PSC Kenya common mistakes
PSC Kenya · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the Private Security Regulatory Authority (PSRA) as a voluntary industry association and answering that a guard can be deployed before registration or licensing is complete, instead of stating that guards must be registered and licensed and security firms licensed under the Private Security Regulation Act, 2016 before operating.
Candidates study the Code of Conduct and operational topics but skim the statute, so they collapse the regulator, the firm licence and the individual guard licence into one vague idea and assume employment alone makes deployment lawful.
What to do instead
Memorise the Act as a three-layer structure: the Authority (PSRA) regulates, the firm holds a licence, the guard holds a registration certificate and identification. For any scenario question, ask which layer is missing and answer that deployment without it is unlawful.
When a scenario describes a guard being offered money by a driver at a gate, the candidate answers only 'refuse the bribe' and omits reporting the offer to the supervisor and recording it, or conversely answers that the guard should handle it quietly to avoid embarrassment.
Ethics questions feel obvious, so candidates give a one-line moral answer and stop, missing that the Code of Conduct requires integrity plus transparency through reporting, and that unreported offers are themselves a disciplinary risk.
What to do instead
Use a fixed three-step template for every ethics scenario: refuse or decline the improper act, report it up the chain and record it in the occurrence book, then continue duties professionally. Practise applying it to gifts, bribes, favours and pressure from superiors.
Confusing authentication with authorisation at an access control point, for example admitting a person because they hold a valid staff card even when their card does not permit that zone, floor or time, or letting a known face through without any check.
Everyday familiarity breeds 'recognition access'; candidates treat a badge as a universal pass and forget that access rights are specific to area, time and purpose.
What to do instead
Apply the three-question check at every entry: is the identity genuine (authentication), does this person have a right to this specific area now (authorisation), and is the entry recorded (accountability). Answer scenario questions by naming which of the three failed.
Writing incident reports in vague, evaluative language such as 'the man was drunk and aggressive and we handled the situation', with no time, location, exact words, actions taken, witnesses or persons involved.
Guards report from memory in a hurry at shift end and describe conclusions rather than observations, because nobody has drilled the report structure.
What to do instead
Draft every report to a fixed skeleton: date, time, exact location, who, what was observed or said, action taken, persons present, property involved, signature and time of entry. Replace adjectives with facts, and write 'what I saw and heard', not 'what I think'.
Describing patrols as random walking and answering that a patrol is done 'when there is time', rather than explaining clocking or checkpoint systems, varied routes and timings, checking of doors, windows, lights and fire equipment, and logging each round.
Candidates underestimate patrol as a low-skill task and answer in generalities, missing the deterrent and detection purpose and the documented route.
What to do instead
Learn patrol as a cycle: plan the route, vary timing to avoid predictability, check specified points and record each one, note and report anomalies, then hand over. In answers, always mention the record (clock, book or log) because unrecorded patrol is treated as not done.
In an emergency scenario the candidate jumps straight to fighting the fire or chasing the intruder and never mentions raising the alarm, calling emergency services, evacuating occupants, accounting for people at the assembly point, or preserving the scene for police.
Action films and adrenaline shape intuition; candidates answer the dramatic physical act and skip the sequence of life safety first.
What to do instead
Answer emergencies in a fixed priority order: raise the alarm and call for help, protect and evacuate life, contain only if trained and safe, then secure the scene, account for people and hand over to the emergency services with a written report.
Giving first aid answers that begin with moving the casualty, giving food or drink, or removing a helmet or embedded object, and omitting the primary check of danger, response, airway, breathing and circulation plus calling for an ambulance.
Candidates remember dramatic interventions like carrying someone or pulling out glass, and forget that the first duty is scene safety and the ABC sequence.
What to do instead
Anchor every first aid answer to the sequence: danger to self and casualty, check response, airway, breathing, circulation, control severe bleeding, keep the casualty warm, call emergency services, do not move unless in immediate danger, and hand over to professionals.
Treating human rights and use of force as separate topics, so the candidate answers a restraint scenario by justifying force purely on the intruder's behaviour, without mentioning necessity, proportionality, minimum force, the threshold before force is used, or the duty to report and account for every use of force.
Force feels like a practical skill and rights feel like theory, so candidates never link them, and they assume any resistance justifies any response.
What to do instead
Use the necessity and proportionality test on every force scenario: was force necessary, was the amount the minimum needed, was it proportionate to the threat, was it stopped when resistance ceased, and was it reported. Add the specific duty owed to vulnerable persons such as children, the elderly, the sick and people with disabilities.
In observation and evidence questions the candidate answers that they would discuss the suspect's description with colleagues, confront the person, or rely on memory, instead of recording description and time immediately, noting what was actually seen versus assumed, and preserving items without contaminating them.
Guards trust memory and want to act fast; they do not realise that discussion between witnesses contaminates accounts and that evidence handled casually loses value in court.
What to do instead
Follow the observe, record, report rule: note time, place, description and direction of travel immediately and independently, separate witnesses before statements, do not touch or move items unless life is at risk, and keep a continuity record of anything handled.
Answering communication and customer care questions with the guard's own opinion or a confrontational script, for example arguing with an angry visitor, using sarcasm, or refusing to explain a procedure, and omitting the radio discipline of clear, brief, structured messages and the greeting, listening and explaining steps of customer care.
Candidates see these as soft topics and answer from personality rather than from a procedure, and they forget that a guard's tone and radio wording are part of the professional standard.
What to do instead
Learn a short service script (greet, listen without interrupting, explain the reason for the rule, offer the correct route or contact, thank the person) and a radio format (who you are, where you are, what you need). In conflict, answer de-escalation first, never retaliation.