PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANIES AND CRIME PREVENTION
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Concept of Private security
Private Security Companies (PSCs) are viewed as registered and licensed business oriented organizations that provide uniformed manned-guard protection duties and other related services to members of the public, non-governmental bodies and government agencies for monetary reward in line with established Act of Parliament. Schreier and Caparini (2005, p. 2) define Private Security Companies as “companies that specialize in providing security and protection of personnel and property including humanitarian and industrial assets”. Kasali (2011) tried to classify PSCs into registered and unregistered private security companies. It is important to understand that the distinguishing feature between private security companies (uniformed manned- guard) and any other PSC lies in the licensing of the PSC with the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) to operate as manned private security company (those who provide uniformed security guards). Thus, all PSCs may be registered but not licensed to provide uniformed security guards to individuals and corporations. So, classification of PSCs using registration alone as criteria is misleading.
Private security is a security service provided by self-employed individuals and privately funded business organizations to specific customers for a monetary payment. According to Cunningham, Strauchs, Van Meter, & Hallcrest (1990), the concept seems to focus on job functions, the influence of profit and users. It also involves the inclusion of material production sector, namely the manufacturing, distribution and installation of equipment and technology (Strom, Berzofsky, Shook-sa, Barrick, Daye, Horstmann, Kinsey (2010). Green (1981) argues that private security are those individuals and organizations other than formal policing agencies, which are basically involved in the prevention and control of crime, loss or harm against particular individuals and organizations especially, those who hired their services.
2.2 Concept of crime control
Crime control means the prevention, reduction or outright deterrence of crime within the society or within a particular environment. It involves all the policies, strategies and programmes aimed at ensuring the reduction of criminality to its barest minimum in the society. It means the application of all efforts designed towards effective checkmating of the activities of criminals in a given society (Igbo, 2007). Crime control, therefore, requires riding the society of crime and criminal activities.
Security refers to protection from physical or direct violence, and freedom from fear or danger. Security entails the total well-being of the individual and society. In other words, security is “the situation that exists as a result of establishment of measures for the protection of persons, information, and property against hostile persons, influences and action (Akin, 2008 cited in Achumba, Ighomereho & Akpor-Robaro, 2013 p.80). It is on this basis that a review of a theoretical framework on crime control which is targeted at containing criminality in the society becomes critical in this study.
The Rational choice theory (Cornish & Clarke, 1986) and Routine activity theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979), are adopted as the theoretical framework to guide this study. The two theories amply explain the role and functions of a capable, efficient, and effective security force in ensuring that crime is minimized in the society through the application of well articulated and rationalized crime control strategies.
Rational choice theory explains that criminals are intelligent people who rationally process their choice before taking action in order to maximize their benefits (avoid being caught). Therefore, the target, relevant information about the target, location, and techniques of operation has to be carefully considered before potential criminal decides to embark on any enterprise. Consequently, most private security company’s policies are aimed at reducing the vulnerability of crimes by increasing the possible risks to offenders. More than ever before, the presence of private security is felt everywhere in the country. Hence, Sklansky (2008 p.124) observed that “on any given outing, we are more likely to encounter a private security guard than a uniformed police officer”. Security guards are strategically mounted at hotspots to proactively prevent potential criminals from executing their planned acts.
On the other hand, routine activity theory is premised on three assumptions: a motivated offender, a suitable victim and absence of a capable guardian (security measures) and the three conditions must be present in order for criminal act to be committed. Felson (1994) noted that routine activity and economic changes increase suitable targets, especially for property crimes. The application of this theory is considered very useful, because there may be a motivated offender and suitable target but because of the alertness and ever heavy presence of security guards, crime is prevented or controlled. The goal of private security companies is to be proactive and ensure that opportunity for criminal activity is completely contained. Cohen & Felson (1979) argued that crime does not need hardened criminals, super-predators, convicted criminals or callous people, crime just needs an opportunity. It is that opportunity that provides the express avenue for criminals to perpetuate their criminal acts. Efforts must therefore be made to ensure that opportunity for crime commission is completely denied. Thus, the presence of security guards acts as a very suitable crime control mechanism in reducing the rate of crime in any area assigned to them. The focus is to ensure that private security guards maintain all round security of their operational base and ensure opportunity to commit crime is denied to potential criminals. Aside from the human aspect of guardianship, the strategies to be adopted also involves the application of surveillance technology, closed television circuit and monitoring camera, intrusion alarm, burglary alarm, biometric sensor alarm, target hardening by way of extra locks, high perimeter fences, secured gates, improved street lighting, and environmental clear sites. It is important to note that darkness and uncut bushes may be suitable meeting points for criminals to hide and survey their choice targets and even to strike their victims. Thus, the integration of these two theories will ensure crime is deterred or prevented and this is the main job of security guards (crime prevention and deterrence).
