The Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) has demanded that the chairperson of Portfolio Committee on Police in Parliament, Ian Cameron, recuse himself from chairing the meeting on Tuesday.
Committee insiders told Sunday World that PSIRA bosses were not comfortable to have Cameron chairing the meeting.
Social media posts
They pointed out that he had been hellbent on his social media posts, writing stuff about the regulator concerning untested allegations in relation to fake training, forged documents and R144-million UIF collection from non-compliant security firms.
Cameron had been on PSIRA matters, where he flagged serious concerns related to the R120-million UIF-funded project to recover outstanding contributions from defaulting security firms.
The regulator even went to the extent of writing a letter to the Speaker of Parliament and the Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu on June 3, to show its grievance and protesting against Cameron.
In the letter seen by Sunday World, penned by PSIRA CEO Manabela Chauke, he mentioned two X posts. In these, Cameron had tweeted on his X account (formerly Twitter) that the regulator was not happy at all to have him chairing the meeting within the portfolio committee.
Thread was biased
“We refer to the thread posted on 06 May 2025 and 02 June 2025 by the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Police in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, the honourable Ian Cameron on the X platform titled “THREAD: PSiRA. UIF funds. Fake training. Forged documents. R144 million.”
PSIRA is scheduled to appear before the Portfolio Committee on June 4 2025 to account for its activities. It will also address any concerns, including its involvement in the skills programme project. The said project was commissioned by the Department of Labour, acting through the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
Chauke said in his letter that PSIRA was fully committed to transparently account to the Portfolio Committee and any other body that has oversight on it.
“We are, however, gravely concerned that your public statements, as embodied in the Relevant Social Media Publication, have created a perception of bias and prejudgment, which fundamentally undermines the principles of fairness, impartiality, and due process that are required of a chairperson in Parliamentary proceedings,” said Chauke.
Code of Ethical Conduct
“The Code of Ethical Conduct and Disclosure of Members’ Interests for Assembly and Permanent Council Members requires that members, and especially those in leadership positions, act with objectivity and integrity and avoid placing themselves in positions of actual or potential conflicts of interests.
“By publicly expressing views on the merits of allegations against PSIRA prior to the Portfolio Committee’s formal engagement, you have created a reasonable apprehension of bias and have failed to maintain the required objectivity.
“The principle of natural justice requires that before a forum makes a determination, it must objectively and impartially listen to the other side with an open mind and never come to a hearing with a predetermined disposition. Your public statements, which sensationalise untested allegations, are inconsistent with these requirements of natural justice. And they risk undermining the integrity of the committee process.”
Fair, impartial processes
Chauke said that Cameron, as a chairperson of the Portfolio Committee, is required to act fairly and impartially and to apply rules with due regard to ensuring the participation of all parties in a manner consistent with democracy.
“Your public commentary has compromised the perception of fairness and impartiality. This perception is essential for the effective functioning of the Portfolio Committee. In light of the above, PSIRA is of the considered view that your continued chairpersonship of the Portfolio Committee in respect of PSIRA’s appearance before the Portfolio Committee would be fundamentally inconsistent with the requirements of impartiality, fairness and the avoidance of prejudgment. This as set out in the applicable Parliamentary rules and codes of conduct. We therefore formally request that you recuse yourself from chairing all engagements of the Portfolio Committee for the duration of PSIRA’s appearance thereat and any further related deliberations.
Cameron told Sunday World that there was no way that he was going to recuse himself.
Cameron won’t budge
“I will not recuse myself and I didn’t today. We are actually still in the said session. I will keep on doing what I do and so too the committee. As chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Police, I am obligated under Section 55(2)(a) of the Constitution to exercise oversight over the executive and organs of state, including PSIRA.
“In addition, Rules 227 and 253 of the National Assembly empower and require portfolio committees to monitor, investigate, enquire into, and make recommendations concerning any aspect of government policy, programme, or performance relevant to their mandate,” said Cameron.
Cameron said that the concerns he raised on social media regarding irregularities in the UIF skills training project stem directly from findings in the Auditor-General of South Africa’s (AGSA) reports.
Material irregularities
“The AGSA’s audit outcomes for the Department of Employment and Labour and associated implementing entities reflect material irregularities. These include unauthorised and fruitless expenditure, issues of performance measurement, and supply chain violations. These reports are public records and form a legitimate basis for public oversight and parliamentary commentary.
“I wish to reaffirm that PSIRA will be given every opportunity to account for these matters during your scheduled appearance before the committee. Should your institution believe that any of my public comments are inaccurate, you are welcome to present factual corrections during that sitting, in line with Rule 167 governing the right to make submissions to committees,” he said.
