Department of Correctional Services progress report; White Paper on Corrections review process

Correctional Services

26 February 2014
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Correctional Services continued its progress report from the previous week, reporting on items that the Committee had identified as "needing to be kept on the agenda". The Committee wanted to ensure that its Legacy Report to the new Portfolio Committee for Correctional Services in the Fifth Parliament, clearly outlined what needed to be monitored.

Matters discussed were inmate labour and purposeful activity; the position of lifers; the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS); nutrition outsourcing; cooperation with the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the State Information Technology Agency (SITA); the Mangaung private correctional centre, and the “Waterkloof Two”.

Members commented that they were seeing very little evidence of offender labour and purposeful activity on oversight visits. The Department indicated that it was decided at the inception of the Judicial Inspectorate that finances would not be administered separately from the Department. The acting National Commissioner said that nutrition was not core business for the DCS. The Waterkloof Two matter provoked searching questions by Members about decisions taken by parole boards, as well as their credibility. The acting National Commissioner pointed out that the 25 year contract with the private contractor at Mangaung was a well intentioned but a bad government decision. Government was locked into the contract, and any adjustment would imply legislative problems.

The briefing on the White Paper for Corrections review stated that there had been problems with external researchers, who were overwhelmed and asked for extensions. They had also looked at matters outside of their brief. However, valuable work had been done internally, which would be at the disposal of the Committee.

In discussion, Members were concerned about value for money from the external researchers. The Department shared that concern.
 

Meeting report

Introduction by the Chairperson
The Chairperson said that the agenda of the previous week had not been concluded. Matters dealt with the week before, would be included in the Legacy Report that the Portfolio Committee would compile about the Fourth Parliament. It had to report to the new Portfolio Committee what had to be kept on the agenda. The Portfolio Committee had identified seven focus areas when it took office in 2009. Under Administration, the qualified audit opinion received by the Department since 1994, called for attention. Facilities was another focus area. The current problems with the building of new facilities at Brandvlei, Ceres and Van Rhynsdorp, with contractors changed in midstream, fell under that. Remand detention and overcrowding was yet another area, along with reintegration and community acceptance; and inmate care and development. The other areas were inmate privileges, as it was then called, and the integration of the criminal justice system. The Legacy Report would have to reach conclusions about what had been achieved, and not achieved, in those areas.

There were no formal presentations. The Chairperson called on the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) to respond to matters that had been sent to them. A discussion format was followed.

Inmate labour and purposeful activity
The Chairperson noted that the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) still had to answer the question of what it was doing about the fact that prisoners were locked up for 23 hours in the day. Inmates had to work to adhere to the rule of 'no work no school no parole'. The Department was saying that there was not enough staff to look after dangerous people. He asked about the status quo.

Mr James Smalberger, DCS Chief Deputy Commissioner: Incarcerations, replied that there were currently computerised sentence plans, to see who needed educational and other programmes. Over the preceding three years 11 correctional service programmes were developed to address offender behaviour. A framework for labour utilisation was being finalised. In 2011/12, 47% of prisoners were involved in labour. The figure for the next two years was 48%. There were initiatives to utilise available land, to increase agricultural labour for offenders. Mr S Abram (ANC) had spoken passionately about land use in the past. The Minister had announced compulsory education. The kickoff would be in January/February to recruit for schooling. Head office and the regions cooperated. There was a problem with classrooms. Money had been earmarked for temporary classrooms. Maximum offenders could not be kept busy. A start had been made with involving them. There were human resource challenges.

Mr J Selfe (DA) asked if the 48% that Mr Smalberger had mentioned, referred to real work or work opportunities. It was inconceivable that 48% of inmates were involved in labour. On oversight visits to centres, not a handful could be seen working. It could surely not mean that 48% of inmates were involved in purposeful activities every day.

Mr L Max (ANC) remarked that the previous year at Umtata, there were 500 to 550 inmates, and none worked. Inmates sat in the courtyard complaining on behalf of officials. There was no recreation, no rehabilitation and no work.

Mr Smalberger replied that 63147 offenders were eligible to work. That excluded lifers and escapees. 30000 inmates worked daily. There was purposeful work on farms and in gardens and messes. The Department wanted to increase the number. More staff were needed at Umtata. There were challenges at maximum centres.

Update on the lifer process
The Chairperson said that there also had to be an audit on the lifer process, as the Minister was reviewing life sentences.

Mr Smalberger replied that there were 12 233 lifers. From 1910 to 1956 lifers would become eligible for parole after 10 years. That was changed to 20 years in 1959, and then later adjusted back to 10 years. In 1995 it became 20 years, and since October 2004 it had been 25 years. In 2010 the Department was taken to court in the Van Vuuren case about the position of those sentenced before 1994.

The court case ruled whether profiles had to proceed from the parole boards to the National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS) to the Minister. The court ruled that the position when sentenced would apply, and that profiles could proceed directly to the Minister. The cases to which the Van Vuuren ruling applied, stretched from 1994 to 2004. There was also the Van Wyk court ruling, which stated that the legislation in that time frame would be applicable.

Mr Smalberger continued that the old Correctional Services Act allowed for credits. The new Act did away with that. There was a transitional arrangement.

Those with fixed sentences of 10 or 20 years could take forward new credits earned. Lifers were excluded from that. The Van Wyk court ruling was that lifers could also carry over credits. That was six or seven years after credits had stopped. The Correctional Services Minister decided that in the interests of consistency, lifers had to be treated the same. In terms of the old system credits amounted to six years and eight months.

Mr Smalberger noted that the category sentenced in 2004 would only be considered for parole in 2029. There were 368 lifers to whom the Van Vuuren judgement applied. They were being considered by the Minister. There were 154 further profiles that needed to undergo programmes. Some were not well behaved. There were 139 day parolees. Parole had been withdrawn for eight of them. Parole had been granted to 61 with one parole withdrawn. Withdrawal was on account of not complying with parole conditions.

Mr Smalberger noted that there were 4757 cases under the Van Wyk ruling. They had been sentenced in the first years, and were ready for consideration for parole. It had to go through the National Council for Correctional Services. The minister had disposed of 544 cases. Day parole was granted to 11, and parole to seven. The Minister had granted three extra months for profiles with nowhere to go, so that accommodation might be found. Every month 30 lifer profiles went to the NCCS. 4000 would be considered by 2017/18. At the current stage, fewer lifers were released. There was a special remission in 2012 which granted 6 months to every offender. Those in the Van Vuuren and Van Wyk categories qualified for the six years and eight months credits, and the six months remission. Those sentenced before 2004 were eligible for parole after 12 years and 10 months. For those sentenced after 2004, it was 24 years and six months.

Mr Smalberger noted that in terms of the process, sentence plans were only introduced in the current century. The old lifer road map was more difficult. All cases eligible for parole had to proceed through the case management councils. Information from social workers and spiritual counsellors was submitted to the parole board. Lifer profiles moved from the parole board to the Minister. People had fallen between the cracks. Currently there were automatic computer printouts of who had become eligible for parole. However, if there was a change in verdict, it had to be manually attended to. There was a perception in the community that parole was automatically granted, but offenders had to apply. The current system gave early warning to the case management council. There was time for reports by social workers and psychologists. The gravity of crime was considered in a parole application, as well as possible comments by a judge.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) remarked that he could not follow all the facts that Mr Smalberger had presented, and was confused. He asked for a brief summary of the reality for lifers in the current situation.

Mr Smalberger replied that all those sentenced before 2004 would be eligible for parole after 12 years and 10 months. Those sentenced after 2004 would be eligible after 24 years and 6 months.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked about electronic monitoring.

Mr Smalberger suggested that the Committee visit the control room in Pretoria, or that the electronic gadget be demonstrated to the Committee.

The Chairperson remarked that Ms Ngwenya did not want to see the instrument. The Department had launched a pilot project. Communities wanted to know if it would be possible for released offenders to disappear. He asked if the instrument was effective, and kept people where they were supposed to be.

Mr Smalberger replied that the pilot had proved that the instrument was effective. It could monitor to within a radius of one metre. If a lifer tried to damage the instrument, the control room could pick it up. It could not prevent crime, but it could trace people.

Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS)
The Chairperson noted that Members had asked the previous week what the original intention of the formation of the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) had been.

Mr Smalberger replied that the Department did some research on the matter. The JICS was created during the era of new legislation. Judge Fagan, the Inspecting Judge at the time, had argued against economic independence for the Inspectorate, saying that it was not economically viable to separate its finances from the Department. The Treasury also did not support separation of finances. The JICS could submit an annual report on funding to Parliament. Deficiencies in the budget could be reported. The position of CEO had been created t because the Inspecting Judge was perceived to be not close to administration.

Ms Ngwenya asked how often the acting National Commissioner met with the JICS.

Mr Smalberger replied that after the suspension of the CEO, meeting arrangements had stopped. But there was a current commitment to monthly meetings. The Regional Commissioner forum discussed matters related to the JICS. The office of the Inspectorate CEO had to call meetings. A situation where the Portfolio Committee had to act as facilitator between the DCS and JICS, had to be avoided.

Nutrition
The Chairperson stressed that the issue of whether nutrition was a core competency of the Department, had to be resolved.

Ms Nontsikelelo Jolingana, Chief Operations Officer and Acting National Commissioner, replied that a cost benefit analysis had been commissioned, to look at insourcing versus outsourcing. A report was submitted to the Department a week before. The DCS wanted to present the report, or if not possible, to submit it in writing. The report covered areas of in- and outsourcing. If she had to be woken up in the middle of the night and asked if nutrition was DCS core business, she would say no. Nutrition did not make it to the top five list of core business. However, it was advisable to process the report. Cooking was also part of offender labour, for instance.

Cooperation with Department of Public Works (DPW) & State Information Technology Agency (SITA)
The Chairperson referred to cooperation with the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the State Information Technology Agency (SITA).

Ms Jolingana replied that there were challenges around cooperation with the DPW. Projects had been halted or delayed, and contractors had gone bankrupt. There was engagement with the DPW. As regards SITA, written permission had been granted by the Minister of Public Service and Administration for the DCS to procure where SITA could not deliver. The DCS could advertise on its own for tenders, as long as the Department of Public Service and Administration was informed. The Minister would follow a proper procurement process. Backlogs could be unblocked.

The Chairperson referred to the contractor going bankrupt at Ceres. Mr Abram had been most upset about the notion of a guarantor stepping in to take over the contract.

Mr Zenzele Ndlela, DCS Deputy Commissioner : Special Operations (Facilities), replied that building had been delayed for three months. The DPW appointed a contractor. The buildings were 95% completed.

The Chairperson asked if defaulters had been blacklisted.

Mr Ndlela replied that the DPW had to indicate actions to be taken. The DPW had to engage with the Treasury.

The Chairperson remarked that in that case the DPW had to be influenced. The DPW had to be told that the Portfolio Committee insisted on blacklisting, as the Minister of Finance had taken that decision.

Mangaung private correctional centre
The Chairperson asked for an update of the situation at Mangaung.

Ms Jolingana replied that the DCS had sent a team to conduct a number of investigations into matters like torture, and administration not being in line with policy. The investigation was concluded. The contractor who managed the private correctional facility had been given the opportunity to respond. The contractor had been met with and was given 21 days to respond. The DCS did not intend to hand over the centre until there had been thorough engagement with the report. Things were unearthed that had never been reported to the DCS. The report would be submitted to the Portfolio Committee. Since the DCS took over, the situation had returned to normal and was stabilised.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that the private correctional centre was undermining the Department. She asked if the 25 year contract could be minimised.

Mr Max remarked that he had not yet visited a private correctional centre. He had been told that they were nice places, better than government institutions. He asked if there was any intention to phase out Public/Private Partnership (PPP) officials and to replace them with DCS officials. He asked about time frames and capacity.

The Chairperson asked if there was an option of reviewing the 25 year contract with the private correctional centre contractor.

Ms Jolingana replied that Mangaung was a bad decision by government, although the intention behind it was good. Government was locked into a 25 year contract. The good intention had been to promote rehabilitation and correction. Facilities were needed to deliver on that. The physical structure at Mangaung was one of the best. Lessons about unit management and workshops could be transferred to other centres. But the 25 year contract was bad for government. There were two sides to the Mangaung situation, namely the building and the running of the centre. The building would revert to government in the current year. But the running of the centre was locked into the contract. However, the incident had given the DCS a chance to intervene, and to look at models for co-managing the centre. There were legal implications for a takeover. A response to the DCS report was awaited, so that there could be workable solutions. The DCS wanted to take over but there were many legal implications.

