Minister on investigation into recent escape from Durban Westville Correctional Centre, appointment of new National Commissioner & Chief Finance Officer, Kuthama Sinthumule prison riot; Department on dealings with organised labour, Education and Training,

Meeting report

Minister on appointment of a new National Commissioner of Correctional Services
The Hon. Ms Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, the Minister of Correctional Services guaranteed that a new Commissioner and Chief Finance Officer would be appointed. The Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) had set up a task team. It had been decided that Ms Xoliswa Sibeko, the former Commisioner, had a case to answer. Disciplinary hearings had acquitted Ms Sibeko, and she had placed Ms Sibeko special leave. The labour court would take 12 months to settle the matter; hence an alternative exit had to be found. Ms Sibeko’s contract had been due to expire in August 2010. The Department had a need for stability, and the Minister did not want to wait for 12 months. She said that trust between her and Ms Sibeko had broken down. Concerning determination of benefits, she said that Ms Sibeko’s contract had been redetermined to end on 22 February 2010, with the remainder of her contract to be paid out. The National Commissioner had not suffered financial loss. Ms Sibeko had not refused to be paid out.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) asked if the Minister would be prepared to state how much had been paid out.

The Minister replied that it was a confidential matter between employer and employee. However, she was prepared to disclose that it was most probably a smaller amount than most people would have expected. It was less than a million rand.

Ms B Blaai (COPE) noted her appreciation that the Minister was prepared to keep members of Parliament informed.

Mr A Fritz (DA) referred to the appointment of a Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The post had been vacant. Mr Patrick Gillingham had been suspended for two years with pay.

The Minister replied that Mr Gillingham had not been the CFO at the time. He had been transferred to Mpumalanga as Regional Commissioner. Formal charges against him were initiated. There had been an Acting CFO.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee was concerned with stability. It was unacceptable to have acting top officials. He asked about the terms of current employment. The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had had many National Commissioners in the years preceding.

Dr Jenny Schreiner, Acting National Commissioner of Correctional Services, said that the CFO appointment would be a permanent position.

The Minister said that the money had been paid out to Ms Sibeko, and that things would take their course. There had been suggestions to the media that Ms Sibeko would challenge, but the position of Government had been explained to lawyers. It was hard to appear before the PC whilst dealing with lawyers. Once a matter had gone to the Committee, it became public.

Minister on investigation into the recent escape from Durban Westville Correctional Centre
The Minister reported that on 21 February, nine Awaiting Trial Detainees (ATDs) escaped from Medium A at Durban Westville Centre. Their escape plans had become known in November of the previous year, and they had been moved from Durban to Kokstad. One of their number had escaped eight times before. The Minister had conferred with the National Commissioner to appoint a task team from outside KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). The Commissioner of Police was consulted. The task team worked together with a KZN Regional Committee team. Operational relations were investigated. There had been failure to comply with policy and operational procedures. The matter was sub judice, but the following could be disclosed:

The escapees had obtained an unauthorised cell phone. The question was who had brought it to them.

The bus had not been searched, and the wheels had been tampered with beforehand.

Detainees used a makeshift rope to lower themselves from the seventh floor. They ran across the roof of the fifth floor, scaled the fence, cut through an outer fence and broke a fence post. They escaped in a vehicle that belonged to an inmate. Collusion between officers and inmates was suspected.

There had been poor management of service providers. Service providers had to be thoroughly searched. They could bring in tools, and check out leaving some behind.

The dog unit did not patrol at the time of the escape. The unit claimed that it had been on duty until 17h00, but had in fact left at 15h45.

No electrified fence surrounded the centre. Durban Westville was not a maximum security facility.
 
The shift system was found to be inadequate.

There was a lack of managerial leadership.

There was a lack of technical security measures in that section.

The Minister said that 45 recommendations had been tabled. Those included:

The inmate who did not escape, but had aided the others, would also be charged. There would be disciplinary action against 10 officials. There were no recommendations about criminal liability. There had to be technical countermeasures against cell phone use. It was generally easy to search for smuggled goods, unless such goods were hidden up the rectum. There were chairs that could detect objects thus hidden, which would have to be obtained. There had to be compliance with minimum security standards, with regard to fencing. The number of cell phones that had been confiscated pointed to non compliance. Security infrastructure had to be reviewed.

The Minister continued that interface between different categories of inmate had been taking place. Inmates would visit another section and fail to return to their own. Technical measures had to be utilised. Previous escape plans had been revealed by closed circuit television. Escapees had been visited in Kokstad. They had been re-arrested, and charged immediately with escape. One of them received a three year sentence for that. Two had already been sentenced. The judiciary had moved with speed.

Minister on Kuthama Sithumule prison riot
The Minister also reported on a riot that had taken place at Kuthama Sithumule. Inmates had rioted and set fire to offices. She had visited the prison. Inmate grievances included the lack of water. Management had failed to create a reserve. The matter had been raised with the Acting National Commissioner. Inmates involved in teaching protested against their gratuity. Word had gotten around that Government centres received better gratuity. The Minister had demanded to see the ringleaders. It was obvious that the riot had been suppressed with great brutality. Their wounds had not been attended to, some could hardly walk, and they had been left in cells without blankets. The fact that staff seemed to do as they liked was a challenge. She had last seen such brutality under apartheid. It was a beautiful centre, yet the extent of brutality was shocking. The matter would have to be investigated.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would also be visiting Durban.

Department of Correctional Services: Education Services to Offenders: briefing
The Chairperson explained that representatives of the Department of Basic Education and the Department of Higher Education and Training had been invited to the meeting in order to have all who would make decisions, in one meeting. He posed the question of whether offenders younger than 18 were going to be left out in the cold, as far as minimum educational requirements were concerned. A 15 year old sent to prison could emerge 20 years later with only a Grade 2 Qualification. The Department of Basic Education, the Department of Higher Education and Training, and the DCS had to talk to each other.

Dr Schreiner remarked that the current relationship with the Department of Health was similar to that with the Department of Basic Education and the Department of Higher Education and Training. Basic education was one of the 12 outcomes of Government implementation forums. The DCS wanted to be a key partner. There had to be information systems between the DCS and the Department of Basic Education and the Department of Higher Education and Training Education. DCS had to communicate its performance to the Department of Basic Education and the Department of Higher Education and Training. Regional problems had to be faced. Subcommittees had to focus on specific areas.

The DCS set out objectives for education.  The aim was to provide education opportunities to offenders that were needs-based and market related, and to equip them with knowledge and skills towards self-reliance. There was an Early Childhood Development (ECD) programme, in partnership with the Department of Basic Education (DoBE). The Pre-ABET programme, also in partnership with the DoBE, was offered to offenders identified as illiterate. Adult Education and Training (AET) resided under the Ministry of Higher Education, with 97 centres already accredited to offer the programme. Further Education and Training (FET), also in partnership with the DoBE, was offered at a number of centres. FET Vocational, in partnership with the Department of Higher Education, referred to the National Certificate Vocational for levels 2 – 4. There were infrastructure problems of absorbing large amounts of learners. Computer Based Training (CBT) was offered at a number of centres. The Directorate of Formal Education had embarked on the “Centres of Specialisation” project, in which one correctional centre per region would operate as a full time school for National Curriculum Statement (NCS) implementation.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked if representatives from the Department of Basic Education and the Department of Higher Education and Training wished to comment.

The Department of Basic Education emphasised the importance of a collective process. There was a Head Committee for collaboration across departments. Below that level were technical committees. Accredited information centres had to be engaged. The relationship between the two Departments had to be formalised as an ongoing mechanism.

The Department of Higher Education and Training welcomed the opportunity for collaboration. The system of Head Committee and subcommittees also existed for Further Education and Training (FET). There was the issue of planning together. A three year planning cycle for purposes of management and administration was in order. The DCS had to furnish data on education demands, and determine which learning facilities were close to prisons. Education was a part of rehabilitation; it would be well to think in terms of a continuum of skills. The DCS and the Department of Labour had utilised the National Skills Fund before, and that relationship could be resuscitated.

