State Security Minister David Mahlobo raised eyebrows when he delivered his\u00a0budget in parliament on Tuesday, stating that “there were agents of regime change implementing other countries’ nefarious agendas operating in the country”.<\/p>\n
However it was the brief mention of controversial private security laws that are of greater concern, according to political and legal analysts.<\/p>\n
This year could see the Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill<\/a>\u00a0signed into law, if its brief return to the spotlight yesterday in State Security Minister David Mahlobo\u2019s 2017\/18 budget vote speech\u00a0is any indication, notes\u00a0Legalbrief’s <\/a><\/strong>Pam Saxby.<\/span><\/p>\n The bill, which was originally assented to in parliament in 2014, disappeared from the spotlight for a number of months after its proposed controversial reforms were met with significant resistance by the private security industry.<\/p>\n “Reiterating government concerns about depending on foreign-owned private security companies to protect the country\u2019s \u2018national key points and strategic installations\u2019, the Minister told National Assembly MPs that \u2013 once in force \u2013 the Bill will be used \u2018as a means to \u2018secure\u2019 SA\u2019s \u2018sovereignty\u2019 and to \u2018assist\u2019 in addressing \u2018some of the challenges\u2019 entailed,” said Saxby.<\/p>\n According to an analysis by the Daily Maverick<\/a><\/strong>, the chief criticism of the new bill centres on the power given to the minister of police to expropriate up to 100% of a foreign-owned security company, and limit foreign ownership of local private security companies to 49%.<\/p>\n In addition, there are concerns that the bill is focused less on legislating the companies and more on regulating them as businesses. This would mean that the sector would be subject to government’s\u00a0“transformation” strategies and discouraging foreign investment in favour of South African ownership.<\/p>\n Importantly, these clauses would be in violation of South Africa\u2019s commitments under the World Trade Organisation\u2019s (WTOs) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and wold likely see the country’s economy affected elsewhere.<\/p>\n Similar to\u00a0Mahlobo’s statements on Tuesday, the DM analyst\u00a0cited then-police minister Nkosinathi Nhleko, who noted that the bill was purely in the interests of national security.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are aware that this industry increasingly gathers intelligence which sometimes can compromise national security,\u201d said\u00a0Nhleko in March 2015.<\/p>\n \u201cSome of these companies have strong links outside the country and it would really be unrealistic not to guard against these potential dangers.<\/p>\n South Africa\u2019s private security industry is massive, with registered security officials outnumbering sworn-in police officers and active soldiers in the army.<\/p>\n According to the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (Psira), there are over 1.87 million registered security officers in South Africa \u2013 490,000 of whom are classified as active.<\/p>\n In comparison, a 2015 study by the IRR found that South Africa\u2019s private security force had quadrupled between 1997 and 2015, from 115,331 registered security officials, to just under 487,000.<\/p>\n The South African police force, meanwhile, has around 153,000 sworn in police officers, while the South African army has only 89,000 active\u00a0personnel \u2013 about half as many people as the private security force.<\/p>\n The introduction of this new bill would see these numbers almost halve, according to\u00a0Sacci economist Roelof Botha.<\/p>\n Estimating the effects of the bill in the City Press <\/a><\/strong>in 2015, Botha highlighted that more than 800,000 jobs across various sectors would be lost, as well as about R133-billion of the country\u2019s GDP.<\/p>\n Botha directly attributed this to\u00a0a hypothetical 10% drop in South Africa\u2019s exports to the US and to Europe and\u00a0the assumption that the Americans will kick South Africa out of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) because of the security bill.<\/p>\nLegal\u00a0issues<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Economic implications<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Political\u00a0implications<\/strong><\/h3>\n