“Waterkloof Two”
The Chairperson asked about the most recent developments in the “Waterkloof Two” matter.

Mr Smalberger replied that the two had already appeared before the parole board on 21 February. There would be an announcement on the Friday coming (28 February). The Department responded quickly within time frames. There was a preliminary report within two days, and the decision that the two had to remain incarcerated for another 14 days.

Ms Ngwenya asked what the parole board had pronounced when parole was granted. Parole had been granted because half of a 20 year sentence was served. She asked if it was checked whether there had been rehabilitation, when parole was granted. There had to be a report by the parole board.

Ms Jolingana replied that people were taken through rehabilitation, and would show every sign of being rehabilitated. But one still had to wait until they touched ground on the outside. The Department was doing its best for rehabilitation.

Mr J Selfe (DA) asked if an internal investigation would reveal how the contraband got into the cells of the Waterkloof two. There was a U Tube clip that referred to a man named Francois. He asked when the investigation would be concluded.

Mr Smalberger replied that there was a continuing investigation into contraband. There was an urgency to conclude the investigation, as the contraband reflected badly on government.

The Chairperson asked if parole boards were effective, and whether they could do things that were not reviewable.

Mr Smalberger replied that he could not go into details about what had been submitted to the parole board. It could be viewed as pre-empting outcomes.

The Chairperson said that the parole board announcement was respected, but it was so that the parole board had released the two offenders 14 days before. If a pronouncement was made that implicated the parole board, it could hardly be expected that they would admit to being part of the problem. He asked if it would be the same parole board responding.

Mr Smalberger replied that it would be the same parole board. It had to be borne in mind that there were things happening after the parole board took the decision to release on parole. There was a Parole Review Board chaired by Judge Desai. Decisions outside of normal parameters were referred to the review board. There were also National Prosecuting Authority representatives on the review board.

The Chairperson said that the matter should rightly be taken straight to the Parole Review Board. One did not want a situation on 21 March where the parole board simply reaffirmed its previous decision. The matter had to go to the review board, who could call the parole board back.

Mr Selfe remarked that the credibility of parole boards was at stake. A parole board had already prematurely released the other two members of the original Waterkloof four. There was a possibility of collusion between the parole board and the offenders. The parole board could not review its own decisions. It had to go to the Parole Review Board.

White Paper on Corrections review process
The Chairperson said that it had to be established where the White Paper worked and where not. He asked about progress with the review.

Ms Jolingana replied that external researchers were appointed, in addition to the internal process. There were challenges regarding the external researchers. The researchers were over ambitious and eventually overwhelmed by their task. Extensions had to be granted. There was an extension until the end of February. The report would have to be presented raw. There would have to be an incomplete format report. There was engagement with researchers. Raw information was presented to the Department.

Mr Selfe asked about costs involved. There were literature reviews and focus groups. He had experience of what focus groups could cost. There was not much to set the world on fire as yet. There had to be value for money.

Ms Jolingana replied that the main issue was that the researchers had been overwhelmed. In the draft report, they looked into things that had nothing to do with their brief. The Department had engaged its own legal services. Two senior researchers from the Nelson Mandela university had been employed. The Department shared the concern about value for money.

The Chairperson asked how the department would proceed. He asked if implementation was possible, or whether things had to be left as they were. If the process had to be gone through again, it would have to be handed over to the next Portfolio Committee.

Ms Jolingana replied that substantial work had been done internally to review implementation of the White Paper. That work could be made available to the Portfolio Committee. The external researchers had not come up with the desired product. Money spent on them was not used well. But the internal work could be useful to the Portfolio Committee.

Mr Max asked who had appointed the external researchers. He asked if the Department had responded to the feedback of the researchers.

Ms Jolingana replied that the Department appointed the researchers after advertising and interviews. A team was set up in the Department. There were fundamental disagreements, which were discussed in management meetings.

The Chairperson said that the Committee wanted to adopt its Legacy Report on 12 March. There had to be a discussion about medical parole in the meeting of the following week.

Adoption of minutes and Committee reports
Minutes of 4, 5 and 6 February were read through and adopted. Committee reports on Zonderwater Training College and KZN oversight visits were read through and adopted.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.
 

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: