This is a memo to Nigeria's Minister of Internal Affairs proposing an Independent Regulatory Authority to regulate the Private Security Industry in Nigeria. Independent regulation of the private security industry is a global best practice hence Private security industry stakeholders and professionals in Nigeria are encouraged to peruse this proposal, stimulate a national debate aimed at implementing an Independent Regulatory Authority.
To:
Lt. General (Rtd) Abdulrahman B.
Dambazau, CFR, PhD
The Honourable Minister of Interior,
Ministry of Interior, Abuja
22/04/2016
Sir,
Regulating Private Security in Nigeria:
The Case for an Independent Regulatory Authority
This is an open letter to you in your
capacity as the Honourable Minister of Interior.
We write to you because the regulatory
responsibility for private security in Nigeria falls under the Ministry of
Interior. As you aware, this regulatory oversight is currently achieved via the
Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in accordance with the
Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps Act No. 2 of 2003 and Amendment Act of
2007.
Let us begin by pointing out that the role
played by the private security industry in complementing efforts of government
security agencies around the world is well known. The increase in security
alerts around the world has generated a resolve to ensure that local
communities are adequately protected against terrorist attacks. This has led to
a greater appreciation of the role of private security as a vital partner to
security agencies, especially in the protection of national infrastructure.
From an economic viewpoint, the industry is estimated to have a total value of
about US$68 billion globally and is one of the highest employers of labour.
This makes it an important part of any local economy.
In Nigeria, the government security agencies
are overstretched due to the counterinsurgency operations in the North-East and also the fact that a large chunk of policemen are doing noncrucial or 'unofficial' police duties such as aides to politicians, guarding private, commercial premises at the expense of community policing . The rising tide of insecurity across
the country, especially the counterinsurgency operations in the Northeast also
puts additional strain on government security resources. If properly regulated,
the private security industry should complement law enforcement efforts by
effectively taking on responsibilities such as manned guarding, patrol and
response services. The industry is also capable of boosting the current administration’s
job creation agenda. The reality however is that the impact of private security
effort in Nigeria is limited. The sector is largely informal with many of the
businesses operating under the radar and failing to adhere to basic industry
standards. The current regulatory structure is highly ineffective and the
importance of reforming the industry cannot be overstated.
The Ministry of Interior under your
stewardship has stated a clear policy agenda to ensure internal security and
assured foreign investors of an enabling environment for their businesses to
thrive in Nigeria. In support of this objective, we recommend the creation of
an independent regulatory authority for the private security industry.
Such an organisation should fall under the direct
supervision of the Ministry of Interior and be empowered by a robust Private
Security Industry Act to regulate a clearly defined set of activities performed
by both individuals and businesses within the industry. Before we discuss the
challenges facing the industry, let’s quickly explore how the industry is
currently regulated.
Current regulatory set up
Current estimates indicate that about 2000
Private Guard Companies (PGCs) operate within the Nigeria and employ over
100,000 individual security personnel. These estimates clearly position the
industry as a significant part of the Nigerian economy. The regulation of the
industry is as per the ‘Private Guard Companies Act’ of 1986. This Act mandates
the licensing of all Private Guard Companies (PGCs) in Nigeria via a licensing
authority. Then we have the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps Act No. 2
of 2003 and Amendment Act of 2007 that establishes the NSCDC as the licensing
authority and grants it powers to recommend the registration of PGCs to the
Minister of Interior, inspect the premises of PGCs, supervise and monitor the activities
of all PGCs and to keep a register for that purpose.
The Private Guard Companies Act (1986) stipulates
that any organisation performing the service of “watching, guarding, patrolling
or carrying money for the purpose of protection against crime” must be registered
as a company in Nigeria, must have applied for and granted a licence by the Minister
of Interior and must be wholly owned by Nigerians. In granting a licence, the
Minister considers the character, competence and integrity of any persons responsible
for the operation of the company in question; the health and certification of
any guard dogs employed in the service of the company; and any further
information as specified by the Minister.
