A/HRC/24/45 B. Analysis 24. The study reveals widely divergent levels of regulation of the activities of PMSCs among the analysed countries. At one end of the spectrum, countries may specifically establish a licensing scheme and prohibit PMSCs from carrying out certain activities. South Africa is an example of that approach and the only country in the study which provides for comprehensive legislation regulating activities of PMSCs and specifically prohibiting the export of military and security services. Several of the other countries analysed regulate only private security companies to a varying degree within the domestic sphere and do not prohibit the provision of military or security services abroad. Efforts undertaken by these States to regulate the activities of PMSCs indicate their acknowledgement of a certain level of risk in outsourcing State functions to these private companies. At the other end of the spectrum, there are countries which have no legislation specifically addressing the activities of PMSCs or are currently considering establishing a legislative framework. 25. The South African legislation is also unique in that it prohibits mercenary activities. While the term “mercenary” is defined differently to the definition in the international or regional instruments, the South African legislation is specifically aimed at prohibiting mercenary activities and requires permission for the rendering of military or security services to a party to an armed conflict or to a designated country. The other countries analysed do not have any laws prohibiting mercenary activities. 26. While bearing in mind these varying approaches, there are common elements in the laws of the countries under review, which are used as a basis of comparative analysis below. 1. Regulation of the activities of PMSCs 27. Of the 13 countries analysed, all except Kenya and Swaziland have legislation addressing the private security sector.2 There is currently no law that specifically deals with the private security industry in Kenya, whereas the Swazi legislation does not regulate the industry, the enterprises or companies, or even the security officers, but only the “wages” associated with those involved in the security industry, through the Regulation of Wages (Security Services Industry) Order, 2011. 28. Two countries, South Africa and Botswana, are currently undergoing a transitional phase as they are in the process of amending their existing laws. While Botswana is considering the Regulation of Private Security Services Amendment Bill, 2008, South Africa is considering the Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill, 2012. This will arguably make the regulatory framework on private security in these two countries more effective. It is also likely that it may encourage other countries in the region to consider amending and/or enacting legislation in the near future in order to keep up to the developing dynamics of the private security industry. 2 Botswana: Control of Security Guard Services Act No. 28 of 1984; Ghana: Police Service (Private Security Organisations) Regulations, 1992, Legislative Instrument No. 1571, as amended by Legislative Instrument No. 1579; the Gambia: Private Security Guard Companies Act No. 5 of 2011; Lesotho: Private Security Officers Act, 2002; Mauritius: Private Security Act No. 5 of 2004 as amended by the Private Security Service (Amendment) Act of 2008; Namibia: Security Enterprises and Security Officers Act No. 19 of 1998, as amended by the Security Enterprises and Security Officers Amendment Act No 21 of 2002; Nigeria: the Private Guard Companies Act No. 23 of 1986; Sierra Leone: National Security and Central Intelligence Act No. 10 of 2002; South Africa: Private Security Industry Regulation Act No. 56 of 2001; Uganda: Police (Control of Private Security Organisations) Regulations of 1997 and 2004; and Zimbabwe: Private Investigators and Security Guards Control Act, Chapter 27:10 (1996). 7