Owners of Private Security Companies Warned on Excessive Use of Force

Owners of private security companies have been warned against abusing the rights of their employees as well as their clients. 

During the workshop organized by the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (ICOCA), Tom Mather, the Compliance Officer said private security companies must at all times respect the human rights of their staff and clients.

Mather said the most 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.

However, ICOCA’s views of human rights were questioned by owners of private security companies saying they are less likely to apply in Uganda. 

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.

In response, Mather said 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.

ICOCA also urged private security companies not to prioritize the use of excessive force in their operations. This also raised concerns as owners of private security companies led by their Chairman, Grace Matsiko, wondered how that would be applicable yet their clients have confidence when guards are armed with weapons such as guns.

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.

//cue in “but we should…

Cue out “…armed and unarmed”//

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.