The Act prohibits the use of firearms by
PGCs. Convicted criminals and ex-convicts are automatically barred from holding
a security licence, including anyone dismissed on disciplinary grounds from the
Police Force, the Armed Forces, Prison Service or Customs Preventive Service. A
licence is granted for a period of two years after which a renewal licence must
be applied for.
Outside of the assessments described above
which are performed at the point of application or licence renewal, there
appears to be very little monitoring of standards or indeed any enduring
regulatory activities. There are some checks by other ministries such as
Labour, Immigration and Internal Affairs to ensure compliance with Nigeria’s
labour and immigration laws for example but these checks are usually limited to
audits of international PGCs operating within Nigeria.
The Private Guard Companies Act does not
prescribe standardized training across the industry and so the quality and
extent of training varies widely across PGCs. In some cases, no training is
provided at all to the security operatives!
In the absence of effective regulation, many
PGCs will operate without licences and without regards to standards or basic
security principles. This means that instead of being an effective partner for
the Nigerian police in the protection of lives and property, the private
security industry poses significant risks to the Nigerian public as a
consequence of poorly trained and potentially criminal private security personnel.
We believe that an independent regulatory
Authority that is focused exclusively on licensing PGCs and enforcing
compliance with well-defined licensing conditions is required to provide the
much needed industry regulation. Such an organisation will be more effective
than the NSCDC whose primary function is to protect lives and property as an
independent security agency of the Federal Government in conjunction with the
Nigerian Police.
Now let’s discuss some of the challenges
facing the private security industry in Nigeria.
Challenges
Absence of an effective regulatory authority The
NSCDC regulates the activities of Private Guard Companies in accordance with the
Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (Amendment) Act, 2007. This is in addition
to its core and onerous responsibility of providing protection, crisis resolution
and security to public infrastructures within Nigeria. These dual responsibilities
actually appear to place the NSCDC in conflict with itself. Should an active
participant of an industry be responsible for regulating the same industry? We are
suggesting here that some of NSCDC’s operations as an independent security agency
of the Federal Government fall under activities regulated by the Private Guard
Companies Act (1986). The specific security activities caught within the Act are
loosely defined and this creates an ambiguity as to whether there is some
conflict of interest in NSCDC regulating the private security industry as well
as protecting Nigerian citizens and public infrastructures. Regulating an
industry such as private security in Nigeria is onerous and quite complex. It
requires specialist regulatory skills and complete independence from the
industry being regulated.
Regulation should not be just about
increasing business overheads in the name of licensing fees or arbitrarily
shutting down allegedly non-compliant businesses. It is not meant to impose
unnecessary bottlenecks, which become disruptive to industry growth. Regulation
is more effective and less disruptive to the industry (and therefore the
economy) when it is light-touch and agile. This means regulating only when
necessary and doing so in a way that is proportionate to risk. Better
regulation promotes efficiency, productivity and value for money. The NSCDC does
not appear to be adequately structured to provide this capability and there is
an urgent need for a major shift in the regulatory culture towards one based
around the rigorous consideration of risks, a proportionate response to such
risks, and a streamlined, more consistent and more effective regulatory system.
This will help to ensure that legitimate security businesses are not forced to
operate under the radar and that individuals operating within the private
security industry are ‘fit and proper’.
Cost
and effort of obtaining a PGC licence
One of the conditions for obtaining a PGC
licence from the NSCDC is that the prospective PGC must have a minimum share capital
of N10 Million. PGCs are grouped into two categories for the purposes of
licence fees; category A for companies with over 500 employees and category B
for those with less than 500 employees. The NSCDC charges N1 Million as application
fees for category A companies and N800 thousand for category B companies. There
are additional ‘sundry’ levies imposed on the applicants during the licensing
process. These fees appear excessive and cannot be said to correlate with the
actual effort required to assess a PGC’s application for a security licence.
