Sunday, 24 April 2016
Proposal For Independent Regulatory Authority For Nigeria's Private Security Industry
This is a memo to Nigeria's Minister of Internal Affairs proposing an Independent Regulatory Authority to regulate the Private Security Industry in Nigeria. Independent regulation of the private security industry is a global best practice hence Private security industry stakeholders and professionals in Nigeria are encouraged to peruse this proposal, stimulate a national debate aimed at implementing an Independent Regulatory Authority.
Lt. General (Rtd) Abdulrahman B. Dambazau, CFR, PhD
The Honourable Minister of Interior,
Ministry of Interior, Abuja
Regulating Private Security in Nigeria: The Case for an Independent Regulatory Authority
This is an open letter to you in your capacity as the Honourable Minister of Interior.
We write to you because the regulatory responsibility for private security in Nigeria falls under the Ministry of Interior. As you aware, this regulatory oversight is currently achieved via the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in accordance with the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps Act No. 2 of 2003 and Amendment Act of 2007.
Let us begin by pointing out that the role played by the private security industry in complementing efforts of government security agencies around the world is well known. The increase in security alerts around the world has generated a resolve to ensure that local communities are adequately protected against terrorist attacks. This has led to a greater appreciation of the role of private security as a vital partner to security agencies, especially in the protection of national infrastructure. From an economic viewpoint, the industry is estimated to have a total value of about US$68 billion globally and is one of the highest employers of labour. This makes it an important part of any local economy.
In Nigeria, the government security agencies are overstretched due to the counterinsurgency operations in the North-East and also the fact that a large chunk of policemen are doing noncrucial or 'unofficial' police duties such as aides to politicians, guarding private, commercial premises at the expense of community policing . The rising tide of insecurity across the country, especially the counterinsurgency operations in the Northeast also puts additional strain on government security resources. If properly regulated, the private security industry should complement law enforcement efforts by effectively taking on responsibilities such as manned guarding, patrol and response services. The industry is also capable of boosting the current administration’s job creation agenda. The reality however is that the impact of private security effort in Nigeria is limited. The sector is largely informal with many of the businesses operating under the radar and failing to adhere to basic industry standards. The current regulatory structure is highly ineffective and the importance of reforming the industry cannot be overstated.
The Ministry of Interior under your stewardship has stated a clear policy agenda to ensure internal security and assured foreign investors of an enabling environment for their businesses to thrive in Nigeria. In support of this objective, we recommend the creation of an independent regulatory authority for the private security industry.
Such an organisation should fall under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Interior and be empowered by a robust Private Security Industry Act to regulate a clearly defined set of activities performed by both individuals and businesses within the industry. Before we discuss the challenges facing the industry, let’s quickly explore how the industry is currently regulated.
Current regulatory set up
Current estimates indicate that about 2000 Private Guard Companies (PGCs) operate within the Nigeria and employ over 100,000 individual security personnel. These estimates clearly position the industry as a significant part of the Nigerian economy. The regulation of the industry is as per the ‘Private Guard Companies Act’ of 1986. This Act mandates the licensing of all Private Guard Companies (PGCs) in Nigeria via a licensing authority. Then we have the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps Act No. 2 of 2003 and Amendment Act of 2007 that establishes the NSCDC as the licensing authority and grants it powers to recommend the registration of PGCs to the Minister of Interior, inspect the premises of PGCs, supervise and monitor the activities of all PGCs and to keep a register for that purpose.
The Private Guard Companies Act (1986) stipulates that any organisation performing the service of “watching, guarding, patrolling or carrying money for the purpose of protection against crime” must be registered as a company in Nigeria, must have applied for and granted a licence by the Minister of Interior and must be wholly owned by Nigerians. In granting a licence, the Minister considers the character, competence and integrity of any persons responsible for the operation of the company in question; the health and certification of any guard dogs employed in the service of the company; and any further information as specified by the Minister.
The Act prohibits the use of firearms by PGCs. Convicted criminals and ex-convicts are automatically barred from holding a security licence, including anyone dismissed on disciplinary grounds from the Police Force, the Armed Forces, Prison Service or Customs Preventive Service. A licence is granted for a period of two years after which a renewal licence must be applied for.
Outside of the assessments described above which are performed at the point of application or licence renewal, there appears to be very little monitoring of standards or indeed any enduring regulatory activities. There are some checks by other ministries such as Labour, Immigration and Internal Affairs to ensure compliance with Nigeria’s labour and immigration laws for example but these checks are usually limited to audits of international PGCs operating within Nigeria.
The Private Guard Companies Act does not prescribe standardized training across the industry and so the quality and extent of training varies widely across PGCs. In some cases, no training is provided at all to the security operatives!
In the absence of effective regulation, many PGCs will operate without licences and without regards to standards or basic security principles. This means that instead of being an effective partner for the Nigerian police in the protection of lives and property, the private security industry poses significant risks to the Nigerian public as a consequence of poorly trained and potentially criminal private security personnel.
We believe that an independent regulatory Authority that is focused exclusively on licensing PGCs and enforcing compliance with well-defined licensing conditions is required to provide the much needed industry regulation. Such an organisation will be more effective than the NSCDC whose primary function is to protect lives and property as an independent security agency of the Federal Government in conjunction with the Nigerian Police.
Now let’s discuss some of the challenges facing the private security industry in Nigeria.
Absence of an effective regulatory authority The NSCDC regulates the activities of Private Guard Companies in accordance with the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (Amendment) Act, 2007. This is in addition to its core and onerous responsibility of providing protection, crisis resolution and security to public infrastructures within Nigeria. These dual responsibilities actually appear to place the NSCDC in conflict with itself. Should an active participant of an industry be responsible for regulating the same industry? We are suggesting here that some of NSCDC’s operations as an independent security agency of the Federal Government fall under activities regulated by the Private Guard Companies Act (1986). The specific security activities caught within the Act are loosely defined and this creates an ambiguity as to whether there is some conflict of interest in NSCDC regulating the private security industry as well as protecting Nigerian citizens and public infrastructures. Regulating an industry such as private security in Nigeria is onerous and quite complex. It requires specialist regulatory skills and complete independence from the industry being regulated.
Regulation should not be just about increasing business overheads in the name of licensing fees or arbitrarily shutting down allegedly non-compliant businesses. It is not meant to impose unnecessary bottlenecks, which become disruptive to industry growth. Regulation is more effective and less disruptive to the industry (and therefore the economy) when it is light-touch and agile. This means regulating only when necessary and doing so in a way that is proportionate to risk. Better regulation promotes efficiency, productivity and value for money. The NSCDC does not appear to be adequately structured to provide this capability and there is an urgent need for a major shift in the regulatory culture towards one based around the rigorous consideration of risks, a proportionate response to such risks, and a streamlined, more consistent and more effective regulatory system. This will help to ensure that legitimate security businesses are not forced to operate under the radar and that individuals operating within the private security industry are ‘fit and proper’.
Cost and effort of obtaining a PGC licence
One of the conditions for obtaining a PGC licence from the NSCDC is that the prospective PGC must have a minimum share capital of N10 Million. PGCs are grouped into two categories for the purposes of licence fees; category A for companies with over 500 employees and category B for those with less than 500 employees. The NSCDC charges N1 Million as application fees for category A companies and N800 thousand for category B companies. There are additional ‘sundry’ levies imposed on the applicants during the licensing process. These fees appear excessive and cannot be said to correlate with the actual effort required to assess a PGC’s application for a security licence. The pricing model makes it difficult for small businesses to enter the industry and imposes an unfair burden on medium seized PGCs already struggling with narrow margins. In the absence of mandatory minimum wage rates, the additional overheads from licensing costs are most likely responsible for the low personnel wages across the industry. Wage levels are already known to be dictated by the size of the temporary contracts secured by the PGC at any particular time. This means that security guards of similar training and experience could potentially earn very different wages depending on which contracts their assignments or postings fall under. This situation does not encourage professionalism or commitment to service within the industry. The assessment process also appears to be riddled with bureaucratic inefficiencies in terms of duplication of roles and unnecessary bottlenecks that result in longer processing times for a PGC licence. An example of this is the investigation process performed by both the NSCDC and the State Security Services (SSS) prior to ministerial approval of the application. This creates a strong incentive for PGCs to attempt to circumvent the process and operate illegally, further raising the cost of enforcing compliance across the industry.
Limited regulatory scope focused solely on companies
The Private Guard Companies Act (1986) as the title suggests, limits the scope of regulation to businesses alone. It also provides a loose definition of security services for which an organisation requires a PGC licence. The services covered by the Act are watching, guarding, patrolling or carrying of money for the purpose of providing protection against crime. This means that individuals operating outside of a corporate body, such as vigilantes, are free to provide security services without being subjected to any form of industry regulation. Regulatory scope must be activity-driven and industry-wide as opposed to organisation driven. Licensable activities must also be clearly articulated to remove any ambiguity because regulation only makes sense if the activities that are to be controlled are well defined and understood. A new regulatory focus on individuals will ensure that those performing any licensable activities are fit and proper to do so. This could be achieved by requiring individuals to wear and display a valid licence card issued by the regulatory authority following mandatory checks on the individual’s criminal history; mental health status, work permits/residential status and relevant licence linked training qualifications. Expanding the scope of regulation to include individuals will help to reduce criminality and raise the standard of competence and professionalism across the industry.
