printer friendly version

SA security industry wins first battle

The Security Industry Alliance (SIA), an umbrella organisation representing, amongst others, security service providers and employers’ associations, providing a unified voice for the security profession to interface with government and other stakeholders, won its first battle in a North Gauteng High Court case.

After SIA made an urgent application to review and set aside new and controversial regulations, stipulating that the amount payable by security service providers under Regulation 9(3)(a) and (b) is increased by approximately 40% and is no longer payable on a monthly basis, but must be paid annually up front. Furthermore, the monthly amount payable by security service providers under Regulation 9(3)(c) in respect of each of their employees is increased by 1000% and also has to be paid annually upfront and in full before the 30th of April, rather than monthly.

The new regulations were promulgated on 25 November 2011 and published in the Government Gazette No 34775 (‘the new regulations’) and were to take effect on 1 December 2011, less than a week after promulgation. The implementation date was then moved for the first payment to be effected on 3 February 2012.

Steve Conradie, chief executive officer of SIA, contends that the new regulations are beyond the powers of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA). “These regulations were made without adequate consultation with the industry and where responses were received, these were not considered. There is no reciprocal increase in service delivery by PSIRA,” says Conradie. “There is also no correlation between the price increases and the operating cost of PSIRA and it is beyond the powers of PSIRA to levy any amount in excess of its reasonable needs.”

Steve Conradie

Pending the outcome of the application, SIA’s members continued to pay their regulatory fees as prescribed by the old regulations, but now reported that the Regulator has threatened to withdraw its services to any security service provider that does not comply with the price hikes. SIA is of the view that it would be unlawful for the Regulator to withhold its services to any security service provider. “It is, after all, the statutory body responsible for the regulation of the private security industry and has a duty to the public in this regard. Penalising SIA’s members in this manner for paying the old rates until the courts have settled the dispute would simply render the entire sector without a regulator and lead to chaos,” holds Conradie.

SIA took the appropriate legal action against the Regulator with the outcome that the court interdicted the Regulator from withholding services from members, or attempting to enforce any punitive measures against any service providers if such service providers have paid its fees according to the old regulations. “Hopefully, this is the first step in showing the Regulator that the courts agree with SIA and that the security industry is too important to the wellbeing of all South Africans to be damaged in such a way,” concludes Conradie.

Share this article:

Further reading: