The agricultural sector is confused over the recent Constitutional Court ruling on the Private Security Industry Regulation Act, which may require farmworkers to be registered as security guards. Peter Mashala reports
The Constitutional Court has upheld legislation requiring all staff who guard their employer’s property to be officially registered as security guards. However, farmers shouldn’t rush into drastic decisions, because it’s still unclear what the implications will be for labour relations. So said Agri SA president Johannes Möller.
Annelize Crosby, Agri SA portfolio manager for parliamentary liaison and land affairs, explained the task of registering employees with the authorities would have huge financial implications and be difficult to administer.
Möller said the current act makes it difficult to distinguish between a security guard and a farmworker. This means the authorities must be clear on the meaning of the Act. He said it’s expected of farmworkers to offer some sort of security on farms, as would any employee on a property who has a responsibility towards their employer’s property.
Crosby said Agri SA may take the Act to parliament to get it amended and clarified. They will decide whether to do so at the union’s annual general meeting at the end of July. “Until then I suggest farmers don’t do anything,” said Möller.
The union is trying to establish exactly how labour relations are affected by the ruling in the case of Bertie van Zyl (Pty) Ltd and Montina Farming (Pty) Ltd versus the minister of safety and security.
Bertie Van Zyl and Montina Farming argued sections Private Security Industry Regulations Act 56 of 2001 are vague and overly broad. They asked the court to declare them unconstitutional, but the court ruled against them.
The end of voluntary watches?
TAU SA deputy general manager Chris van Zyl welcomed the ruling as it concerns the constitutional rights of entities to take the necessary precautions to protect life and property. However, registering security capabilities with the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) places a burden on voluntary services.
“Farm and neighbourhood watches operate on a voluntary basis, “ Viljoen explained. “Registration and maintaining standards to conform with applicable regulations in the formal security sector could complicate matters.”
Expensive security services aren’t an option for most farmers and private citizens. This leaves voluntary services as the only option. Emerging farmer Motlatsi Musi said lawmakers are playing around with the Constitution. “I farm just outside Soweto and crime in our area is rife, and the police are doing very little to help us,” he said.
Because of financial constraints, Musi has employed his son and cousin as permanent employees. Most of the time he has to rely on them for security. They have a few patrols during the night because the police aren’t helping them.
“I barely manage to pay their salaries,” said Musi. “How can I then afford private security?”
Vague laws help no-one
Chairperson of TAU SA North Jan Viljoen said the judgement would create far-reaching problems for all businesses. “The question is if government has the competence to create laws which are precise, lawful and easy to implement,” he said. He added legislation must be passed which is reasonable, clear and precise so citizens and officials understand what’s expected of them.
“The legislation doesn’t seem to do that, and neither does this judgement,” said Viljoen, adding the ruling might indicate a lack of experience and understanding of the agricultural sector.
