Damning Findings on Libyans Military Training Camp: PSiRA

The Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSiRA) hosted a media briefing to update the public on the preliminary findings from its internal investigations regarding the alleged illegal Libyan military training camp near White River, at a farm in Mpumalanga province, South Africa.

In the briefing, they revealed that they have served Milities Dei Security Services (MDSS)- a security company which is Psira’s registree with a notice of suspension in accordance with section 24 (1) (a) of the PSiRA Act.

Notice of suspension

To provide clarity on the “Notice of Suspension,” this notice is based on the intention to suspend the company’s registration pending the outcome of the code of conduct investigation by the Authority. The notice is served to the business, which is given seven days to reply based on the notice served.

“MDSS has been served with notice of suspension and we provided them with the right of reply from today, 07 August 2024 until Friday, 16 August 2024. As we await MDSS’s response to our notice of suspension, we will continue examining the evidence gathered during our internal investigations. Our priority remains ensuring the safety and security of all South Africans. We are committed to taking appropriate action to uphold professional and ethical standards within the private security industry.” comments Psira through its official statement.

Ten key findings by Psira on their preliminary investigations:

1. That the second training facility where the Libyans were found, is not accredited and therefore illegal.
2. That the training programme and duration is longer than the normal accredited security training.
3. That the standards of the training that was offered was foreign or adopted from other countries.
4. That no local security grades training such as the accredited (E-C) that were offered at the Libyan Military training camp.
5. That some instructors that offered training were non-South Africans.
6. That the design and layout of the infrastructure of the Libyan camp supported a military-style training camp.
7. That there was a contravention of the immigration laws of South Africa by both the owners and the Libyan learners.
8. That there was no authorization, agreements, or exemptions granted to MDSS by the National Regulator for Conventional Arms Control to provide training or military training to Libyan nationals.
9. That MDSS, its owners, and personnel contravened the Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers.
10. That the activities of MDSS, its owners, and personnel at the Libyan military training camp were in violation of various criminal statutes.

Source: Psira