Case Review: The test for possession of a private firearm by a security officer whilst on duty in South African private security law: A warning voice from KwaZulu-Natal

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Author: N Mbodla
• Citation: (2007) 20 SACJ 68
• Published date: 24 May 2019
• Pages: 68-74
• Date: 24 May 2019

The test for possession of a private

firearm by a security officer whilst on

duty in South African private security

law: a warning voice from

KwaZulu-Natal

N MBODLA

Deputy-Director of the Legal Services Division, Private

Security Industry Regulatory Authority

Introduction

In this note I examine the ruling, per Radebe AJ, in the as yet unre-

ported judgment in Warren Craig Julie t/a TVU VIP Protection v The Pri-

vate Security Industry Regulatory Authority case no. 14876/2004 in the

Durban High Court. In particular it will be demonstrated that the inter-

pretation of the law by Radebe AJ was conceptually flawed as it failed to

take into account the context. Secondly, it will be shown that the appli-

cation of the expressio unius est exclusio alterius maxim was too rigid.

Thirdly, it will be shown that the ruling is not without formidable diffi-

culties, particularly in its effects and implications upon the effective regu-

lation of the entire private security industry. Fourthly, it will be shown

that this ruling has the potential to unseat deeply seated and sound prac-

tices between governmental institutions. Fifthly, it will be shown that the

judgment does not have foreign jurisprudential backing. Last but by no

means the least, it will be shown that this ruling introduces a quasi-

police environment into the private security industry.

Factual background

The applicant was the sole proprietor of a private security business oper-

ated in KwaZulu-Natal. The first respondent, the Private Security Industry

Regulatory Authority, is a functionary of the state tasked with the regula-

tion of the private security industry, as well as exercising effective con-

trol over the private security industry (at 3). The second respondent was

the Minister of Safety and Security.

The applicant initially moved for the matter to be heard as one of

68

(2007) 20 SACJ 68

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd