Johannesburg — THE Constitutional Court will hear argument today in a case requiring it to determine the validity of two sections of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act, which makes it illegal for employers to use their untrained workers to safeguard their property.

On one side there are two farming companies, one of which supplies 30% of the total tomato produce in SA, battling with crime, which employ their farm workers to provide security on their premises.

On the other is the safety and security ministry, which, with the assistance of the private security industry, is trying to regulate a huge industry that has been plagued by few controls, poor training and abusive conditions imposed by fly-by-night companies .

Under the act, no person may in any manner render a security service for remuneration unless such a person is registered as a security service provider.

This is the second case the court is hearing involving the act. The other has been brought by 14 refugees who are challenging the act's requirement that security personnel need to be South African citizens or permanent residents in order to be registered as security providers. This matter has also still to be decided.

In the case before the court involving Bertie van Zyl Ltd and Montina Boerdery , which operate in Limpopo and employ 8000 people, Pretoria High Court Judge Cathy Satchwell found in favour of the farmers, arguing that section 20 (1) (a) of the act required registration only for people who permanently provided security services, not those who provided security on an ad hoc basis, as a by-product of employment. She did not find this section unconstitutional, however.

Satchwell agreed with the applicants' arguments that this provision of the act extended beyond the objective of the act, which was to regulate the security industry.

Sections 28 (2) and 28 (3) of the act were found unconstitutional and invalid in that they unduly expanded the definition of a person considered a security provider to those who are not part of the security industry.

The court held that neither "in-house security personnel" nor their employers necessarily followed the occupation of security service provider and that the act drew a clear distinction to that effect. It said the act could not have been intended to apply to such persons, as there was already legislation to regulate these other industries.

The private security industry regulator, the police and the ministry insist that these workers, who do not carry weapons but wear uniforms and control access to properties, are security service providers and should register as such.

They argue in papers before the court that nearly 200 workers employed by Bertie van Zyl and 50 working for Montina Boerdery are employed full-time to safeguard their employers' premises and fellow employees.