Lunga Baliwe, Kenilworth
On Tuesday October 22, at around 9.45am, I witnessed an encounter in Summerley Road, Kenilworth, that made me question how we, as a society, treat our most vulnerable.
A security guard from Princeton Security was searching the bag of a man who appeared to be homeless, which contained only recycled cans. The man, who likely collects these cans to survive, stood quietly while the guard went through his belongings. The scene was unsettling, and I couldn’t help but wonder if this was truly about safety or if it revealed something deeper about how we treat those who live on the margins.
The bag itself posed no obvious threat, but it was still treated with suspicion. This moment reminded me that for many, a bag of cans is more than discarded items; they represent hard work, effort, and perhaps the only means of survival. Yet, this bag was scrutinised as if it might be dangerous.
After the security guard let the man go, I approached the guard to ask why he had searched the man’s bag. He responded that the man might have had a knife, and added that if I had a knife, they would search me too. This explanation left me feeling uneasy, as it seemed based on an assumption rather than actual evidence.
This incident also raises an important legal question: Is there a law in Cape Town, South Africa that allows Princeton Security to stop and search people who haven’t committed any crime? From what I understand, private security companies have certain legal powers, but they are not the police. Their role is to ensure safety on private property, but where is the line between safety and overreach? Does a security guard have the right to search someone just because they appear poor or homeless? This is a question that should be examined, especially in light of human rights.
After witnessing this, I went to the Upper Kenilworth Improvement District offices, which work with Princeton Security, to report the matter. The receptionist was polite and called the manager. I couldn’t hear the conversation, but afterwards, she gave me Princeton Security’s number. When I called, I was given the run around with promises that I would be called back, but that never happened. That’s when I decided to contact the Tatler.
The actions of the guard, although likely in line with company policy, left me feeling uncomfortable. Security measures are necessary, but they should never strip someone of their humanity. Every person, regardless of their situation, deserves to be approached with compassion and fairness. We need to ask whether security personnel, like those at Princeton Security, receive proper training not just in handling safety issues but also in treating people with respect. It’s not just about enforcing rules – it’s about understanding that the people they interact with are human beings, many of whom are already struggling to get by.
As I walked away from the scene, I couldn’t shake the feeling that something was wrong. Beyond the regulations and licences, Princeton Security’s staff need to be equipped with the skills to approach vulnerable individuals with care. After all, a society that values security should also value human dignity.
Adrian Theron, operations manager of Princeton Security, responds:
Princeton Security is committed to performing all duties lawfully, ethically, and with respect for the dignity of every individual, regardless of their circumstances. We take pride in the fact that our efforts, in collaboration with SAPS and other stakeholders, have contributed to a significant reduction in crime in the area, reaching levels not seen since 1983, according to Claremont SAPS.
As part of their responsibilities, our security officers are trained to maintain public safety by assessing potential threats. The officer’s decision to search the individual’s bag was not motivated by any prejudice or assumption based on the individual’s appearance. Rather, it was driven by a concern for public safety, specifically the possibility that the individual could have been carrying a weapon. The officer explained this intent when you spoke with him, although I understand that the explanation may not have alleviated your concerns.
Regarding the legality of such actions, our officers are aware that they do not possess the same authority as police officers. Searches are only conducted when there are reasonable grounds for concern, such as the suspicion of weapons, which aligns with both legal requirements and our company protocols. We are committed to ensuring that these protocols do not infringe on anyone’s human rights or dignity.
We recognise, however, that interactions with vulnerable individuals require a sensitive approach. Your feedback has highlighted the importance of balancing safety with empathy and respect. We are reviewing this incident internally to identify any gaps in our training that could better equip our staff to engage with individuals from all walks of life in a more compassionate manner.
I would also like to apologise for the inconvenience you experienced when trying to follow up on the matter. We strive for prompt and transparent communication, and it is regrettable that your call was not returned as promised. Steps will be taken to ensure that such lapses in communication do not occur again.
We value your input and take this as an opportunity to grow. Our goal is not only to keep the communities we serve safe but also to ensure that our security personnel approach every individual with fairness, respect, and understanding.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have further questions or would like to discuss the matter further.
