Battle looms over South Africa’s biggest security company’s fire service

Two major South African metros have raised concerns about Fidelity ADT’s private firefighting service, which the company insists operates legally.

The City of Tshwane and the City of Cape Town have raised alarm over what they claim to be illegal private fire services.

Specifically, both metros have accused Fidelity’s SecureFire service of operating without the necessary approval or authority, rendering the service illegal.

Fidelity, South Africa’s largest security company, launched its SecureFire service in Gauteng in 2023 as a subscription-based private fire response network. This service now operates countrywide and has responded to over 1,000 fire incidents.

However, on 30 June 2025, the City of Tshwane raised alarm over the rising number of private fire services within its jurisdiction that, according to the metro, operate illegally.

“These entities are functioning without legal authority, regulatory approval, or formal agreements with the municipality in direct contravention of national and local legislation governing emergency services,” the city claimed. 

“This development presents serious safety, legal, and operational concerns that the city cannot ignore.”

Tshwane explained that these illegal operations present numerous challenges, including interfering with the city’s command and control structures during emergency incidents.

The city claimed these services also compromise incident scene management and operate without public accountability. 

“Moreover, they draw water from municipal fire hydrants without authorisation, contributing to unaccounted water losses and violating city bylaws,” it said.

The City of Tshwane said it has filed a court application to force these services to comply with the applicable legislation.

Alongside Tshwane, the City of Cape Town has also raised concerns about these private fire services.

Cape Town’s chief fire officer, Clinton Manuel, told GroundUp that these services are “unlawful and constitutionally impermissible”.

He said the city opposes private firefighting services’ operation in its jurisdiction and wrote to Fidelity in May 2025 to say that the service is unregulated.

Fidelity’s response

In response to the cities’ allegations, Fidelity said SecureFire was established to offer a structured, lawful, and customer-focused alternative to traditional fire response models.

Fidelity CEO Wahl Bartmann said the company does not seek to replace public services but to enhance fire readiness for subscribed customers who choose to invest in additional protection.

“Before launching Fidelity SecureFire, Fidelity undertook extensive legal reviews, including consultations with its in-house legal team and formal legal opinions from senior counsel,” he said. 

“The outcome confirmed that the company operates fully within the boundaries of the Fire Brigade Services Act, municipal by-laws, and other applicable laws.”

Bartmann claimed that no provision in this legislation prohibits a private entity from offering firefighting or fire prevention services to paying customers.

“We are a private, contract-based fire response provider, not a public or municipal service,” he clarified.

He added that Fidelity SecureFire’s operation is entirely self-sufficient. Its fleet includes fully equipped fire response vehicles, 20,000-litre mobile water tankers, and proprietary suppression systems.

This ensures that the company operates independently from municipal infrastructure. 

In addition, the service’s teams are internationally certified, and the company employs a nationally coordinated deployment model focused on speed and readiness.

Regarding allegations that the service is not integrated with municipal control centres, Fidelity confirmed that such integration is not a legal requirement. 

“Our customers contact us directly through dedicated channels. The responsibility to alert local authorities remains with the property owner or occupant,” Bartmann said.

“We acknowledge that innovation can challenge legacy systems. But resistance to change should not cloud the legality or value of responsible private service models.”