Exclusion of foreign participation in the Nigerian private security industry
According to the NSCDC Act, one of its mandates is, ‘‘ensuring that foreigners do not operate or own Private Guard Companies (PGC) or have access to PGC licenses for any purpose whatsoever’’. It’s been argued that this exclusion amounts to a restriction on trade in services and is in clear breach in liberal economic principles. It indicates that foreign investment, which Nigeria is actively soliciting, is neither welcome nor secure in the country. We believe this directly contradicts the Ministry of Interior’s assurance to foreign investors that it will guarantee an enabling environment for their businesses to thrive in Nigeria. Anyone legally resident in Nigeria by birth, naturalization, or in possession of a valid work permit should be allowed to run a PGC and any other business as long as they satisfy the relevant licensing conditions where applicable. Research evidence has shown that the presence of large international companies in the local industry promotes knowledge transfer, accelerates sector growth, and improves competence and professionalism.
The success of the South African private security sector has partly been attributed to the presence of international PGCs such as Group4Securicor, Chubb and ADT. Admittedly there were some strong concerns among government agencies of the threat to national security posed by the participation of foreign nationals in the SA private security industry. This led to an attempted amendment of the PSIRA Act in 2001 aimed at regulating foreign ownership and control of private security businesses in South Africa. However, this amendment failed due to strong arguments in favour of the economic principles of free trade over claims of national security and the protection of the local industry. There is clear evidence of improvements in the SA private security industry as a direct result of the presence of foreign PGCs in the local industry.
Now let us compare the Nigerian regulatory set up described above against two countries known to have been relatively successful in regulating their local private security industries, UK and South Africa.
Private Security Regulation in The United Kingdom
The Private Security in the UK can be described as a well-regulated multi-million pound industry, constituting about 5000 security businesses collectively employing over 350,000 individual operatives. The industry is broadly comprised of 3 regulated sectors:
1. Vehicle Immobilization (i.e. the infamous wheel clampers)
3. Manned Guarding (Security Guarding, Door Supervision, Close Protection, Public Space Surveillance using CCTV, ‘Cash-and-Valuables In Transit’).
Security Guarding accounts for over 70% (250,000) of industry operatives. Before private security regulation came into effect, the Home Office estimated that just under a third of all Security Guards working in the industry had a criminal record. This led to the enactment of a Private Security Industry Act in 2001 (PSIA) with the objective to reduce criminality, raise standards of competence, improve professionalism and increase public confidence in the industry. The PSIA created the Security Industry Authority (SIA) which came into existence in 2003, requiring every individual conducting security operations in the regulated sectors to have a licence.
Compulsory training for individual operatives was introduced alongside mandatory criminal records and identity checks during licence applications. An Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) was created to introduce a consistent set of standards and support for private security businesses. The main duties of the SIA are the compulsory licensing of individuals undertaking designated activities within the private security industry and managing the voluntary ACS which measures private security suppliers against independently assessed criteria. The SIA has three main objectives; (1) eliminate criminal elements from working in the industry, (2) ensure legal requirements for working in the industry are enforced and (3) increase public safety.
Individuals must apply for a security licence in order to perform designated activities within the private security industry. Successful applicants are required to wear and display their SIA licence cards at all times when performing the activities for which they have been licensed. The application process generally takes between 2 to 4 weeks depending on the extent to which the individual meets the SIA licensing conditions at the pre-assessment stage. ‘Happy path’ applications will generally take a week to process once payment has been accepted. It currently costs £220 (approx. N60,000) to apply for an SIA licence. Eligibility for a licence as well as the licensing conditions is well publicized and available on the SIA website (sia.homeoffice.gov.uk). Licence holders are required to be over 18 years of age and the applicant must already hold the relevant licence-linked qualification (from an approved certificate awarding body). Applicants must be either UK nationals, EEA nationals or have the right to work in the UK. Proof of identity must be provided with a declaration of criminality and any mental health problems.
