Opinion / Letters
Ill-treatment of SA embassy clients, Securico security responds
26 Aug 2015 at 11:07hrs | Views
The Editor Bulawayo24
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: ALLEGATION OF ILL-TREATMENT OF SOUTH AFRICAN EMBASSY CLIENTS
We refer to your news article titled "Securico security ill-treating SA embassy clients" dated 23 August 2015 published on your on-line newspaper with the link http://www.bulawayo24.com/opinion/whatsapp+updates/72980.
While we do not ordinarily comment on issues to do with our client's business operations we however wish to put the record straight on the allegation of ill-treatment of SA Embassy clients.
The allegation made in the publication is that SECURICO guards "---have appropriated to themselves the powers and prerogative of denying clients (carrying lawful instructions from Embassy staff) access to the Embassy." This is not true. On the day in question – 20 August 2015 – SECURICO guards had received specific instructions from the Embassy concerning access into the embassy premises and they executed that instruction without deviation. The reason for the change of instruction can be best explained by the Embassy itself and there is no reason to apportion blame to SECURICO for executing its duties as instructed. At no time have our operatives acted in any manner contrary to the instructions of our client.
We would also like to point it out to you that your paper went on to publish these allegations which cast aspersions on our reputation on the market and may damage our relationship with our client without bothering to get our side of the story or that of our client. It would appear that you were convinced that these allegations are true and it was your duty to publish a general warning to the public. It is also clear that you did not bother to question the motive of the person making those allegations in wanting the matter to be published.
We find it very strange that while he/she purports that the intention is to bring the attention of SECURICO management or SA staff to the alleged misdemeanour he/she chose to do so through a publication yet the contact details of both SECURICO and the SA Embassy were in his/her possession.
SECURICO's telephone numbers are prominently displayed at the very gate where entry was allegedly denied for the express purpose of affording any disaffected person to have their issues resolved promptly. The Visa processing documents also have the contact details of the SA Embassy. Even a simple search on the internet would also easily afford any person direct contact with the SA Home Affairs department. Therefore it can only be concluded that the only reason of taking this issue to a newspaper was to sully the name of SECURICO in revenge for an alleged wrong that arose purely from the person's own misconceptions and frustration at being denied entry into the Embassy.
Our quality management system compels us to record all complaints received (as we have already done with this case), determine the root cause of the complaint and communicate with the complainant.
In that regard we demand that your paper should publish this response in its entirety soon after receiving it and giving it the same prominence as the original story as we have a right to respond to the allegations made and to clear the misconception that SECURICO has usurped the powers of SA Embassy staff.
Yours faithfully
For SECURICO Security Services
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: ALLEGATION OF ILL-TREATMENT OF SOUTH AFRICAN EMBASSY CLIENTS
We refer to your news article titled "Securico security ill-treating SA embassy clients" dated 23 August 2015 published on your on-line newspaper with the link http://www.bulawayo24.com/opinion/whatsapp+updates/72980.
While we do not ordinarily comment on issues to do with our client's business operations we however wish to put the record straight on the allegation of ill-treatment of SA Embassy clients.
The allegation made in the publication is that SECURICO guards "---have appropriated to themselves the powers and prerogative of denying clients (carrying lawful instructions from Embassy staff) access to the Embassy." This is not true. On the day in question – 20 August 2015 – SECURICO guards had received specific instructions from the Embassy concerning access into the embassy premises and they executed that instruction without deviation. The reason for the change of instruction can be best explained by the Embassy itself and there is no reason to apportion blame to SECURICO for executing its duties as instructed. At no time have our operatives acted in any manner contrary to the instructions of our client.
We would also like to point it out to you that your paper went on to publish these allegations which cast aspersions on our reputation on the market and may damage our relationship with our client without bothering to get our side of the story or that of our client. It would appear that you were convinced that these allegations are true and it was your duty to publish a general warning to the public. It is also clear that you did not bother to question the motive of the person making those allegations in wanting the matter to be published.
SECURICO's telephone numbers are prominently displayed at the very gate where entry was allegedly denied for the express purpose of affording any disaffected person to have their issues resolved promptly. The Visa processing documents also have the contact details of the SA Embassy. Even a simple search on the internet would also easily afford any person direct contact with the SA Home Affairs department. Therefore it can only be concluded that the only reason of taking this issue to a newspaper was to sully the name of SECURICO in revenge for an alleged wrong that arose purely from the person's own misconceptions and frustration at being denied entry into the Embassy.
Our quality management system compels us to record all complaints received (as we have already done with this case), determine the root cause of the complaint and communicate with the complainant.
In that regard we demand that your paper should publish this response in its entirety soon after receiving it and giving it the same prominence as the original story as we have a right to respond to the allegations made and to clear the misconception that SECURICO has usurped the powers of SA Embassy staff.
Yours faithfully
For SECURICO Security Services
Source - Securico Security
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