The pricing model makes it difficult for small businesses to enter the industry
and imposes an unfair burden on medium seized PGCs already struggling with
narrow margins. In the absence of mandatory minimum wage rates, the additional
overheads from licensing costs are most likely responsible for the low personnel
wages across the industry. Wage levels are already known to be dictated by the
size of the temporary contracts secured by the PGC at any particular time. This
means that security guards of similar training and experience could potentially
earn very different wages depending on which contracts their assignments or
postings fall under. This situation does not encourage professionalism or
commitment to service within the industry. The assessment process also appears
to be riddled with bureaucratic inefficiencies in terms of duplication of roles
and unnecessary bottlenecks that result in longer processing times for a PGC
licence. An example of this is the investigation process performed by both the
NSCDC and the State Security Services (SSS) prior to ministerial approval of
the application. This creates a strong incentive for PGCs to attempt to circumvent
the process and operate illegally, further raising the cost of enforcing compliance
across the industry.
Limited
regulatory scope focused solely on companies
The Private Guard Companies Act (1986) as the
title suggests, limits the scope of regulation to businesses alone. It also
provides a loose definition of security services for which an organisation
requires a PGC licence. The services covered by the Act are watching, guarding,
patrolling or carrying of money for the purpose of providing protection against
crime. This means that individuals operating outside of a corporate body, such
as vigilantes, are free to provide security services without being subjected to
any form of industry regulation. Regulatory scope must be activity-driven and
industry-wide as opposed to organisation driven. Licensable activities must
also be clearly articulated to remove any ambiguity because regulation only
makes sense if the activities that are to be controlled are well defined and
understood. A new regulatory focus on individuals will ensure that those performing
any licensable activities are fit and proper to do so. This could be achieved
by requiring individuals to wear and display a valid licence card issued by the
regulatory authority following mandatory checks on the individual’s criminal history;
mental health status, work permits/residential status and relevant licence
linked training qualifications. Expanding the scope of regulation to include individuals
will help to reduce criminality and raise the standard of competence and professionalism
across the industry.
Exclusion
of foreign participation in the Nigerian private security industry
According to the NSCDC Act, one of its
mandates is, ‘‘ensuring that foreigners do not operate or own Private Guard
Companies (PGC) or have access to PGC licenses for any purpose whatsoever’’.
It’s been argued that this exclusion amounts to a restriction on trade in
services and is in clear breach in liberal economic principles. It indicates
that foreign investment, which Nigeria is actively soliciting, is neither welcome
nor secure in the country. We believe this directly contradicts the Ministry of
Interior’s assurance to foreign investors that it will guarantee an enabling environment
for their businesses to thrive in Nigeria. Anyone legally resident in Nigeria
by birth, naturalization, or in possession of a valid work permit should be allowed
to run a PGC and any other business as long as they satisfy the relevant licensing
conditions where applicable. Research evidence has shown that the presence of
large international companies in the local industry promotes knowledge transfer,
accelerates sector growth, and improves competence and professionalism.
The success of the South African private
security sector has partly been attributed to the presence of international
PGCs such as Group4Securicor, Chubb and ADT. Admittedly there were some strong
concerns among government agencies of the threat to national security posed by
the participation of foreign nationals in the SA private security industry.
This led to an attempted amendment of the PSIRA Act in 2001 aimed at regulating
foreign ownership and control of private security businesses in South Africa.
However, this amendment failed due to strong arguments in favour of the
economic principles of free trade over claims of national security and the
protection of the local industry. There is clear evidence of improvements in
the SA private security industry as a direct result of the presence of foreign
PGCs in the local industry.
Now let us compare the Nigerian regulatory
set up described above against two countries known to have been relatively
successful in regulating their local private security industries, UK and South
Africa.
Private
Security Regulation in The United Kingdom
The Private Security in the UK can be
described as a well-regulated multi-million pound industry, constituting about
5000 security businesses collectively employing over 350,000 individual
operatives. The industry is broadly comprised of 3 regulated sectors:
1. Vehicle Immobilization (i.e. the infamous
wheel clampers)
2. Key-Holding
3. Manned Guarding (Security Guarding, Door
Supervision, Close Protection, Public Space Surveillance using CCTV,
‘Cash-and-Valuables In Transit’).
Security Guarding accounts for over 70%
(250,000) of industry operatives. Before private security regulation came into
effect, the Home Office estimated that just under a third of all Security
Guards working in the industry had a criminal record. This led to the enactment
of a Private Security Industry Act in 2001 (PSIA) with the objective to reduce
criminality, raise standards of competence, improve professionalism and
increase public confidence in the industry. The PSIA created the Security
Industry Authority (SIA) which came into existence in 2003, requiring every individual
conducting security operations in the regulated sectors to have a licence.
Compulsory training for individual operatives
was introduced alongside mandatory criminal records and identity checks during
licence applications. An Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) was created to
introduce a consistent set of standards and support for private security
businesses. The main duties of the SIA are the compulsory licensing of
individuals undertaking designated activities within the private security
industry and managing the voluntary ACS which measures private security
suppliers against independently assessed criteria. The SIA has three main objectives;
(1) eliminate criminal elements from working in the industry, (2) ensure legal
requirements for working in the industry are enforced and (3) increase public safety.
Individuals must apply for a security licence
in order to perform designated activities within the private security industry.
Successful applicants are required to wear and display their SIA licence cards
at all times when performing the activities for which they have been licensed.
The application process generally takes between 2 to 4 weeks depending on the
extent to which the individual meets the SIA licensing conditions at the
pre-assessment stage. ‘Happy path’ applications will generally take a week to
process once payment has been accepted. It currently costs £220 (approx. N60,000)
to apply for an SIA licence. Eligibility for a licence as well as the licensing
conditions is well publicized and available on the SIA website (sia.homeoffice.gov.uk).
Licence holders are required to be over 18 years of age and the applicant must
already hold the relevant licence-linked qualification (from an approved
certificate awarding body). Applicants must be either UK nationals, EEA nationals
or have the right to work in the UK. Proof of identity must be provided with a
declaration of criminality and any mental health problems.
Criminality checks for individuals are
completed via criminality disclosure bodies such as Disclosure & Barring
Services (DBS). Like the SIA, DBS is a non-departmental public body under the
Home Office that enables organizations to make safer recruitment decisions by
providing access to criminal record information through its disclosure service
for England and Wales. Applicants that have been resident overseas for 6 months
or longer within 5 years prior to their application are required to provide an
overseas criminality certificate (OCC) from the country where they have been
resident. Ensuring that only fit and proper individuals are permitted to
operate in the security industry requires the seamless, secure and accurate
exchange of applicant information between the SIA and multiple third party organizations
(both in the public and private sector). This is achieved via digital platforms
with fully automated secure electronic interfaces between the SIA and its third
parties.
Businesses in the UK are not required to hold
a security licence in order to operate in the industry. The SIA is currently
only empowered to operate the voluntary approval scheme, ACS. It is important
to note that ACS was developed in consultation with representatives across the
industry. ACS introduces a set of operational and performance standards for
suppliers of private security services. Organizations that meet the standards
are awarded Approved Contractor status. The accreditation provides purchasers
of security services with independent proof of the contractor’s commitment to
quality. It is a criminal offence for a company to claim to be an Approved
Contractor when it is not.
The ACS application process involves two main
parts; an internal assessment by the SIA of whether the business is “fit and
proper” followed by an external independent assessment of the business against
industry standards such as safety, financial probity, transparency and
adherence to UK business regulations. This external assessment is completed by
an industry approved independent assessor. The final decision to grant Approval
is made by the SIA, taking into account the external assessment results as well
as recommendations of the independent assessor. The accreditation process
usually takes up to 3 months for a decision to be reached and the assessment
costs are directly linked to personnel headcount.