Criminality checks for individuals are completed via criminality disclosure bodies such as Disclosure & Barring Services (DBS). Like the SIA, DBS is a non-departmental public body under the Home Office that enables organizations to make safer recruitment decisions by providing access to criminal record information through its disclosure service for England and Wales. Applicants that have been resident overseas for 6 months or longer within 5 years prior to their application are required to provide an overseas criminality certificate (OCC) from the country where they have been resident. Ensuring that only fit and proper individuals are permitted to operate in the security industry requires the seamless, secure and accurate exchange of applicant information between the SIA and multiple third party organizations (both in the public and private sector). This is achieved via digital platforms with fully automated secure electronic interfaces between the SIA and its third parties.
Businesses in the UK are not required to hold a security licence in order to operate in the industry. The SIA is currently only empowered to operate the voluntary approval scheme, ACS. It is important to note that ACS was developed in consultation with representatives across the industry. ACS introduces a set of operational and performance standards for suppliers of private security services. Organizations that meet the standards are awarded Approved Contractor status. The accreditation provides purchasers of security services with independent proof of the contractor’s commitment to quality. It is a criminal offence for a company to claim to be an Approved Contractor when it is not.
The ACS application process involves two main parts; an internal assessment by the SIA of whether the business is “fit and proper” followed by an external independent assessment of the business against industry standards such as safety, financial probity, transparency and adherence to UK business regulations. This external assessment is completed by an industry approved independent assessor. The final decision to grant Approval is made by the SIA, taking into account the external assessment results as well as recommendations of the independent assessor. The accreditation process usually takes up to 3 months for a decision to be reached and the assessment costs are directly linked to personnel headcount.
The SIA is seen to have been generally successful, having a positive impact on the UK private security industry by improving individual competency, reducing criminality and illegal working, improving professionalism and reducing risk to people, property and premises. These successes can be attributed to the following:
• Easy licensing and accreditation process for individuals and businesses respectively
• Seamless information exchange between the SIA its 3rd party information providers
• Clearly defined regulated activities within the private security industry
• Strong relationship between the SIA and the Police to support enforcement activities
• Effective communication between the SIA and the industry (keeping the industry informed about regulatory activities helps to improve compliance with regulation)
• Clearly defined and mutually agreed industry standards
• Single standardized individual training qualification as a compliance indicator
• Single system of regulation for the whole of the UK
Notwithstanding its successes, the UK government is pushing for better regulation with plans to shift regulatory focus to private security businesses while keeping individual operatives within scope of regulation. The new approach proposes to implement more robust arrangements to ensure compliance, focus regulation on the areas of greatest risk, and reduce overall cost of regulation, which could in turn reduce individual licensing fees. This principle of “light touch” regulation is both efficient (low cost) and effective (robust).
Private Security Regulation in South Africa
Recent research at the University of Wales indicates that South Africa has one of the most highly privatized and globalized security sectors in the world, and, as a percentage of GDP, the country has the largest private security sector in the world. The industry is estimated to constitute about 9000 companies employing over 450,000 active security operatives. The South African private security industry is regulated in accordance with the Private Security Industry Regulation Act (2001) which created the Private Security Industry Regulatory Agency (PSIRA). According to PSIRA, the primary objective of the Authority is to “regulate the private security industry and to exercise effective control over the practice of the occupation of security service providers in the public and national interest and the private security industry itself”. Multiple studies (particularly from Abrahamsen and Williams, Security the City 2007) have shown that crime rates in South Africa rose with the transition to majority rule and triggered a rapid expansion of the private security industry at annual growth rates of 30% in the mid-1990s. The PSIRA is generally viewed to be successful as a crucial partner to local law enforcement in driving down crime and inspiring confidence from the government and the general public.
The industry is currently valued at over R14 billion with foreign investment accounting for an estimated 15% of the total value. Private security businesses in South Africa fall into one of two categories; businesses that sell security services and those that sell security products. Any business looking to sell security services in South Africa must register with PSIRA. The business must ensure that all the persons performing executive and management functions in respect of the business are registered as security providers, including every director, member of a closed corporation, trustee of business trust, or administrator of a foundation. A registration fee of R2280, about twenty eight thousand five hundred naira (N28,500) is required and the providers are subjected to a written exam.