The Chairperson remarked that the same question was valid as when the Committee and the DCS had engaged with Health, namely who was to be the custodian of health in correctional centres? The same question applied: who was to be the custodian of education in this case? The DCS did not have sufficient educators. He asked if it became the responsibility of Education.
 
The Chairperson added that the Committee had travelled the country and visited facilities. There were perfect infrastructures and machinery, but the inmates were sitting in cells. There were not enough artisans and welders to train inmates. The DSC had pleaded lack of funds for education. The Committee would want to see inmates at school or at work.

The Department of Higher Education and Training responded that it was necessary to determine education needs. The Department of Higher Education and Training could engage with DCS to quantify needs. The NSF could support training, but needs had to be known.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) said that she had visited a prison, where inmates had told her that they were not supplied with learning materials, and yet were expected to write examinations. They could not get hold of information to register for matriculation. Officials could not clarify the matter. She asked about time frames for future plans. When she visited a centre in Kimberley, she noticed three trucks carrying prisoners. The prisoners included first time offenders and habitual criminals grouped together.

The Department of Basic Education replied concerning time frames, that the quality of education in different centres was uneven. Some centres, like Durban, had attained a high standard. There had to be an audit for strengths and weaknesses. Properly, the correctional sentence plan had to commence on admission. The inmate’s level of education had to be noted. The Department agreed that the situation at Kimberley was unacceptable; there could not be a melting pot of medium and maximum security prisoners in the same classroom. Preparation would be done in the current year to implement strategies the following year.

Mr Luvuyo Eqili, Director of Formal Education, DCS, said that in the previous year, the Department of Education had undertaken to start training in January, but when the process was devolved to the provinces, education had not commenced after 3 months. The provincial office of education could not fund training, and the DCS had to pay from its own resources.

The Chairperson brought the discussion back to the lack of learning materials.

Mr Eqili asked which centre had been referred to.

Ms Phaliso replied that it was the old Kimberley centre.

Mr Eqili noted that large quantities of materials had indeed been bought.

The Chairperson remarked that it was not about a given facility, but about the principle. The country had seen too many years of schools without text books. It need not continue in prison. Learners could not wait till the middle of the year for books.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) remarked, with reference to education in a prison environment, that inmates who studied needed separate cells. The presence of idle and bored fellow inmates, not occupied with studies, could distract learners. He had read a letter form an inmate who studied through Unisa, and had been placed in a communal cell, where he was disturbed by other inmates. He advised that inmates be trained as teachers.

The Department of Basic Education replied that where possible, inmates who showed a will to study were separated from others, at the inmates’ request. Where centres were too overcrowded to allow that, inmates who studied could at least be grouped together in communal cells. There were offenders who were trained teachers, and they were used as peer educators.

Mr Eqili added that 200 inmates had been trained as peer educators.

Ms A Mashisi (ANC) asked about education at Thohoyandou.

The Department of Basic Education replied that there were many illiterates at Thohoyandou, with only one classroom. More were needed, but there were infrastructure difficulties.

Mr Eqili remarked that it was necessary to look at the economic makeup of areas surrounding prisons, to gear training towards that.

The Chairperson remarked that it was not enough to say that Thohoyandou had many illiterates and no classrooms and let it go at that. There had to be solutions offered.

The Department of Basic Education responded that the Department would visit centres to determine the levels of service. Management Areas would be looked at.

Mr S Abram (ANC) noted that in the 2007/08 finance year, 20 000 inmates had been targeted for education, and 15 500 had been reached. The NCS had been part of the problem. He asked how enhanced participation of inmates could be planned for, and how offenders could be motivated. He saluted the efforts of DCS and the Departments of Basic Education and Higher Education and Training to bring learning to prisons.

