Fifty shades of blue for security industry
South Africa’s huge private security industry is alarmed by the potentially dire financial implications of having to replace all uniforms in any shade of blue or camouflage.
The change proposed by the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSiRA) and the police minister dates back to 2019, but its implementation stalled after a legal challenge by the industry. However, it is still very much on the table.
If adopted, affected security companies would be breaking the law by wearing uniforms “made from fabric or any other materials which are any shade of blue or which have a camouflage pattern”.
The proposal is aimed at ensuring the public do not confuse security officers with members of the police or the military.
The Security Association of South Africa (SASA) took umbrage at the initial proposal and approached the courts.
PSiRA spokesperson Bonang Kleinbooi said the legal challenge was withdrawn from the court roll after being settled between the parties, but added: “We are in the process of consolidating responses from further consultation with stakeholders.”
She was adamant that uniforms in all shades of blue were problematic for PSiRA.
“The regulations are clear any shade of blue. However, this prohibition is tempered by clauses allowing for the industry to apply for exemption.
“The regulations are quite clear in the prohibition of any uniform that resembles the law enforcement agencies being used in the private security industry.”
Affected security companies, should the proposal become law, would have to fork out millions on new uniforms.
According to PSiRA, there are 2.7-million private security guards registered in South Africa far outnumbering police.
Fidelity Services Group CEO Wahl Bartmann said if the proposal was adopted the consequences “will be uncomfortable for some, but may sink others. In our case some of our ADT uniforms will be affected, but some of our competition in the industry will have to replace their entire uniforms. This can cost millions.”
SASA national administrator Tony Botes said: “In essence we are not against regulations that guard against uniforms resembling those of law enforcement, but we need more clarity and fairness. You don’t need an atomic bomb to kill a mosquito.
“I don’t want to name names, but one of our members is one of the biggest security companies in the country. Their uniforms are woven specially for them abroad. If they had to suddenly change to other uniforms it would cost them more than R90m.”
Botes said many in the security industry were unhappy. “We represent about 200 companies that consist of 50% of the employees in our industry. Everybody is unhappy about what PSiRA is trying to do and the way they are going about it. To outlaw all shades of any colour is preposterous. This needs to be done logically and with full consultation with all stakeholders.
“I looked at the Dulux colour chart and there are more than 50 shades of blue. PSiRA cannot seriously expect the industry to be happy with their plans. Making all 50 shades of blue illegal just isn’t practical and will cause unneeded expenses for our members.”
He has no issue with camouflage being prohibited, within certain parameters. “If a camo uniform resembles those of the army or police we fully understand that security companies can’t wear them, but a game ranger wears camo when working on counter poaching operations. Why would anybody want to make that illegal?”
Bartmann was critical of how PSiRA managed the industry. They just make decisions with no regard to who is affected.”
But he accepted that, for example, branding on security company cars that made it difficult to distinguish between them and police should not be allowed “but outlawing a colour is going too far”.