2.3 Overview of Current Security Situations in Nigeria
In Nigeria, available data shows that crime and insecurity have been very high in the last ten years and the country is still experiencing a sharp rise in criminal activities of various dimensions (Alemika & Chukwuma, 2005). Salay (2005) asserts that cases of high profile criminalities and politically motivated killings, ethno-religious violence, kidnapping for ransom and terrorism have recently worsened the crime problem in Nigeria. In addition, organized and non-organized crime and other vices, proliferation of small arms and light weapons, armed robberies, cross border crimes, money laundering, murder, rape, cyber- crime, carjacking, and human trafficking have become serious security issues of concern to the government and security agencies.
In a press briefing on the state of security in Lagos on November 22, 2011, the then Lagos State Commissioner of Police, Mr. Umar Tamko, confirmed the rising cases of armed robbery attacks in the state. According to him 61 armed robbery cases were reported in 2011 as against 48 in 2010. Armed robbers killed 164 persons in 2011, as against 124 in 2010. In the same period under review, 319 persons were murdered in 2011 as against 204 in 2010. The Police Commissioner also affirmed that between September 2007 and September, 2011 a total of 124 Police Officers were killed by armed robbers (Ugbodaga, 2011). Similarly, in another press briefing on November 27, 2014, the immediate past Lagos State Commissioner of Police, Mr. Kayode Aderanti, stated that between November 2013 and October 2014, 68 cases of armed robbery were recorded while 280 people were murdered. In the same period, 8 Policemen lost their lives to armed robbery operations (Olufowobi, 2014). On a daily basis, armed robbers, kidnappers, rapists, burglars and other criminals carry out their attacks on the public in daylight and at night with impunity, as if government law enforcement agents are non-existent. The state of insecurity in the country is manifested in increase in crime rate; the emergence and spread of politically motivated violence and assassinations; increased importation of arms and ammunition; an upsurge in ethnic, communal and religious conflicts; proliferation of ethnic and sectional militias; and the deteriorating standard of living of the people. More so, between 2006 and 2015 about 8, 516 deaths were reported in 3,840 violent crimes cases. Armed robbery was reported to have contributed 50% of all death cases recorded (Ukoji & Okolie-Osemene, 2016). More so, in its 2017 report, National Bureau of Statistics stated that a total of 125,790 criminal cases were reported in Nigeria in 2016. It went on to state that Lagos State had about 45,384 (36.1%) cases as against 13,181(10.1%) cases) reported in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The statistics also show that property crime had about 65,397 followed by crime against person which accounted for about 45,554 cases. The South-West had the highest number of cases which was about 19,939 followed by South-South with about 8,877 cases while South-East had the least cases of about 3,540 cases (National Bureau of Statistics, 2017). The implication is that Nigeria generally has a crime problem and government seemingly lacks the wherewithal to contain the menace. This background provides the basis for the emergence of private security companies to complement the efforts of the police in providing security for citizens.
2.4 Legal Framework for the Emergence of Private Security Companies
While there may not be a general consensus as to the definition of private security company (PSC), The services provided by private security companies towards enhancing security include “armed and unarmed guarding; patrols; escorts; transport of valuables and commercial goods; intelligence services; trained dogs; electronic monitoring; investigations;
fortification of buildings; protection of works and infrastructure; protection against kidnapping; safety and self-defense training and marketing of weapons” (Anyanwu, 2012 p. 47). Anyanwu (2012) went on to say that these services draw a broad range of customers, including government and its agencies, private industries, corporate organizations, and a growing number of businessmen and individuals seeking to ensure security of life and property. It must be emphasized that “the overriding services that private security companies provide is the prevention and control of crime aimed at protecting lives and property” (Anyanwu, 2012 p. 52).
