation to undermine national safety.”

He cited dire crime statistics: violent crime increased more than 11% from the previous year, and police-to-population ratios continue to decrease.

“We are the backbone of security in this nation,” Botes stated.

“Our industry is an essential contributor to crime prevention, and yet we are being treated as though we’re part of the problem. This must change.”

For Botes, the solution is partnership: among industry and government, among providers and regulators, among officers and employers. Without it, he warned, “we will continue to drift into a two-tiered system where only the wealthy can afford proper protection.”

The post SA’s private security industry faces crisis of compliance and restrictive legislation – SASA appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

Industry Overview and Growth

Botes began by detailing the substantial growth of the private security sector since 2001. Despite the absence of direct government funding, the industry has expanded to support state law enforcement, effectively plugging the gap left by a chronically under-resourced South African Police Service (SAPS). This growth, however, comes at a steep cost, both financial and human, for the companies and officers involved.

Regulatory Clampdown

The most contentious part of Botes’ presentation centred on proposed amendments from the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA). Without prior consultation, PSIRA has published regulations that significantly restrict the operational capabilities of private security firms. These include:

• Limitations or outright bans on the use of semi-automatic firearms,

• Prohibitions on non-lethal weapons such as water cannons, rubber bullets, and even handcuffs and batons.

These moves, Botes argued, are not only impractical but also duplicative, given that similar restrictions already exist under Section 21 of the Firearms Control Act.

Botes also questioned PSIRA’s ability to enforce these rules, citing its already overstretched inspectorate and failure to address the proliferation of unregistered security providers.

Legal Battles on the Horizon

SASA and various industry stakeholders are preparing to oppose these regulations through the courts. Botes made it clear that the fight will go all the way to the Constitutional Court if necessary.

He also criticised recent moves by the Department of Trade and Industry to ban the importation of blank firearms, calling the rationale “ludicrous”, and noting that the draft legislation does not yet ban possession, but likely will.

Employment Equity Targets and Data Control

Further concerns were raised about the Department of Labour’s new Employment Equity targets, which Botes described as “unconstitutional, unrealistic and unattainable”. Legal challenges from both employers and civic bodies are expected.

Lastly, he highlighted a newly published gazette by the City of Johannesburg, claiming ownership of all CCTV footage from public roads, including footage captured by privately funded and maintained cameras. Botes criticised the lack of consultation and questioned whether this move amounts to “expropriation without compensation”.

Botes closed by reiterating the private security industry’s vital role in national safety and civic stability, and by stressing the need for continued legal vigilance and unity within the industry.

His message was clear: the sector stands at a crossroads, facing a wave of impractical and overreaching legislation that threatens its ability to function. But it is also prepared to fight, legally, publicly, and collectively, for its survival and continued contribution to national security.

The post South Africa’s Private Security Industry Facing Regulatory Storm appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

One of the biggest concerns in the industry, according to Botes, is non-compliance with labour laws and wage regulations. Many security companies fail to meet requirements or neglect statutory benefits such as overtime pay, leave, and provident fund contributions.

“Non-compliance is rampant in the industry, and unfortunately, it’s often the security officers who suffer the most,” Botes explained. Further, he noted that while there are regulations in place to protect security officers, enforcement remains inconsistent, allowing employers to exploit workers.

He warned that companies that cut corners not only put their employees at financial risk but also create unfair competition for law-abiding businesses. “Those who comply with the law are undercut by those who don’t. This weakens the entire industry,” he added.

As the Administrator of SASA, Botes plays a key role in ensuring that security companies understand and adhere to industry regulations. SASA’s main focus is education, advocacy, and ensuring ethical business practices, noted Botes. SASA works closely with the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) and other stakeholders to promote compliance and hold violators accountable.

However, Botes stressed that SASA cannot enforce laws directly. “We can guide and support, but without stricter enforcement from regulatory bodies, the problem will persist,” he said. He called for more proactive oversight from authorities, including regular inspections and harsher penalties for non-compliance.

For the private security sector to thrive, Botes believes all stakeholders must commit to ethical business practices. This includes paying security officers a fair wage, ensuring proper training, and upholding labour laws.

Botes urged stakeholders, saying that if the industry wants to be sustainable, it needs a collective effort. Businesses, regulators, and industry associations must work together to root out non-compliance and ensure that ethical companies are not at a disadvantage, stated Botes

Botes highlighted the importance of professional development in the sector, which employs 543 439 registered security officers. He believes security officers should have access to training and career growth opportunities. “Investing in skills development will not only improve service quality but also uplift the workforce,” he said.

Furthermore, Botes emphasised the need for accountability at all levels of the industry. “Compliance should not be optional. If we want to build a credible and professional security sector, we must hold non-compliant companies accountable and protect the rights of security officers,” he stated.

