National
DA opposes private Security Bill─── 15:43 Wed, 28 Jan 2015
Cape Town - The Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority Amendment Bill should not be signed into law because it breaches the Bill of Rights, the DA said on Wednesday.
"The Bill in its current form is in breach of the Bill of Rights and international trade agreement obligations," Democratic Alliance spokeswoman on police Dianne Kohler Barnard said in a statement.
"The DA therefore reiterates its calls for President Jacob Zuma not to sign this xenophobic piece of legislation into law."
The Bill, which would limit foreign ownership in private security companies, has previously been criticised by the Security Industry Alliance and the SA Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Government argues that the move is necessary for, among others, national security.
Last year the Bill was passed in the National Assembly and was later adopted by the National Council of Provinces.
The DA argued that the Bill, in its present form, threatened job creation and the economy.
The party objected to the Bill's provision requiring 51 percent domestic ownership and control of security companies.
"This amounts to de facto expropriation, as was stated by several organisations which made public submissions on the Bill, and an arbitrary deprivation of property."
As such, the Bill infringed on the rights, guaranteed in the Constitution to all people in South Africa, to equality and property.
Kohler Barnard said that the amendment would effectively impose less favourable terms on foreign companies involved in the security industry than on domestic competitors.
This was contradictory to South Africa's international obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services, she argued.
"Ultimately, there is a reason why this is a R60 billion industry: private security companies are essential in the fight against crime," she said.
"Private security companies free up capacity for the South African Police Service to focus on areas where violent crime is at its highest, and in communities which cannot afford private security at all.
"... In the end it will be the communities with the highest rates of crime that will feel the brunt."
Sapa
"The DA therefore reiterates its calls for President Jacob Zuma not to sign this xenophobic piece of legislation into law."
The Bill, which would limit foreign ownership in private security companies, has previously been criticised by the Security Industry Alliance and the SA Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Government argues that the move is necessary for, among others, national security.
Last year the Bill was passed in the National Assembly and was later adopted by the National Council of Provinces.
The DA argued that the Bill, in its present form, threatened job creation and the economy.
The party objected to the Bill's provision requiring 51 percent domestic ownership and control of security companies.
"This amounts to de facto expropriation, as was stated by several organisations which made public submissions on the Bill, and an arbitrary deprivation of property."
As such, the Bill infringed on the rights, guaranteed in the Constitution to all people in South Africa, to equality and property.
Kohler Barnard said that the amendment would effectively impose less favourable terms on foreign companies involved in the security industry than on domestic competitors.
This was contradictory to South Africa's international obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services, she argued.
"Ultimately, there is a reason why this is a R60 billion industry: private security companies are essential in the fight against crime," she said.
"Private security companies free up capacity for the South African Police Service to focus on areas where violent crime is at its highest, and in communities which cannot afford private security at all.
"... In the end it will be the communities with the highest rates of crime that will feel the brunt."
Sapa
