As published by Ntombi Nkosi in the African Times
Aviation Coordination Services (ACS), the entity tasked with providing Hold Baggage Screening (HBS) at South African airports, has accused Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) of obstructing security upgrades that could have prevented a recent security breach at OR Tambo International Airport.
Become an insider. Subscribe to our newsletter for more top trending stories like this!
This comes in the wake of a May 25 incident in which a passenger boarded a flight from Johannesburg to Ethiopia with two training hand grenades in their checked luggage—grenades that were only detected upon arrival at Bole International Airport in Addis Ababa.
While ACSA publicly blamed ACS for the lapse and announced it would take disciplinary and legal steps, ACS has now hit back, stating that ACSA has been unlawfully interfering with its operations, blocking critical equipment upgrades, and attempting to illegally terminate its services—all of which, ACS says, places aviation security at serious risk.
Equipment Upgrade Blocked for Years
According to ACS, for the past eight years, ACSA has repeatedly obstructed efforts to modernise baggage screening equipment, preventing the implementation of cutting-edge 3D and AI-enabled technology that significantly reduces the chance of human error.
“Had ACS been permitted to carry out the long-term HBS equipment upgrade and replacement, the security incident that took place on 25 May may well have been avoided,” said Janke Tolmay, spokesperson for ACS.
ACS explained that it had brought multiple urgent High Court applications against ACSA to allow for interim replacements of outdated Level 3 backup machines. It won three consecutive court orders between November 2024 and May 2025, but ACSA allegedly continued to resist compliance.
“This obstructionist stance makes it increasingly difficult for ACS to carry out its mandate to the airlines and, by extension, the flying public,” said Tolmay.
Delay in Notification Raises Eyebrows
ACS also criticised ACSA for delaying notification of the security breach. Although Ethiopian Airlines alerted ACSA on 28 May 2025, ACS says it was only informed of the incident on 8 June—ten days later—thereby delaying its own investigation.
Once notified, ACS launched an internal probe, which confirmed that the grenades were Free From Explosives (FFE), typically used for training and safe for transport. The items had been detected at Level 1 and 2 but were mistakenly cleared at Level 3 by a certified screener.
While the screener was qualified and had over a decade of experience, ACS immediately suspended him and later dismissed him after a disciplinary hearing. “We maintain a zero-tolerance policy toward security breaches,” Tolmay said.
However, she stressed that the root cause of the incident lay in the outdated equipment—something ACS has been trying to address for years.
ACSA Fires Back, Cites Legal and Compliance Issues
In its own media statement, ACSA claimed that ACS has no legal authority to provide HBS services and is operating without a contract, on an “evergreen” basis since it took over HBS functions from ACSA in 1998.
ACSA alleged that ACS’s operations violate several pieces of legislation, including the Constitution, the Public Finance Management Act, and the Civil Aviation Act. The airport authority said it has reported the matter to law enforcement agencies, including the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks), the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), and the Auditor-General.
Become an insider. Subscribe to our newsletter for more top trending stories like this!
“ACS is not recognised under civil aviation legislation and is operating outside the bounds of public procurement law,” ACSA stated. The agency said it has issued a tender to take over the HBS function and procure the appropriate equipment itself. However, it is currently restrained by a court interdict obtained by ACS, which prevents it from implementing this insourcing decision until a final ruling is made.
ACSA says it has been granted leave to appeal and is awaiting a court date.
Heightened Security Measures Now in Place
ACSA has since introduced a range of new security interventions in collaboration with the South African Police Service (SAPS), Border Management Authority, State Security Agency (SSA), and the Ekurhuleni Metro Police Department (EMPD). These include increased surveillance, joint oversight forums, and enhanced training.
“ACSA reiterates its unwavering commitment to the safety and security of all passengers and airport users,” the agency said in a statement issued by Acting Corporate Communications Head Adele Nkomo.
A History of Legal Battles and Blunders
This is not the first time the two entities have clashed over HBS responsibilities.
In 2019, ACSA made a similar move to insource the service, only to reverse its decision weeks later after ACS challenged the move in court. Since then, tensions have escalated, with ACSA making repeated attempts to wrest control from ACS, while the latter maintains that it is the legally mandated entity established by airlines to perform the function.
Industry observers have also criticised ACSA for mismanagement and strategic missteps over the years. These include:
- The controversial failed biometric pilot project at OR Tambo in 2021, which was scrapped after R25 million was spent without visible returns.
- Power outages at major airports due to delayed infrastructure upgrades.
- Procurement irregularities were flagged by the Auditor-General in its 2023 report.
What’s at Stake
With aviation security under the spotlight and public trust at risk, both entities appear entrenched in a legal and operational deadlock—one that aviation insiders warn could have serious implications.
“Security in aviation is non-negotiable. This is not the time for a turf war,” said a senior industry analyst who asked not to be named. “The focus should be on fixing the system, not playing blame games.”
As the legal battle continues, travellers and airlines are left wondering whether South Africa’s busiest airport is truly safe—and whether the people responsible for keeping it that way can put the public’s interest above corporate rivalry.
This article has been published in partnership with the African Times.
Become an insider. Subscribe to our newsletter for more top trending stories like this!