The SIA is seen to have been generally
successful, having a positive impact on the UK private security industry by improving
individual competency, reducing criminality and illegal working, improving
professionalism and reducing risk to people, property and premises. These
successes can be attributed to the following:
• Easy
licensing and accreditation process for individuals and businesses respectively
• Seamless
information exchange between the SIA its 3rd party information providers
• Clearly
defined regulated activities within the private security industry
• Strong
relationship between the SIA and the Police to support enforcement activities
• Effective
communication between the SIA and the industry (keeping the industry informed
about regulatory activities helps to improve compliance with regulation)
• Clearly
defined and mutually agreed industry standards
• Single
standardized individual training qualification as a compliance indicator
• Single
system of regulation for the whole of the UK
Notwithstanding its successes, the UK
government is pushing for better regulation with plans to shift regulatory
focus to private security businesses while keeping individual operatives within
scope of regulation. The new approach proposes to implement more robust
arrangements to ensure compliance, focus regulation on the areas of greatest
risk, and reduce overall cost of regulation, which could in turn reduce
individual licensing fees. This principle of “light touch” regulation is both efficient
(low cost) and effective (robust).
Private
Security Regulation in South Africa
Recent research at the University of Wales
indicates that South Africa has one of the most highly privatized and globalized
security sectors in the world, and, as a percentage of GDP, the country has the
largest private security sector in the world. The industry is estimated to
constitute about 9000 companies employing over 450,000 active security
operatives. The South African private security industry is regulated in
accordance with the Private Security Industry Regulation Act (2001) which
created the Private Security Industry Regulatory Agency (PSIRA). According to
PSIRA, the primary objective of the Authority is to “regulate the private
security industry and to exercise effective control over the practice of the
occupation of security service providers in the public and national interest
and the private security industry itself”. Multiple studies (particularly from
Abrahamsen and Williams, Security the City 2007) have shown that crime rates in
South Africa rose with the transition to majority rule and triggered a rapid expansion
of the private security industry at annual growth rates of 30% in the mid-1990s.
The PSIRA is generally viewed to be successful as a crucial partner to local
law enforcement in driving down crime and inspiring confidence from the
government and the general public.
The industry is currently valued at over R14 billion
with foreign investment accounting for an estimated 15% of the total value. Private
security businesses in South Africa fall into one of two categories; businesses
that sell security services and those that sell security products. Any business
looking to sell security services in South Africa must register with PSIRA. The
business must ensure that all the persons performing executive and management
functions in respect of the business are registered as security providers,
including every director, member of a closed corporation, trustee of business
trust, or administrator of a foundation. A registration fee of R2280, about
twenty eight thousand five hundred naira (N28,500) is required and the
providers are subjected to a written exam.
Criminal record checks are completed and an
inspection of the premises is performed to establish whether or not the business
meets the infrastructure requirements. Every provider is required to have
completed prescribed mandatory training courses at an accredited training
establishment in South Africa. A number of other financial probity and
fit-for-purpose checks are completed as part of a rigorous business assessment
process before an approval decision is reached. A further fee of R1710 is
charged for this assessment. The Authority must issue a certificate of
registration and a certificate of identification to any person registered as a
security service provider. This is important for the Authority’s monitoring
process. The business is reassessed each year at a further cost of R500 plus
the annual renewal fee of R520. The Authority has the power to suspend a
security service provider if there is a proven case of improper conduct in
terms of the act or commission of an offense as per the industry’s regulatory
Act. It is worth noting that the total cost to acquire a security services
licence in South Africa is therefore R3990, less than fifty thousand naira (N50,000),
in stark contrast to the millions of naira required for a similar licence in
Nigeria.
Businesses that only sell security products
(as opposed to services) are not required to obtain a PSIRA licence. They
however have the opportunity to register voluntarily with numerous professional
organizations such as the Security Association of South Africa (SOSA),
Electronic Security Distributors Association (ESDA) and South African Intruder
Detection Services Association (SAIDSA). These organizations represent industry
self-regulation and help to raise the standards of professionalism and
competence of security products providers in South Africa. Those businesses that
sell both services and product are of course required to obtain a PSIRA licence
in accordance with the Act.
In summary, South Africa has one of the most
highly privatized and globalized security sectors in the world. It is little wonder
then that the standards of professionalism and effectiveness found in South
Africa is only comparable to the levels found in the developed world. Within a
decade, the PSIRA was able to transform the industry from one regarded as largely
illegitimate to an industry perceived as crucial to the maintenance of law and
order. The industry is not without its challenges, and as is common-placed in
many developing countries, access to data and verifiable statistics is
particularly challenging as a result of several factors including the
difficulty in accessing government records. However, the purpose of this
discussion is to highlight the overall successes of the industry as a direct
result of the adoption of a global best practice approach to private security industry
regulation. Through active regulation, South Africa has succeeded in improving
the effectiveness and level of professionalism of its private security industry
with reports from their Police Force showing that serious crime in the country
had been reduced consistently over 4 years up to 2013 as a direct result of the
activities of its private security industry.
Recommendations
Based on the observations discussed above, we
make the following recommendations:
1.
Independent review of the NSCDC Act (2003): A substantive and independent review of the
provisions of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps Act No. 2 of 2003
and Amendment Act of 2007 will help to determine the suitability of NSCDC as
the regulatory authority for the Nigerian private security industry and whether
the current regulatory arrangement complies with global best practices.
2.
Create an
independent regulatory authority: In line with international best practice, an
independent, self-financed agency, reporting directly to the Minister of
Interior, is required to regulate the activities of both businesses and
individuals performing licensable activities within the Nigerian private
security sector. This will require significant amendments to the Private Guard
Companies Act as well as the NSCDC Act. The Private Guard Companies Act (1986)
in particular is obsolete and in dire need of a major review. The recommendation
is for the new independent regulatory authority to take over the NSCDC’s current
responsibility of regulating PGCs. This will allow NSCDC to focus on its core
function as an independent security agency of the federal government, supporting
the police and other security agencies in law enforcement and the protection of
national infrastructure. The proposed name for the new regulatory agency is
‘’Private Security Industry Authority of Nigeria’’ (PSIAN) in line with global
practice and with a regulatory scope that spans the entire private security industry,
in recognition that the industry is not constituted of only private guard companies.
3.
Review fee model for security licences: Regulatory agencies are not profitmaking organizations.
The fees charged by the regulatory authority for private security in Nigeria
should reflect the effort required to assess the suitability of the applicants
for a private security licence. The total cost of obtaining a PGC licence in
Nigeria is over one million naira (N1Million) compared to less than fifty
thousand naira (N50000) for an equivalent licence in South Africa. The high
cost of obtaining a PGC licence and the requirement for prospective PGCs to
have a minimum share capital of ten million naira (N10Million) is arguably
anti-small business and anti-entrepreneurial. An expensive licensing regime
devoid of a level playing field which prevents start-ups, small business owners
and self-employed players from entering the industry is bad for the economy,
especially when the unemployment rate is so high and the current administration
has made job creation a centerpiece of its economic policy.
4.
Improve
the PGC licence application process: The Regulatory process begins with the
application for a PGC licence. The assessment process must be efficient and
effective. The NSCDC assessment process for PGCs is messy and inefficient with
unnecessary bottlenecks and duplication of roles between participating organizations.
The aim of the process is to ensure that only fit and proper businesses are
granted the PGC licence. The process should not be so bureaucratic that it
encourages businesses to operate outside the radar of the regulatory authority.
A new independent regulatory agency will provide an opportunity to design a
streamlined licence application process that makes it cost-effective and easier
for prospective private security businesses to obtain a licence, provided they
meet the required fit and proper checks.
5.
Increase
the scope of regulation to include individuals: The current scope of regulation
is limited to only businesses. With over 100,000 operatives employed in the
private security industry, it is crucial that individuals applying to work in
the industry are subjected to rigorous residency and criminality checks to
ensure that criminals and illegal immigrants are not being deployed by PGCs to
support public security agencies in maintaining law and order. In the UK, research
by FDS International has shown that subjecting individual operatives to criminal
records checks is considered to have had a positive impact on trust in Door Supervisors
amongst 82% of security suppliers, and it was observed that there was ‘greater
awareness of the role that Door Supervisors can play in providing security and
community safety’ by almost three quarters of UK security Suppliers. The same UK
research also showed that licensing individuals helped to increase their
chances of gaining more responsibility in the future, gave them more ability to
do their job, would lead to better pay and conditions in the long term, and
gave them confidence to do their job. Subjecting private security operatives in
Nigeria to identity, criminality and mental health checks as well as mandatory
industry standard training will help to improve industry professionalism and
increase public trust.
