Why our crime rate matters
South Africa is in the top 10 in the world when it comes to having the highest crime rate. So
it’s not an understatement to say that Security is a critical concern. Because of this concern,
the decision to engage a non-compliant security company in South Africa can have severe
legal implications. Directors of companies and trustees of residential estates must be acutely
aware that using a non-PSIRA registered company or one that fails to comply with all
relevant legislation is not only risky but also a contravention of the Private Security Industry
Regulation Act (PSIRA), with significant legal consequences.
The Incompetence of Non-Complying Companies
The true cost of opting for a non-compliant security company in South Africa lies in the
heightened risk of security breaches and the legal liabilities that follow. These companies
often lack the necessary expertise, training, and resources to effectively protect a property,
leaving it vulnerable to criminal activities. By engaging such a company, directors and
trustees are not only jeopardising the safety of their assets and occupants but also violating
the Securities Act, specifically the requirements set forth by PSIRA.
The Risks A Non-Complying Company Brings
Under the PSIRA Act, all security service providers in South Africa must be registered with
PSIRA and comply with its regulations to ensure the quality and professionalism of security
services. Failure to engage a PSIRA-registered company or one that meets the legal
requirements can result in serious legal repercussions for directors and trustees. This
contravention of the Securities Act can lead to fines, penalties, legal action, and even
criminal charges, putting the personal and financial well-being of decision-makers at risk. So
not only is the non-complying company likely going to do a worse job, but it’s going to
threaten you with fines and jail time while doing so.
Moreover, the implications of using a non-compliant security company extend beyond legal
liabilities to include reputational damage and operational risks. In a country where security is
a top priority, any security breach or incident involving a non-compliant provider can tarnish
the company’s reputation and credibility. Rebuilding trust with customers, employees, and
stakeholders can be a challenging and costly endeavour, further highlighting the importance
of compliance with PSIRA regulations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the legal implications of using a non-PSIRA registered or non-compliant
security company in South Africa are significant and cannot be underestimated. Directors of
companies and trustees of residential estates must understand that such actions not only
pose a risk to security but also constitute a violation of the Securities Act, with far-reaching
consequences. By prioritizing PSIRA-registered and compliant security providers,
decision-makers can protect themselves, their assets, and their reputation from the legal and
regulatory pitfalls associated with non-compliant security measures in South Africa.