The post Security Industry non-compliant says SASA’s Tony Botes appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

This is a call from Security Association of South Africa (SASA) national administrator, Tony Botes, who reminded offending consumers that using an unregistered security company to protect homes and businesses could result in a fine of up to R1 million and/or land them behind bars for two years.

Speaking at Securex 2024, Botes said offending consumers are forcing prices down to levels that oblige security service providers to reduce their profits and eventually the remuneration of security officers just to survive.

“The tragedy in this is that very many consumers are forcing their security service providers to offer their services at “below cost”, which can only result from the security officer being remunerated at well below the statutory levels or working in excess of the statutory hours permitted.”

“It is a logical conclusion that Mr or Ms Consumer is well aware that the security personnel protecting their valuable assets are being exploited because the security company will never tender or provide services at a loss, but they still demand prime service and protection from such grossly and illegally exploited security officers,” Botes said.

The exploitation of security officers is increasing at an alarming rate, through the use of independent contractors also known as self-employed security officers; unregistered or grossly “extended” learnerships and co-operatives.

Tony Botes

He said the Code of Conduct for Security Service Providers, 2003, places statutory obligations on security service providers towards clients. Contravention of the code constitutes improper conduct, as well as a criminal offence.

However, the Act also places a specific legal duty on consumers of private security services to use only legitimate and registered security service providers.

“In terms of section 38(3)(g) of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) Act, consumers are guilty of a criminal offence and can be prosecuted for intentionally or negligently using the services of security businesses that are non-compliant with the Act.  On conviction, a consumer is liable to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 24 months, or to both a fine and such imprisonment,” Botes said.

The use of illegal service providers could also adversely affect any insurance claim for losses relating to burglaries or robberies.

The owner of a security company based in Gauteng told ProtectionWeb the consumer “does not care” if a security company is registered or not.

“They want boots on the ground. They mostly don’t care about what goes on behind closed doors with staff and compliant companies,” he said.

The man, who did not want to be named, said unregistered security companies charge anywhere between R6000 and R12000 to deploy illegal and unregistered guards.

“These guards are sometimes paid anywhere from R2000 to R4000 we have seen this when we are quoting on sites,” he said.

However PSIRA guidelines suggest that the consumer should be charged around R20000.

“The impact is you lose business and cannot sustain the costs of trying to operate legally. The costs are insane. It’s just not a business you can compete in legally. We have mandatory costs that need to be paid, PSIRA, medical aid for guards, provident fund, bargaining council, UIF, COID, and believe it or not every guard is entitled to a bonus every year.”

“This amounts to large sums of money lost and one cannot budget for it.”

PSIRA spokesperson Bonang Kleinbooi said the Illustrative Pricing serves as a guideline and is not mandatory.

“We established this as we saw a rise where security companies and clients were not sure as to how much they should pay.”

The Association of Private Security Owners of South Africa (TAPSOSA) spokesperson Sindisiwa Changuion said the association had engaged with PSIRA on the mushrooming of illegal security companies.

“We also engaged on the need to increase inspectorate and funding so that there is sustainability in the inspection of companies that are not compliant.”

The post Name and shame consumers who hire unregistered security companies appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

The Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSiRA) told ProtectionWeb the consultation process was ongoing.

In 2019 PSiRA told Parliament it proposed the regulations were to ensure that uniforms with resembles of the police and other law enforcement agencies are prohibited to avoid confusion in the public. It also proposed that the use of camouflage in the security industry be disallowed.

At the time, PSiRA director Manabela Chauke said based on research findings it could be argued that the use of uniforms that “are closely resembling of the SA Police Service and the military by private security companies cause confusion about their identity” and can be calculated as a deception to the public.

The Security Association of South Africa (SASA) hauled PRiSA to court when the regulations were gazetted and signed into law by the Minister of Police, without any effective consultation with the industry in 2021.

SASA national administrator Tony Botes told ProtectionWeb the association supported the principle that no uniform, vehicle or insignia may reasonably resemble that of police and law enforcement institutions, but the regulations must be much more specific and reasonable, “keeping in mind that here are literally hundreds, if not thousands of shades of blue.”

“Blue is, as we are all aware, the dominant colour being used by the private security industry and PSIRA is unable to specify which shade of blue (or the great number of other colours) would be prohibited or permitted; neither can they provide any statistics as to how many, if any, successful prosecutions they have had against companies or individuals.”

“It must be kept in mind that the army uses khaki and brown, the Navy blue, black and white, the Air Force predominantly blue and khaki, correctional services khaki, yellow and green and the Metro or municipal police differs from town or city to town or city,” Botes explained.

He said if the regulations came into effect it would force many companies to spend millions of Rands on rebranding.

“The impact would be catastrophic! In addition to the massive costs, millions of rand, to the industry as a whole. It would, joking aside, leave us only with such colours as lilac and pink for uniforms.”

Botes said SASA would wait to see if PSiRa was prepared to be more reasonable going forward.

The post Insignia regulations: PSiRA still going after shades of blue appeared first on ProtectionWeb.