The Tribune

By Gaylord Taylor

Operations Manager

AGT Security

The Bahamas is faced with a serious crime problem. One that is threatening to cripple our economy. In recent weeks, it seems as if there has been one murder per day. So frequent are they that we are becoming insensitive to their occurrence.

An off-duty police officer was murdered, and the Police Staff Association (PSA) again voiced their call for officers to be armed while off duty. This is something I agree with in principle. I will, however, take this a step further and say that security guards should be armed as well, or at least have that option.

For the police, this is already a contentious issue. Most senior police officers, if not all, are armed at all times. This is a well-known fact. Junior officers, however, are not. I will not get into any details, as this is not a matter I wish to be embroiled in, but suffice it to say that old-fashioned views must be put aside in light of the new criminal element the Bahamas now faces. These elements have access to firearms, the likes of which would be envied by military specialists.

Given this, and my strong conviction that the private security industry needs regulation, it is now time to look at arming security guards as well. In every other country, security guards can be armed. In most cases, the policies governing the carrying of a firearm by security guards are even stricter than the one governing law enforcement or military personnel, simply because it is widely viewed that security guards are more likely to use a firearm improperly. To implement this, the Government only need rely on the use of proper police implementation; a review or regulatory framework to monitor the usage, training and issuance of the weapons; and the industry’s own self-interest in being able to provide this service.

In the Bahamas today, armed security services are already being offered by the Police Staff Association (PSA) through its private engagement section. I was a former executive of the Police Staff Association, as well as the individual responsible for private fee engagement in Grand Bahama, so I can speak with a bit of authority on the matter. Private fee engagement was the legal means that the Government put in place so that off-duty officers could engage in work of a security or policing nature, without being placed in compromising or corrupt positions, to earn extra monies.

This has evolved into its own business, and competes directly with private security companies Most companies, when given the opportunity to have an armed police officer or a regular security guard, will go with the police any day. This is an unfair practice, and should be done away with. Police officers in other jurisdictions engage in private fee engagement as well, but in most cases are needed for their specialist training.

In the UK and other parts of Europe, a special permit is required to have police officers employed at a business where security guards can do similar work. This, of course, is because in Britain there is a strong security regulatory body that monitors these sorts of unfair business practices. I am on no way disparaging the work that police officers do; far from it, considering my own natural affinity for the police. I am, however, noting that private security firms have to fight a battle for business with a Goliath, and that is inherently unfair.

With proper vetting, training and oversight, security guards can be armed, thus allowing police resources to be directed at their ultimate job, fighting crime. In recent weeks, with the passage of the new Gaming Act, this monopoly of armed police officers engaged in security work has increased. I sometimes find it funny that a police officer, who served for umpteen years and, during that time, was armed, retires and is employed as a security guard, but cannot be allowed to carry a firearm to do his duties.

For too long we have been stuck in the mire of colonial thought as guardians of business and property. Adhering to the ‘watchman standard’ of security services is why a hairdresser can wake up in the morning and open a security firm. We must standardise and modernise this industry, or be prepared to hand over more and more of it to the Government, in the form of the police and other law enforcement personnel.

This is the exact opposite of what is happening in the security industry around the world. Crime is at the forefront of everybody’s mind, and without a competent, regulated and trained security industry, the strain will only get worse on those tasked with the challenge of combating it. I look forward to my next article, when I will discuss Value-Added Tax (VAT), insurance and other relevant matters that every company should know when engaging a private security company.