When regulated and accountable, the private security industry can make a valuable contribution to security provision. However, the activities of an uncontrolled or poorly regulated private security industry can present unique governance problems, and in post-conflict states can inhibit peacebuilding and development. This guidance note by Saferworld aims to equip practitioners with the information and research questions necessary to assess whether the private provision of security in a country is problematic, and consider how to incorporate it into Security Sector Reform (SSR) programmes.
The private security industry comprises those actors who provide security for people and property under contract and for profit. These include private security companies (PSCs), private military companies (PMCs), internal security divisions (ISDs) and non-lethal service providers (NSPs). SSR is concerned with developing institutions to provide security to a state’s citizens consistent with human rights and the rule of law, and with an effective system of democratic regulation and oversight of security actors. PSCs clearly fall within its remit.
Effective private provision of security requires that legislative, regulatory and oversight safeguards be put in place and a culture of professionalism be engendered. This should encourage transparency and reduce opportunities for illegitimate or unethical activities. Without such provisions:
- There may be no control over the quality of service PSCs provide;
- PSCs may weaken a state’s monopoly over the use of force and hinder law enforcement;
- PSC’s may only be accountable to weak regulators or shareholders as opposed to the electorate; and
- PSCs can serve as fronts for organised crime and can be misused against ethnic or political rivals in states with a history of ethnic conflict.
All states should develop a national policy on regulation of the private security sector and its relationship with state security providers:
- Licensing should define the services PSCs can provide and should be granted for fixed periods and only after strict criteria have been met and background checks on personnel completed. Firearms controls should also be introduced.
- Legislation should establish a clear distinction between PSCs and public security sector actors, and stipulate minimum requirements for the transparency and accountability of PSCs. Direct relationships between specific political parties and PSCs should be prohibited.
- A system of industry self-regulation should be encouraged such as voluntary codes of conduct.
- A variety of means can be used to increase oversight. These include developing an industry Ombudsperson, requiring accurate record keeping by PSCs and implementing mechanisms for monitoring relationships between PSCs and political groups or other security sector actors.
- To ensure PSCs are committed to professional and transparent service delivery, training regimes for PSC staff should be created and overseen by the state and licensing should be dependent on completion of such training.
- Enforcement can be difficult without similar regulatory frameworks at the regional and international level. Work should continue to resolve the current ambiguity over which international laws apply to the industry.
- Obstacles to reform include the potential to create a security vacuum in PSCs absence, a lack of distinction between the responsibilities of state and non-state security actors, and agreements drawn up with governments that protect PSC employees from prosecution, which thus weaken the rule of law.