Mr Fritz remarked that collaboration with other departments was commendable. He said that the lack of personnel in correctional service was due to insufficient salaries. Within the ranks of 165 000 prisoners there were many teachers. Goodwood had developed an excellent programme of peer teaching. A problem to be overcome was that it was difficult to align teaching time with the prison schedule. Concerning registration with the Council of Education, he asked if Voorberg was accredited.

Dr Schreiner replied that salaries would change with the institution of the Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD). The DSC wanted to see where the concept of inmates as educators was working, and sought information about time spent in class. The seven day establishment would assist in the development of specialized centres. There would be a follow up on Voorberg.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) said that she had visited Barberton prison to find that there were no educators. Juveniles were sitting around, doing nothing. There was one educator, an inmate, who worked without a stipend. There was provision for stipends in all provinces, except Mpumalanga.

The Department of Basic Education answered that there would be a follow up on stipends. If there were no offenders for teaching, the task fell to volunteers.

Ms M Molebatsi (ANC) remarked that there had to be reflection on the kind of inmate developed through teaching. Education for inmates had to an applied education, geared towards helping inmates understand their own situation.

Dr Schreiner responded that there was such an approach to rehabilitation interventions. There were specific interventions to assist sex offenders, for instance, and violent offenders were instructed in anger management. Educational needs were defined as formal education, skills and literacy. There was skills training in workshops. But there were also life skills programmes.
Inmates had to be profiled on admission to determine needs. She said that she took the point about applied education.

The Department of Basic Education added that there was a movement away from a one size fits all approach. The DCS considered purposes and outcomes. To be in the skills trade one needed basic education. Much depended on the structure of the sentence plan. If an inmate wanted to become a carpenter, he needed career counselling to guide him towards that. Some inmates were too young to know what they would want to be. There had to be needs based training.

The Chairperson remarked that it related to the question of who would be the custodian of education in corrections centres. He asked if the Department of Basic Education would be able to design a programme to make someone into a carpenter. In the case of medical parole, doctors were expected to advise the Department. A silo approach would not do.

Mr Eqili remarked that there was a dropout from educational programmes due to infrastructure problems. There were centres so small that classes were held in a passage; when winter came, classes were discontinued because of the cold. Some offenders had such limited options outside that they could not be motivated to acquire learning they felt they could not use. The DCS had looked at a national strategy.

Ms N Mdaka (ANC) said that she appreciated the fact that offenders were attending school, but if such attendance was full-time, when would offenders serve their sentences? Such offenders would not even feel as if they were in prison.

Mr Fihla remarked that education in prisons was linked to the movement from retributive to restorative justice. Inmates came into prison, and then they had to go back into society. Society had to be taught that inmates accepted punishment. In South Africa, prison was stigmatised. Industry was reluctant to employ people with a criminal record. Correction had to help inmates to develop the ability to fend for themselves. That might mean that an educated inmate with a trade like carpentry would have to consider the route of self-employment.

The Chairperson asked if there was monitoring of inmates beyond release.

Dr Schreiner replied that there was monitoring while an offender was on parole, but not after release. With an integrated information system it would be possible to keep track of educational progress and recidivism.

Minister’s response
The Minister of Correctional Services had joined the meeting after attending a meeting of the Cabinet. She responded to some of the education issues discussed.

The Minister noted that the number of juveniles in correctional centres was escalating. Juveniles were flooding to the centres from dysfunctional families, and often from informal settlements. It was essential for such youth, often as young as 14 or 15, to have a sentence plan. There had to be a move away from releasing life sentence prisoners at the age of 40 years with no qualifications or skills. Incentives had to be found for juveniles, and backed up with academic support. It was essential that juveniles benefit from learning during a sentence. Juveniles from dysfunctional homes were disadvantaged to begin with. Corrections had to invest in the future. Sentence plans had to be geared towards people from rural and dysfunctional backgrounds who could not depend on a learning infrastructure. Some may have had very little schooling at all. The Committee and the Ministry supported education in prisons. In countries like the United States, schooling was compulsory. The constitutional right of a child to learn could not be compromised. There had to be a drive to change a general state of mind. She called on Committee members for their support.