It is very imperative to note that under CAP 367 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (1990) the Private Guards Company Act, private security companies are prohibited from carrying gun in the execution of their functions. The duties and functions of PSCs in Nigeria in addition to guarding public and private places include: joint police/PSC patrols; escort services particularly airport transit; rapid response; key point security; executive protection; security consulting; security surveys and risk assessments; electronic surveillance; audio intelligence services; alarm system installation; cash in transit movement; security awareness training; K-9 services (Dog handling); private investigations; protocol services; security driver (Chauffeur) services; crime analysis; static guards/custodial service; cleaning/environmental services; fraud examination; strategic planning; forensic analysis and expert or witness testimony in Court (Ekhomu, 2005).
Section 1 (1) of CAP 367 summarizes the functions of the PSCs as watching, guarding, patrolling, cash-in-transit protection and crime prevention. Thus, Ekhomu (2005. p. 166) asserts that “essentially, PSCs have continued to contribute meaningfully to the economic development of Nigeria through their crime control and crime prevention activities,...It is clear that the government expects PSCs to play a prominent role in Nigeria’s socio-economic arrangement”
Private security officers are empowered under Section 12 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (1990) to arrest any person who commits any offence in his presence while Section 14 of the same Act requires that such arrest should be handed over to the police within a reasonable time (24 Hours). PSCs lack the legal capacity to investigate and prosecute criminal offenders in Nigeria. However, Dempsey (2008) observed that private detectives and investigators are authorized to investigate criminal cases in the United States. PSCs in Nigeria do investigate criminal cases for their client’s benefit, but they can be integrated into the mainstream criminal investigation through appropriate legislation.
2.5 Reasons for the Emergence and Growth of Private Security Companies in Nigeria
Nalla (2011) has argued that the emergence of state-controlled law enforcement, particularly in England, grew out of private police that were established to maintain public order, as well as to enhance private interests. Schmalleger (1998) and Gilbert (2004) have noted that in London during the 1800s, Jonathan Wild was one of the first private police agents to contribute to maintaining social order. According to Gunter and Hertig (2005), Wild was popularly labeled ‘thief taker’ in London and during this period, property crime was rampant in London. Wild used to retrieve stolen goods and assisted the police to solve many cases for a fee. The Bow Street Runners was the first Police-like establishment and it was funded by prosperous merchants with business interests. Gilbert (2004) noted that Allen Pinkerton was the first private security in the United States of America. According to Gunter and Hertig (2005, p.7), Allen Pinkerton was popularly known as the “the eye that never sleeps” because of the prompt manner in which he handled criminal cases and was also regarded as the father of private security in the United States.
There seem to be different views on the origin and emergence of private security in Nigeria. The first private security in Nigeria was said to have been established in 1965 by one Alhaji Mumuni. The private security was named the Nigerian Security and Investigation Company (the first uniformed ‘manned-guarding’ private security in Nigeria) (Ekhomu, 2005). The private security companies in Nigeria have been expanding and participating tremendously in crime control since its inception in 1965. PSCs in Nigeria are involved in the protection of private homes, industries and public facilities such as the National Stadium Surulere, Murtala Mohammed International Airport Lagos, Osubi Airport in Warri, oil installations, shopping malls, churches, schools, bank facilities and major entertainment or sporting facilities among others (Abrahamsen & Williams, 2005; Ekhomu, 2005; Oshanugor, 2012).
Kwaja (2011) observes that the emergence and dominance of security privatization in Nigeria is a consequence of deficits in governance and security provisioning by the state. Rotberg (2002) has noted that general insecurity resulting from weak and failed states one of the main reasons for the emergence and growth of private security. Destructive decisions by individual leaders have always paved the way to state failures. Reno (1997b) rightly demonstrated how leaders of Angola and Sierra Leone have used private military forces (PMFs) to collect revenue, defend territory, and conduct diplomacy with other states. The use of private security forces by rulers of weak states forms what Reno (1998, p.9) terms “regime innovations for managing” internal threats. An overview of the survival strategies of many leaders of weak states therefore constitute yet another avenue for explaining why the private security sector has grown so rapidly in Africa since the end of the cold war. Patrick (2006) notes that weak states struggle to maintain a monopoly on the use of force. Thus, it is this weakness that becomes an enticement for proliferation and growth of the private security sector. We have to state that the current insecurity in Nigeria, as exemplified in various violent criminal acts and terrorism across the country and government ineptitude in tackling them, are true indications of a weak state. If care is not taken, the Nigerian state is within the precipice of being seen or classified as a weak and failed state.
Shreier and Caparini (2005) identified inadequate resources to equip state organs for their principal role of protecting the security of their citizens as a major driver in the growth of private security sector. However, they did not spell out the cause of the inadequate resources. In the case of Nigeria, the failure of government to provide adequate resources to equip state security organs is a result of corruption and greed of the political leaders. The case of the Dasukigate currently trending in Nigeria is a typical example of how state agencies divert security funds into private pockets. It has been alleged that Col. Sambo Dasuki (Rtd), former National Security Adviser to President Goodluck Jonathan government misappropriated over $2.2 Billion US Dollars meant for the procurement of firearms for the fight against Boko Haram. This failure has led to increased violence and citizens resort to alternative public policing for security and well-being.
In Nigeria, there is the increase in the number of ‘enclosed residential estates’ which has been attributed as major push in the proliferation of PSCs. Shearing and Stenning (1983) and Kempa, Stenning and Wood (2004) identified this phenomenon as the growth of mass private property or housing. Enclosed residential estates are estates where, in most cases, there is only one entrance and exit gates which are normally controlled by private security officers (Van Vliet, 1998). A study conducted in Lagos state by some scholars, highlighted the essence of security in such enclosed residential estates (Ilessanmi, 2012; Ajibola & Ogungbemi, 2012). Some other Scholars have discussed extensively the growth of enclosed residential estates and how security provisioning forms the basis for their designs and development (Landman, 2008; Genis, 2007; Blandy, 2006).
Abrahamsen and Williams (2009, p.30) situate the growth of private security within the broader shift in global governance. According to them, there “is the rise in new global security assemblage in which a range of different security agents and normativities interact, corporate and compete, to provide new institutions, practices and forms of security governance”. This is related to the commercialization of public forces due to their involvement with private security companies in the provision of security to corporate organizations for fee. For instance, in Nigeria, the police and private security guards provide security services for multinational oil corporations in the Niger Delta region.
The economic system in which most African countries, especially Nigeria, operate is one of the reasons for the emergence and growth of private security sector. In Nigeria, almost all public owned properties have been privatized. Capitalist mode of economic production which hinges on maximization of profit and exploitation set the ball rolling for private security companies. Hence, Zedner (2006) observes that vast security companies seek to exploit market opportunities to expand their turnover and maximize returns to their shareholders. Thus, in spite of the potential benefits and prospects of the private security sector as projected to present to the public, the beneficiaries are only those who can afford to pay the bill. In otherwise, it is the very rich in the society that can afford the demands of the market. The implication is that the poor are still left to wriggle themselves out of insecurity and the inefficient public police. Private security provisioning is, therefore, for the highest bidder in the country.
In general, the reasons for the emergence and growth of private security are multifaceted as highlighted above. However, the basic meeting point is that human insecurity is the cardinal point for the establishment and growth of Private Security Companies. Hence, the Interior Minister Dr. Shetima Mustapha while handing over the license issued to newly registered Private Security Companies by NSCDC in Abuja on January 9, 2010, said that the demand for Private Security will continue to increase considering the increasing security challenges in the country (Mukhtar, 2010). Futher more, fear causes individuals to hire private security guards, put dogs in their homes, change locks, stay indoors at home, observe fellow citizens with suspicion, change residence and also avoid public gatherings. This provides PSCs avenues for job opportunities since they are in a better position to assist the public and the police agency with fear reduction, within the general population.
2.6 Factors Militating against the Performance of Private Security Companies
There are various factors which militate against the performance of private security companies in crime control in Nigeria. These include among others the following:
2.6.1 Prohibition from Carrying Firearms
One of the greatest obstacles facing the operations of private security company in Nigeria is the prohibition of the private security sector from carrying firearms. PSCs in Nigeria are prohibited from carrying firearms in their operations. This has resulted in the untimely death of many private security guards in Nigeria (Ekhomu, 2005). It has also reduced the recognition and entry of PSCs in Nigeria into the international security market. The lack of legal framework for permission to carry firearms has made PSCs to rely dependently on the police in the execution of high risk contracts requiring firearms protection. The legal framework in this regard needs to be re-considered. In the United States it is revealed that most of these jobs ( including government critical infrastructures or facilities) are outsourced to private securities to protect because private security companies are allowed to carry firearms (Strom, Berzofsky, Mas, Barrick, Daye, Horstmann & Kinsey, 2010). In South Africa, Uganda, Angola, United States and Europe, PSCs bear firearms and have been involved in international military operations, for example, in Iraq, over 100,000 private armed security personnel participated under the United State Defense, in Afghanistan over 65,000 private armed security personnel were contracted, in Liberia, Angola, Sierra Leone etc., unnumbered private armed security personnel were involved (Abrahamsen & Williams, 2005).
2.6.2 Public Awareness of PSCs’ Role in the Society
PSCs are said to fill a gap left open by inadequate public police policing. The services they provide are only procured by individuals who can afford to pay for their services. Thus, it is not a protection which the ordinary man in the street benefits. The implication is that members of the public lack adequate knowledge of the duties they perform or even their role in the security architecture of the society. This lack of public awareness of their role and functions places a smack on their importance in the society. Cozens (2011) argues that based on this backdrop, the effectiveness of private security companies is significantly limited to their area of jurisdiction or sphere of operation (Cozens, 2011). This means that the duties and roles of the private security companies are not clearly known by the general public and even to the police. Mesko, Nalla and Sotlar (2004) in their study carried out in Slovenia found that members of the public have little knowledge of the works of private security companies. In the same vein, Shearing, Stenning and Addario (1985) study in Canada, found that the public have no idea about the duties of private security guards. Furthermore, Inyang and Abraham (2014) in their study of Akwa Ibom state found that 75.3% of the public did not know anything about PSCs and their crime control functions. The effect is that the public have limited information about the existence, role, relevance and contribution of PSCs in the security arrangement in the country. This may be due mainly to poor media reportage of the existence, role and importance of PSCs in complementing the efforts of public police in crime control in the country. Media coverage and reports of PSC’s participation in crime control in the country will enhance their acceptability, growth and contribution to national security policing as the public become more aware of their role in the country.
2.6.3 Lack of Training, Certification and Education
One other major challenge of private security companies in Nigeria is lack of adequate training of their staff (Abrahamsen & Williams, 2005; Macucci, 1998). There is a general believe that private security guards are poorly educated, school dropouts and indiscipline and lacking knowledge of the industrial security practice. It is important to know that the fact that someone is an ex-military, police or any of the government security outfits does not confer a pre-requisite knowledge to operate an industrial security company. The training, knowledge, operational base/site and practice of public policing are entirely different from that of industrial security. Therefore, for anyone to venture into industrial security practice, there is need to blend the knowledge acquired from public police practice with the principles and practice to be acquired from industrial security training in order to be competently qualified professionally to establish and own a private security company (man- guarding) in Nigeria. This is currently lacking in Nigeria due largely to government lackadaisical attitude towards the activities and practice of the private security sector. Most private security companies are always in the habit of recruiting people as guards with very little or no training. Many of the private security guards only certify their guards of physical fitness as prerequisite for their recruitment without providing them with any kind of training. In cases where trainings are given, it is ad hoc and perhaps inadequate to expose the guard to the actual job requirement. Aside from the above problems, an important issue which is a great concern to private security companies is the lack of a body responsible for the certification of private security operators (especially the directors and managers), which makes it possible for every Dick and Harry to float a PSC without proper pre-requisite knowledge and understanding of industrial security. Plessis (2013) contends that certification would essentially comprise a process whereby private security companies submit an application to a certification body, showing that they are in compliance with the standards in the Code of Conduct. Those companies that fulfilled these requirements would be issued a certificate, which would act as a ‘stamp of approval’ that the private security outfit is tested, suitable and competent to render security services to the public. An auditing team could then periodically evaluate this certification to ensure they are being adhered to by PSCs. By only hiring such companies, the public; especially beneficiaries of PSC services are assured they have hired competent and capable hands to tackle their security related issues.