6.
Mandatory standard training for all private
security operatives: One of
the objectives of regulating the private security industry must be to increase and
standardize the skills and professionalism of those employed in the Industry.
To achieve this objective, a mandatory standard sector-based training must be required
for all private security operatives. Enforcing this licence condition is only
feasible with a regulatory scope that includes individual operatives as
recommended in section 4.5 above. Mandatory licensing for individuals wishing
to perform any activities regulated as part of the private security industry
will provide an opportunity for mandatory standard training to be included as
pre-requisite for a licence application. This is certainly more practical than
requiring private security businesses to provide evidence that all of their
employees have undergone the relevant training.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have
discussed at great length some of the key issues preventing the Nigerian
private security industry from becoming an effective and trusted partner of
government security agencies in maintaining law and order. Chief among the
issues raised is the need to establish an independent regulatory agency with
the primary objective of ensuring that only fit and proper businesses and
individuals are allowed to operate in the private security industry. Regulation
does not end with granting a licence to operate. It is only the beginning of
the regulatory process. An effective regulatory authority will define and
attach clear conditions against licences granted to both businesses and
individuals. The Authority should then actively and consistently monitor and
enforce compliance with those licence conditions. The aim must be to help raise
and maintain standards of professionalism within the industry and to win the
trust and confidence of both the government security agencies and the Nigerian
public, as effective partners in law enforcement.
Further work is required to properly review
the Private Guards Act (1986) to ensure its appropriateness in addressing the
current challenges facing the private security industry. Globally, private
security is big business and the industry is one the highest employers of
labour. A properly regulated private security industry will certainly boost the
Nigerian economy by creating opportunities for new businesses to enter the
market, helping to reduce unemployment and providing further support for
government security agencies in fighting crime and helping to protect lives and
property. The writers will gladly welcome an opportunity to make clarifications
where necessary and to make further inputs in the proposed restructuring of the
private security industry in Nigeria.
About the Authors:
Buchi Madu
Buchi is a management consultant specializing in UK public sector organizations.
He spent 4 years at the Security Industry Authority (SIA) working on a new
regulatory regime for the UK private security industry. Buchi worked with the
UK Ministry of Justice to implement the “transforming rehabilitation programme”
seeking to reform the UK probation services and reduce the annual cost of
reoffending across England and Wales by £9.5 billion. He is currently managing
an organisation transformation programme for the Education Funding Agency (EFA)
under the UK Department for Education, where he is helping to implement business
readiness strategies in support of the UK government’s universal ‘academisation’
policy. Buchi has a bachelor’s degree in Electronics & Communications Engineering
from the University of Bristol and a master’s degree in Project &
Enterprise Management from University College London. Buchi is an associate fellow
of the Nigerian Leadership Initiative and is passionate about driving efficiency
and impacting private sector competencies within public sector organizations.
Email: buchimadu@outlook.com
Telephone: +44 753 402 8488
Twitter: @buchimadu
Don Okereke
Don is a Security Consultant, Entrepreneur, Writer,
Public Speaker and Change agent with over 17 years combined Military (Air Force),
Private/Industrial Security, experience from Nigeria and the United Kingdom. He
is the founder and CEO of Forenovate Technologies Limited. Don is routinely
consulted by foreign and local organizations for his expert opinion on issues
relating to national and personal security. Don champions an advocacy cause
against insecurity under the banner of ‘’Nigerians Unite Against Insecurity and
Terrorism’’ and ‘’Say No To Terrorism and Insurgency’’. He has a first degree
in Industrial Chemistry and completed postgraduate modules in Forensic Engineering
& Science from Cranfield University (Defence Academy). Don has numerous
trainings and certifications in conflict management, security and communication
from several internationally renowned institutions. His interest and expertise
span Security, Risk, Emergency Planning, Research and Public Speaking, amongst
others.
Email: donokereke@yahoo.com
Telephone: +2347080008285
Twitter: @DonOKereke
No comments:
Post a Comment