Department of Correctional Services: update on organised labour
The Chairperson asked the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) to provide an update on dealings with organised labour.

Dr Schreiner said that a written report would follow. There had been interaction with labour and the situation had been clarified.  Mechanisms had to be put in place. Organised labour had been denied access to premises to organise. Organising and recognition rights were included in the Labour Relations Act. The employer and employees had to define the parameters within which interaction would take place. An agreement had been reached that there could be organisation on premises, but outside of work hours. Labour was not entitled to use state resources for organization. Once a membership figure of 9 000 had been attained, there could be a recognition agreement, appointment of shop stewards, and the establishment of a labour relations forum. There could be deductions against the Personnel Salary system (Persal) through stop orders.

Mr Selfe asked about its application at provincial level.

Dr Schreiner replied that there had been discussions with regional commissioners the previous week.

Department of Correctional Services: an overview of the Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards (CSPBs) and the appointment of new Parole Boards for the next five years
The Chairperson prefaced the DCS briefing with some background remarks. He noted that the Portfolio Committee had met with representatives of parole boards. The DCS had subsequently met with parole board chairpersons, with Committee members also present.  The term of current parole boards would expire in July, and the Committee wanted information about the process, and the position of parole boards as a cog in the wheel of dispensing justice. There had been inmate complaints that there parole dates had come and gone without attention. There were vacancies for parole board chairs and deputies. The parole boards seemingly did not get support from the Department. Facilities were still being built. He asked about the state of readiness. The Department had to clarify what was done when an inmate complained that he was sentenced in 1990, and had not yet had a parole hearing.

Mr T Motseki, Chief Deputy Commissioner, DCS, said that the list of contracts for parole board chairpersons overlapped. The present focus was on the history of parole boards to evaluate lessons learnt. An outline of the process undertaken would be made to identify challenges.

Mr P de Bruin, Deputy Director, Pre-release Settlement, DCS, said that with the current parole boards had been established in 2005. Chairpersons were appointed and trained, and Corrective Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB) members were contracted for different terms. The Minister had called a parole summit to review the position of the CSBS. Focus areas were the application of medical parole, and the functioning of parole boards over the preceding five years. An audit on medical parole had been conducted in August 2009. It was found that medical conditions in medical reports made it difficult for people without medical training to make assumptions about life expectancy. Foreign nationals could not be deported; Home Affairs could not transport them. Medical practitioners had a responsibility to prolong life; hence recommendations were not always based on the premise of “to die a dignified death”. When offenders were not released on medical grounds, the DCS provided medical treatment.

The parole summit found that parole board management procedures were not clear. There were delays in the filling of vacant positions. There was lack of clarity about the role of sister departments. Members had been appointed at different times for different terms. Boards had not been appointed for a specific term. There were roving boards that had to travel extensively. In future, there would be a fixed five year term for parole boards from 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2015. Contracts which expired after 31 July 2010 would be renegotiated. Recruitment would be through advertising in local communities. Offenders would henceforth be transferred to parole board seats. Revising of medical parole legislation and policy was under way. The parole review process was addressed in the Incarceration Framework.

Mr Motseki added that since 2004 offenders have known their parole date. Guidelines had become clearer. Information was there for offenders.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe asked about the new Incarceration Framework and whether it could clear up confusion.

Mr Motseki replied that the Criminal Procedure Act would be the guideline. Nothing would be taken away from legal rights. Certain parts of the Act had been repealed. It would be possible to deal with confusion in the current arrangement. There would be a single guiding document.

Mr Selfe referred to the medical parole audit. Slide 5 of the briefing mentioned that applications were processed by health care professionals, despite the fact that the medical practitioner had not recommended placement on medical grounds. He asked who currently made the final decision about the terminally ill.

Mr Motseki replied that who decides was under review. It was not a case where the Department made recommendations. The law was clear about the responsibilities of the parole boards. The head of the centre had the final say. For cases above four months, medical professionals had to make recommendations, and the parole boards had to decide. Decisions had to be made, based on expertise. There had to be knowledge based decisions.