2.6.4 Lack of Funds and Poor Welfare
It is believed that the issue of funding is very critical for the functionality of private security companies. It is one of the areas that have encouraged unhealthy rivalry and competition amongst private security companies. This is because in an effort to keep afloat in the security market economy, some of the private security companies have reduced their market worth by accepting contracts requiring the payment of less than ₦10,000 or $28.6 US dollar per month as guard’s salary thereby depriving others of an expected potential profitable contract. This is a confirmation of Ekhomu (2005) and Abrahamsen and Williams (2005), who observed that in spite of high cost of living, many security guards earn salaries as low as ₦6,000 or $17.1 US dollar per month. This is not healthy for the growth of the private security sector. The result is that some of the security guards in such companies end up engaging in criminal activities in order to augment their pay. This has also resulted in the bad image associated with the activities of private security companies, and most trending reason that majority of the public have great disdain and reservation in the participation of PSCs in crime control in the country.
2.6.5 Intra-agency and Inter-agency Squabbles
Aside from struggle for juicy contracts, private security companies also struggle for dominance in the security market economy. This has led to polarization within the private security sector. The situation is that there is no single association in Nigeria under which private security companies can voice their agitations for recognition. Today, the private security company has such associations as: Society of Security Practitioners of Nigeria (SSPN), American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS – Nigerian branch), National Professional Security Association (APSA), Society and Safety Association of Nigeria (SSAN), Association of Industrial Security and Safety Organization of Nigeria (AISSON), Nigeria Institute of Industrial Security (NIIS), International Foundation for Protection Officers (IFPO) and many such others. This is fundamentally unhealthy for a private security sector that is struggling for national and international recognition and relevance in the global security market economy. The effect is that the struggle within the private security sector has deprived them of their relevance and place in the national security policy making unlike the private security companies in the United States which have prominent role in the security policymaking of their country. More devastating to the growth of PSCs is the inter-agency conflict between PSCs and other government security agencies. In a National survey conducted in the United States of America by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (2004) it was discovered that there exist a competition between the Private Security and public law enforcement agencies which serve as a barrier against crime control. Private security personnel on the other hand argue that public law enforcement officers have limited knowledge about the private security industry and so do not appreciate the important role they play in solving and preventing crime.
2.6.6 Lack of Synergy between PSCs and Government Agencies
PSCs and other government agencies like the Police and the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) are expected to have strong bond and inter-networking relationship, but this is not so. In South Africa, United States of America, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia intelligence information, sharing and gathering of evidence forms the basis for PSCs and Police collaboration in crime control. In addition, PSCs collaborate with the police in mapping out hotspots for crime in order to ensure effective crime control and prevention (Ruddell, Thomas & Pattern, 2010; Sotlar & Mesko, 2011). In Nigeria, PSCs and the police do not have a synergy of working cordially in crime control. This is because the Police see PSCs as uneducated, unskilled, and unprofessional. Thus, Abrahamsen and Williams (2009) noted that the collaboration between private security guards and the police was unstructured, and often inefficient and ineffective. On the other hand, the NSCDC are legally bound to supervise the activities of PSCs but instead both struggle for oil company contracts. Gucia and Manning (2007), found in their study of Republic of Moldavo that the regulating agency of PSCs was in constant competition with PSCs over guard job contracts. This means that NSCDC does not adequately regulate or monitor PSC operations. Kasali (2011) in his study confirmed this when he found that there was inadequate regulation of private security companies and expressed his fear that it might pose severe risk to subscribers because of the illegal activities of security guards working in unlicensed private security companies especially if the private security guards commit any crime. These can pose a serious operational challenge for PSCs and therefore affect their performance in crime control.