Criminal record checks are completed and an inspection of the premises is performed to establish whether or not the business meets the infrastructure requirements. Every provider is required to have completed prescribed mandatory training courses at an accredited training establishment in South Africa. A number of other financial probity and fit-for-purpose checks are completed as part of a rigorous business assessment process before an approval decision is reached. A further fee of R1710 is charged for this assessment. The Authority must issue a certificate of registration and a certificate of identification to any person registered as a security service provider. This is important for the Authority’s monitoring process. The business is reassessed each year at a further cost of R500 plus the annual renewal fee of R520. The Authority has the power to suspend a security service provider if there is a proven case of improper conduct in terms of the act or commission of an offense as per the industry’s regulatory Act. It is worth noting that the total cost to acquire a security services licence in South Africa is therefore R3990, less than fifty thousand naira (N50,000), in stark contrast to the millions of naira required for a similar licence in Nigeria.
Businesses that only sell security products (as opposed to services) are not required to obtain a PSIRA licence. They however have the opportunity to register voluntarily with numerous professional organizations such as the Security Association of South Africa (SOSA), Electronic Security Distributors Association (ESDA) and South African Intruder Detection Services Association (SAIDSA). These organizations represent industry self-regulation and help to raise the standards of professionalism and competence of security products providers in South Africa. Those businesses that sell both services and product are of course required to obtain a PSIRA licence in accordance with the Act.
In summary, South Africa has one of the most highly privatized and globalized security sectors in the world. It is little wonder then that the standards of professionalism and effectiveness found in South Africa is only comparable to the levels found in the developed world. Within a decade, the PSIRA was able to transform the industry from one regarded as largely illegitimate to an industry perceived as crucial to the maintenance of law and order. The industry is not without its challenges, and as is common-placed in many developing countries, access to data and verifiable statistics is particularly challenging as a result of several factors including the difficulty in accessing government records. However, the purpose of this discussion is to highlight the overall successes of the industry as a direct result of the adoption of a global best practice approach to private security industry regulation. Through active regulation, South Africa has succeeded in improving the effectiveness and level of professionalism of its private security industry with reports from their Police Force showing that serious crime in the country had been reduced consistently over 4 years up to 2013 as a direct result of the activities of its private security industry.
Based on the observations discussed above, we make the following recommendations:
1. Independent review of the NSCDC Act (2003): A substantive and independent review of the provisions of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps Act No. 2 of 2003 and Amendment Act of 2007 will help to determine the suitability of NSCDC as the regulatory authority for the Nigerian private security industry and whether the current regulatory arrangement complies with global best practices.
2. Create an independent regulatory authority: In line with international best practice, an independent, self-financed agency, reporting directly to the Minister of Interior, is required to regulate the activities of both businesses and individuals performing licensable activities within the Nigerian private security sector. This will require significant amendments to the Private Guard Companies Act as well as the NSCDC Act. The Private Guard Companies Act (1986) in particular is obsolete and in dire need of a major review. The recommendation is for the new independent regulatory authority to take over the NSCDC’s current responsibility of regulating PGCs. This will allow NSCDC to focus on its core function as an independent security agency of the federal government, supporting the police and other security agencies in law enforcement and the protection of national infrastructure. The proposed name for the new regulatory agency is ‘’Private Security Industry Authority of Nigeria’’ (PSIAN) in line with global practice and with a regulatory scope that spans the entire private security industry, in recognition that the industry is not constituted of only private guard companies.
3. Review fee model for security licences: Regulatory agencies are not profitmaking organizations. The fees charged by the regulatory authority for private security in Nigeria should reflect the effort required to assess the suitability of the applicants for a private security licence. The total cost of obtaining a PGC licence in Nigeria is over one million naira (N1Million) compared to less than fifty thousand naira (N50000) for an equivalent licence in South Africa. The high cost of obtaining a PGC licence and the requirement for prospective PGCs to have a minimum share capital of ten million naira (N10Million) is arguably anti-small business and anti-entrepreneurial. An expensive licensing regime devoid of a level playing field which prevents start-ups, small business owners and self-employed players from entering the industry is bad for the economy, especially when the unemployment rate is so high and the current administration has made job creation a centerpiece of its economic policy.
4. Improve the PGC licence application process: The Regulatory process begins with the application for a PGC licence. The assessment process must be efficient and effective. The NSCDC assessment process for PGCs is messy and inefficient with unnecessary bottlenecks and duplication of roles between participating organizations. The aim of the process is to ensure that only fit and proper businesses are granted the PGC licence. The process should not be so bureaucratic that it encourages businesses to operate outside the radar of the regulatory authority. A new independent regulatory agency will provide an opportunity to design a streamlined licence application process that makes it cost-effective and easier for prospective private security businesses to obtain a licence, provided they meet the required fit and proper checks.
5. Increase the scope of regulation to include individuals: The current scope of regulation is limited to only businesses. With over 100,000 operatives employed in the private security industry, it is crucial that individuals applying to work in the industry are subjected to rigorous residency and criminality checks to ensure that criminals and illegal immigrants are not being deployed by PGCs to support public security agencies in maintaining law and order. In the UK, research by FDS International has shown that subjecting individual operatives to criminal records checks is considered to have had a positive impact on trust in Door Supervisors amongst 82% of security suppliers, and it was observed that there was ‘greater awareness of the role that Door Supervisors can play in providing security and community safety’ by almost three quarters of UK security Suppliers. The same UK research also showed that licensing individuals helped to increase their chances of gaining more responsibility in the future, gave them more ability to do their job, would lead to better pay and conditions in the long term, and gave them confidence to do their job. Subjecting private security operatives in Nigeria to identity, criminality and mental health checks as well as mandatory industry standard training will help to improve industry professionalism and increase public trust.
6. Mandatory standard training for all private security operatives: One of the objectives of regulating the private security industry must be to increase and standardize the skills and professionalism of those employed in the Industry. To achieve this objective, a mandatory standard sector-based training must be required for all private security operatives. Enforcing this licence condition is only feasible with a regulatory scope that includes individual operatives as recommended in section 4.5 above. Mandatory licensing for individuals wishing to perform any activities regulated as part of the private security industry will provide an opportunity for mandatory standard training to be included as pre-requisite for a licence application. This is certainly more practical than requiring private security businesses to provide evidence that all of their employees have undergone the relevant training.
In conclusion, we have discussed at great length some of the key issues preventing the Nigerian private security industry from becoming an effective and trusted partner of government security agencies in maintaining law and order. Chief among the issues raised is the need to establish an independent regulatory agency with the primary objective of ensuring that only fit and proper businesses and individuals are allowed to operate in the private security industry. Regulation does not end with granting a licence to operate. It is only the beginning of the regulatory process. An effective regulatory authority will define and attach clear conditions against licences granted to both businesses and individuals. The Authority should then actively and consistently monitor and enforce compliance with those licence conditions. The aim must be to help raise and maintain standards of professionalism within the industry and to win the trust and confidence of both the government security agencies and the Nigerian public, as effective partners in law enforcement.
Further work is required to properly review the Private Guards Act (1986) to ensure its appropriateness in addressing the current challenges facing the private security industry. Globally, private security is big business and the industry is one the highest employers of labour. A properly regulated private security industry will certainly boost the Nigerian economy by creating opportunities for new businesses to enter the market, helping to reduce unemployment and providing further support for government security agencies in fighting crime and helping to protect lives and property. The writers will gladly welcome an opportunity to make clarifications where necessary and to make further inputs in the proposed restructuring of the private security industry in Nigeria.
About the Authors:
Buchi is a management consultant specializing in UK public sector organizations. He spent 4 years at the Security Industry Authority (SIA) working on a new regulatory regime for the UK private security industry. Buchi worked with the UK Ministry of Justice to implement the “transforming rehabilitation programme” seeking to reform the UK probation services and reduce the annual cost of reoffending across England and Wales by £9.5 billion. He is currently managing an organisation transformation programme for the Education Funding Agency (EFA) under the UK Department for Education, where he is helping to implement business readiness strategies in support of the UK government’s universal ‘academisation’ policy. Buchi has a bachelor’s degree in Electronics & Communications Engineering from the University of Bristol and a master’s degree in Project & Enterprise Management from University College London. Buchi is an associate fellow of the Nigerian Leadership Initiative and is passionate about driving efficiency and impacting private sector competencies within public sector organizations.
Telephone: +44 753 402 8488
Don is a Security Consultant, Entrepreneur, Writer, Public Speaker and Change agent with over 17 years combined Military (Air Force), Private/Industrial Security, experience from Nigeria and the United Kingdom. He is the founder and CEO of Forenovate Technologies Limited. Don is routinely consulted by foreign and local organizations for his expert opinion on issues relating to national and personal security. Don champions an advocacy cause against insecurity under the banner of ‘’Nigerians Unite Against Insecurity and Terrorism’’ and ‘’Say No To Terrorism and Insurgency’’. He has a first degree in Industrial Chemistry and completed postgraduate modules in Forensic Engineering & Science from Cranfield University (Defence Academy). Don has numerous trainings and certifications in conflict management, security and communication from several internationally renowned institutions. His interest and expertise span Security, Risk, Emergency Planning, Research and Public Speaking, amongst others.