Detailed Factual Rebuttal to SSS Claims

1. Admission of PSIRA Compliance & Redaction Policy

• The SSS Claim: SSS admits Mr. Van Rensburg holds active PSIRA registration (PSIRA No. 144956), but claims statutory compliance is merely a "veneer" or "ruse."
• The Fact: Registration with the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) requires rigorous statutory vetting, active Grade A qualifications, and cleared Criminal Record Audits (CRC) via SAPS. It is not an administrative formality; it is the lawful threshold to operate in South Africa.
• Public Redaction Policy: Due to ongoing, targeted public doxxing campaigns, bad-faith regulatory interference, and harassment stemming from social media posts, ISS Investigations redacts active registration credentials from public website pages to preserve operational security and client confidentiality. Official PSIRA credentials remain active, compliant, and are made available upon formal legal, judicial, or verified client request.

2. Rebuttal of Internal "Dockets" & Fabricated Numbers

• The SSS Claim: Claims of a sudden surge in complaints, 18 named complainants, and an internal SSS file (Case RC 04/2026).
• The Fact: A private security company compiling internal numbers or self-generated "dockets" does not constitute proof of guilt, a criminal charge, or a court finding. SSS holds no judicial authority.
• Operational Context: In the private investigation sector, handling complex, high-conflict domestic and commercial matters occasionally results in disputes—particularly when clients demand illegal actions (such as unlawful wiretapping) or default on agreed fees. Unilateral internal lists generated by market competitors serve only to construct a biased "trial by media."

3. Clarification on Technical Services & Operational Deliverables

• The SSS Claim: Allegations of "slow bleed" deposit extractions, selling non-existent surveillance software, and failing to provide deliverables.
• The Fact: Every project undertaken by Rodney van Rensburg and ISS Investigations is governed by strict, mutual operational instructions. Retainers and task-specific fees cover active field labor, specialized counter-surveillance gear deployment, travel, digital forensics, and expert consultation time. Technical counter-surveillance sweeps and debugging require significant operational overhead regardless of whether unauthorized monitoring devices are detected.

4. The Henley Gebhardt Matter (ZZJ Livestock and Foods)

• The SSS Claim: Characterizing the dispute with Miss Henley Gebhardt as extortion, non-performance, and retaliatory posting.
• The Fact: SSS presents a completely distorted, one-sided narrative of a complex commercial dispute.
  • ISS Investigations performed professional technical counter-surveillance and consultation services as commissioned.
  • Any formal recovery actions, default notices, or public notices executed by ISS Investigations are lawful remedies utilized to protect business operations against contractual defaults, fraudulent non-payment, and malicious slander.
  • An interim protection order or unadjudicated police report (CAS number) represents an unadjudicated claim—not a legal verdict. Full counter-evidence, contractual records, and formal legal representations are being submitted to statutory law enforcement authorities to set the record straight.

The Business Model Behind SSS "Public Warnings" & Hypocrisy

The public is encouraged to look objectively at the operational strategy utilized across these social media releases and observe feedback directly from the public under their own posts:

• Public Exposure of SSS Practices: Ironically, while SSS accuses independent investigators of non-performance and upfront deposit extractions, members of the public frequently report experiencing identical issues with SSS itself. For example, comments on their own social media distribution channels highlight these practices:
  "Please look into SSS Investigations, they did precisely the same with my wife. Asked a huge upfront deposit to start immediately and just did nothing." — Public comment by Wihan Fourie on SSS social media release.
• Contradictory Disclaimers: SSS explicitly includes disclaimers on their site warning that "people caught on the wrong side of the law try to discredit Mike Bolhuis on social media to create doubt." Yet, SSS employs that exact tactic against registered independent investigators—publishing unverified claims online while denying individuals due process.
• Evading the Courts: By publishing "alerts" to social media channels (such as their latest post about Rodney Charl Van Rensburg) rather than allowing judicial processes to conclude, SSS attempts to damage business reputations and enforce a commercial monopoly within the South African private investigation industry.

Legal Recourse & Protection of Rights

Rodney Charl van Rensburg and ISS Investigations have instructed legal counsel to pursue all statutory remedies:

• Cybercrimes Act 19 of 2020: Publishing or distributing harmful, false data messages intended to destroy business reputation or cause financial loss carries direct criminal liability under South African law.
• Civil Defamation & Loss of Earnings: Actionable claims for business disruption, loss of revenue, and intentional trade interference are being compiled against all entities participating in the dissemination of these libelous statements.
• Regulatory Transparency: ISS Investigations welcomes any legitimate review by PSIRA or the South African Police Service (SAPS), confident that objective investigations will confirm total operational integrity.

Verified Corporate Identity

Clients, legal representatives, and statutory bodies are encouraged to rely on official channels rather than social media campaigns.