Mr A Fritz (DA) remarked that it would be well for parole board chairpersons to have legal training. There had to be a capacity to interpret the law.

Mr Motseki responded that it was an important question that would be examined when amendment of the law was dealt with. However, chairpersons also had to deal with other issues, such as public security and reintegration.

Mr Fritz said that he had not meant legal capacity in a narrow sense. Lawyers performed well on parole boards, because they could remain disinterested. Priests were liable to romanticise. He asked about performance management. What were the targets for parole boards?

Mr Motseki replied that there were parole boards that had to rove between different venues, which hampered their performance. Stable boards could do more. It had been proposed that inmates rather be moved to where parole boards were sitting. Important goals were to stabilise percentages, and equality of performance. The Minister had raised questions about the minimum size of parole boards. Some facilities had to be improved.

Mr Fritz asked about the renegotiations of expired contracts, whether there would be a five year term for all parole boards, and recruitment delays.

Mr Motseki replied that when parole boards were implemented, the mistake had been made of appointing persons, not boards. Vacancies had to go to the end of the term, but contracts overlapped. The Minister would henceforth define the terms and make appointments. All boards had to commence at the same time. Existing contracts had been based on the assumption that parole board members were paid employees, when in fact such members received an allowance. Delays were caused by the overlapping of contracts. An extension had been requested to renegotiate for consistent contracts.

Ms M Nyanda referred to the intention to move offenders to parole board venues, rather than for the parole boards to do the travelling. She said that parole boards had complained that they had no travel allowance, and sometimes could not reach the parole board venue. She asked if the capacity was there to move offenders around, seeing that the capacity had been lacking to move the parole boards. She said that she represented a rural constituency, where people felt that they had been left out.

Mr Motseki answered that it was easier to move people around in the management area, where a number of small facilities were situated within a 50 kilometre radius. Long distance moving of offenders would be avoided. It would only happen when an offender from the Western Province had been arrested in Johannesburg, for instance. The parole boards were responsible for all people under their jurisdiction, and had to deal with travel arrangements.

Mr Fihla noted that when parole boards were introduced, the idea had been to attract people from the outside with vested interests. The problem with police participation was that the police had an interest to keep people in prison. He asked if there were still some parole boards that were not fully fledged.

Mr Motseki replied that some might not be fully fledged, but all were correct in terms of the law. Regarding police officers, he said that the Act was specific that parole boards could co-opt. However, the composition of the parole boards did not require police to be present.

Mr Abram referred to slide 14, bullet 3, and said that he found it vague. It stated that there was a current revision of medical parole legislation and policy. He asked about a time frame. Administrative processes could be lengthy. There had to be a manual to guide processes.

Mr Motseki answered that there had always been procedures in place, for instance that a profile had to be submitted six months ahead. The manual had to be checked for legal status.

Dr Schreiner added that the Committee had been given a time frame for amendment to the Act.

The Chairperson enquired about case management. Part of the problem was that judges did not have enough information about offenders. He referred to the statement by Mr Fihla, about stakeholders in the parole boards. Crime victims were stakeholders that were often not consulted. Victims could believe that if they made a contribution, they would be disadvantaged. He asked if the proposed sending of offenders to centres close to the parole boards six months in advance, could lead to further overcrowding of centres in areas like Johannesburg.

Mr Motseki replied that case management was being reviewed. There was a shortage of social workers that caused problems. There was not full capacity as yet. There had been a commitment from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Department to make details of judgements clear. The Management Areas Act could provide further guidance.

Mr Motseki added with regard to victims, that there was a long list of victims applying to make contributions. It could be difficult to trace victims if it was not registered at court. Some crimes had been committed 20 years before, which made victims hard to trace. Concerning overcrowding while awaiting parole hearings, he said that were many centres that were not overcrowded, especially in the Eastern Cape.


The meeting was adjourned.