Private security guards have been warned against using excessive services when offering services to clients. Owners of these private security companies have also been cautioned against abusing the rights of their employees as well as their clients.
This was during the workshop organized by the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (ICOCA) whereby, Tom Mather, the Compliance Officer argued that private security companies should in all situations observe the rights of their staff and clients.
Some of the rights Mather observed that they are regularly abused rights include forceful examination of females to ascertain if they are pregnant, deploying pregnant staff in risk areas, dismissing females because they are pregnant or dismissal of staff because of chronic diseases such as HIV.
“We have had scenarios where workers or clients are illegally detained, or even killed by private security service providers. This was common in Iraq and other countries where there was fighting. You need to know that even clients want services that have fewer risks to human rights. This is the reason why ICOCO was established and it was for private security companies,” Mather said.
The participants who were majorly owners and managers of private security companies wondered whether ICOCA’s human rights ideas are applicable in the Ugandan context. Robert Baguma from Saracen said their regulator which is the Uganda Police Force (UPF) often demands them to have comprehensive medical reports of their recruits.
“Your policies need to harmonize with our national laws. At our recruitment, there are guidelines we are supposed to consider. The Police, our regulator wants us to test people to know their health status so that they don’t get into trouble during training,” Buguma said.
ICOCA responded that Ugandan laws take priority in Uganda but it is upon the owners of private security companies to ensure that their operations meet ICOCA standards so that their staff can be deployed even outside Uganda when the need arises. Mather further advised security companies not to prioritize the use of excessive force in their operations.
Grace Matsiko, the Chairman The Uganda Private Security Association (TUPSA) also questioned how that would be applicable yet their clients have confidence when guards are armed with weapons such as guns. According to Matsiko said their operations are guided by the national security rules and their activities respond to security demands. According to Matsiko, no client would accept a guard deployed with a baton when he wants one with a lethal weapon.
Paul Mugisha from Legends Security also cast doubt on arguments of not minimizing excessive use of force. Mugisha wondered how he could be guarding a factory or a business worth billions and is attacked by thugs and he fails to use his lethal weapon.
“I don’t know what your definition of excessive use of force is when we are doing our duties. You tell me, I have my gun and I see thugs scaling over the fence in the night and it is probably also raining, how do I not use excessive force to protect myself and the business or factory I am guarding,” Mugisha said?
Mather said there should be a judgement on what calls for the application of excessive force or not. He advised that excessive use of force should always be the last option and the justification must be beyond doubt. This security is a very risky service whose actions have severe impacts like loss of life.