Implementation of Committee's Eastern Cape Recommendations; Jali Commission Report Response; Preferential Treatment for High Profile Offenders; Committee Annual Report

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
14 November 2006
DEPARTMENT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF EASTERN CAPE COMMITTEE REPORT; JALI COMMISSION REPORT RESPONSE; PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR HIGH PROFILE OFFENDERS; COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT

Chairperson: Mr D Bloem (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Committee’s Annual Report
Department of Correctional Services Eastern Cape PowerPoint presentation
Current Status of Accommodation (not presented)
Labour Relations – Regionally (not presented)

Relevant Documents:
Eastern Cape Oversight Visit Committee Report
Executive Summary of Jali Commission Report

SUMMARY
The Eastern Cape Department of Correctional Services briefed the Committee on the progress it had made in addressing the challenges the Committee had identified during its earlier visit to the province. Members were impressed with the progress the Department had made so far and raised questions relating to training opportunities for offenders, agricultural activity at prisons situated in farming areas as well as racial representivity in the provincial department. The Committee expected another progress report in three months' time. Members bade farewell to National Commissioner Linda Mti, re-deployed to head Security for the Local Organising Committee of the 2010 Soccer World Cup.

The Committee adopted its Annual Report. The Committee's response on the Jali Commission Report is that it would expect the National Department to provide it with a clearly defined programme for the implementation of the report’s recommendations. The Committee agreed that it would require a briefing on the alleged preferential treatment for high profile prisoners such as Tony Yengeni and Schabir Shaik.

MINUTES
Progress on Implementation of Committee’s Eastern Cape Report: Department briefing
The Chairperson noted that the Committee in its last meeting with the Department had said that the implementation plan of the Eastern Cape report had to be broken up into short term, medium term and long term programmes. The Committee would that day receive its first briefing on progress as far as the implementation of the recommendations. He had read through the Department’s report and felt that it was very well prepared and encompassed the short, medium and long term goals as discussed.

The delegation from the Eastern Cape Department of Correctional Services was led by the Regional Commissioner Ms Nontsikelelo Jolingana and comprised the Deputy Regional Commissioner Mr Nkosinathi Breakfast, the regional Head Corrections Mr Patrick Baxter , the Regional Head Corporate Services, Mr Zukile Kani and Regional Communication Officer Ms Zukisa Nduneni. Although they did not take part in the presentation, a delegation from the National Department, headed by Commissioner Linda Mti was also present.

The briefing was aimed at giving the Committee feedback regarding the progress the province had made as far as the Committee’s recommendations that followed its oversight visit earlier in the year, while also detailing its implementation strategy over the next months. It focussed on the interventions that had been put in place to fill vacancies, to deal with overcrowding and gangsterism and to improve the Department’s communication strategy. It also shed light on the measures that had been put in place to address the numerous challenges facing the Middledrift Correctional Centre.

Discussion
Mr N Fihla (ANC) said that he came from the Eastern Cape and had dealt with many departments within the province. Often the department of Education was criticized because there were no facilities in poorer area. Despite this there was a rural school that had achieved 100% pass rate due the efficiency of its teachers and despite their lack of financial resources.

He recalled that on a visit to Gauteng the Committee had seen two extremes of management at Leeuwkop and Gauteng facilities – the former was a model facility while the latter was very poorly managed. He told the delegation that it as very impressive to see how a correctional services management team was able to improve their activities despite the difficulties they faced. He was pleased that the report addressed some of the concerns the Committee had raised.

He wondered whether the delegation could give information as far as whether the vacancies on the parole boards at Lusikisiki and Sada had been filled or not.

Commissioner Jolingana said that someone had been recommended for the position of parole board chairperson at Lusikisiki but that he or she had declined. The process thus had to start from scratch. At Sada a chairperson had been appointed but it was later learnt that they had provided false information. The person was subsequently dismissed and the case was currently in arbitration.

Mr E Xolo (ANC) congratulated the regional commissioner on a very well prepared report and felt that the familiar phrase you strike a woman, you strike a stone was particularly fitting in Commissioner Jolingana’s case. The Committee would urge other regional departments to follow the Eastern Cape’s example. He only had one question related to whether the leak that had caused the flooding in the corridor outside a cell that accommodated about 79 inmates had been repaired.

Commissioner Jolingana said that the matter had been attended to and that the courtyard had been cemented so as to prevent similar problems in future.

Mr Xolo explained that the water had seeped into the passage outside the cell and he was interested in knowing whether the leak had been sealed.

Mr Baxter recalled that in their previous report the Department had reported that for day to day maintenance the Department had had in excess of R1 million available. The cementing of the courtyard (and fixing leaking taps) was part of the unplanned maintenance the Department had embarked on. They were doing an audit of the entire region and have established teams that could do minor repairs.

He pointed out that in some remote rural areas of the Eastern Cape it was difficult to get hold of the skills needed to address some of the maintenance needs. The Department thus also outsourced to private companies. He said that the Department did not tolerate leaking taps because that also costed money.

Rev L Tolo (ANC) agreed that the Department had prepared an excellent report. He had raised a question on the oversight visit that had been answered but he was interested in how Ms Jolingana’s response would compare. The ANC often spoke of the need for black and white people to live together peacefully. Gender equality and affirmative action featured strongly on the government’s agenda since 1994. While gender equality was still on the agenda, affirmative action seemed to have disappeared. He was concerned that at King William’s Town there were no white officials and very few coloured ones. At some stations officers were complaining that they had served for 20 years without being promoted while new officers worked for a few months and then got promoted. The Eastern Cape’s presentation reflected the same trend. He was concerned that the public perceived this as discriminatory and often ascribed the discrimination to the ANC when it was not responsible for it.

Commissioner Jolingana pointed out that the legacy of the past played an integral role in the Eastern Cape which under Apartheid had been divided into the homelands of the Ciskei and the Transkei. The Government had to redressing the inequities of the past and the department acknowledged that this was a challenge.

Mr Z Kani said that the Department was trying to address issues around gender equality at the Middledrift facility in order to create a balance in terms of gender equity. He explained that as far as racial representation one had to also take into account the demographics of a particular region. The Department had gone to the extent of head hunting white officials because they simply did not apply for positions in the region.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) wondered how many mothers and their children were incarcerated in the province. She was particularly concerned about the programmes that have been put in place to accommodate the children.

Commissioner Jolingana said that at present there were 22 mothers and their children incarcerated in their facilities. The Department normally recommended that these mothers and children be incarcerated at the East London facility which was better equipped to accommodate mothers and babies. It had a crèche the Department had joined forces with the provincial Department of Social Development in order to develop programmes that children might be able to take part in. It was important that the children had opportunities to mix with other children and to have access to programmes that addressed their developmental needs.

Mr Baxter added that these centres also had integrated justice centres that monitored why these mothers had ended up in prison and explored better ways of catering for their needs. The Department was also in the process of vigorously marketing alternative sentencing.
He reminded members that the magistrate who had sentenced a woman who had stolen a pair of shoes to the value of R99 to time in prison had blamed the Department for not exercising other options in terms of her imprisonment. The Department had pointed out that she should not have been in prison in the first place and that an alternative sentence should have been handed down.

Mr S Mahote (ANC) noted that the presentation indicated that sharp objects were sometimes confiscated from cells during random checks and wondered how they ended up in the cells in the first place.

Commissioner Jolingana said that there were many ways in which sharp objects could end up in cells. Sometimes they were smuggled in by visitors or by offenders returning from their court appearances. She acknowledged that sometimes inadequate searching procedures were to blame and said that if such negligence was discovered disciplinary action was taken. She admitted that sometimes officials themselves smuggled the objects in for offenders. The Department tried very hard to address the weaknesses in their system that allowed for such violations.

Mr Baxter said that the department used metal detectors at the entrances to the units and were also looking at installing them in areas like Umtata where there was only one centre. Some centres were also using CCTV cameras which had been useful in solving the most recent attempted escape.

The region’s emergency support team also assisted in special search operations to remove contraband. This had been successful in various areas and particularly in the maximum centres of St Alban’s and Umtata. The focus of these operations would now be shifted to east London medium A and the newly created maximum centre. He assured members that these and similar strategies were on going.

The Department had also embarked on a programme whereby the visibility of senior managers would be increased. Senior managers would address the pubic over weekends. In addition efforts would be made to sharpen security over weekends when only half the staff compliment was on duty.

Mr Breakfast added that none of the officials from his level up would be taking leave over the festive season. They would be visiting centres to try and ensure that there were no incidents.

Ms Nduneni said that it was important to sensitise the public to security issues so that they would not wittingly or unwittingly assist inmates who might want to escape. The Minister of Correctional Services, Mr Ngconde Balfour would launch the Department’s festive season security plan on 17 November. The programme aimed to encourage offenders to take up recreational activities such as boxing and volleyball in an attempt to divert them from improper activities. The Department would also sensitise officials and members of the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) to the importance of heightened security during the festive season.

Mr Mahote wondered what the department did with the findings from their investigations.

Mr Fihla sought more information on the farming activities that took place at correctional centres such as St Alban’s, Middledrift and Kirkwood.

Commissioner Jolingana reported that the facilities in farm areas were performing fairly well. The goods that were being produced at Kirkwood did not only provide for that facility but for other facilities. She admitted that the Department still had to address challenges related to increasing the production and becoming self sustainable. There were still some goods that it had to buy from the outside. The Department was also taking care to in the movement of prisoners strengthen the capacity of facilities situated in farming areas so that they could improve production. Although she did not have the numbers to prove it at hand, she again assured members that these activities were doing quite well.

Mr Baxter added the region was further challenged by the swine fever outbreak. The provincial Department of Agriculture (DOA) assured the Department that by March 2007 the issue would have been dealt with. The DOA also advised the Department on how best to increase their capacity to ensure viable production.

Mr Fihla was interested in knowing about the training activities that were taking place, especially at the St Alban’s facility.

Commissioner Jolingana responded that the workshop at St Alban’s was still underperforming and that its capacity needed to be strengthened. The Department was looking at the structure of the workshop to determine how it could be strengthened. She confirmed that much training was taking place at al facilities - sometimes in collaboration with the Department of Labour that went to the facilities to train people in specific areas. The Department could provide the necessary statistics to the Committee at a later stage.

Rev Tolo said that when the Committee visited the Eastern Cape Members rumours were going around that at Middledrift there would be hunger strikes and other disruptions. When the committee arrived there however people were very pleased to meet the Committee.

Commissioner Jolingana said that since starting in the Department of Correctional Services she had learnt that rumours were at the order of the day. She too had heard the rumours of possible unrest on the day the Committee visited Middledrift. The same had happened when she made her first visit as commissioner to the centre. She had thus gone with a armed security team. Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) had subsequently criticised her having been so heavily protected on her first visit there. She explained that rumours could not be taken lightly and all the necessary safety precautions needed to be taken. They thought it necessary to sensitise the Committee to the fact that there might be unrest. There were some gang leaders at Middledrift who had been seen as the instigators of much of the activities that were going on at the facility. Once they had been identified they were transferred to the Kokstad maximum security facility.

Rev Tolo requested the delegation to elaborate on the 14 disciplinary cases that had been finalised as well as the appeals and grievances that had either been finalised or lodged since August 2006.

Mr Kani said that he was passionate about the Middledrift facility and reminded the Committee that he had in 2005 boldly stated that if anything went wrong at the facility he should be held accountable. The Department had made some strides in the managing of the facility and had identified challenges as far as discipline was concerned. They found that manager and supervisor training was an important aspect that needed to be addressed. At closer scrutiny it was found that many disciplinary cases could have been resolved earlier had managers not hesitated as to take action against their members.

The transgressions considered for disciplinary action included not reporting for duty on time, unauthorised absence, the use of intoxicating substances while on duty and the refusal to follow orders. There were also more complex cases that were being dealt with at Head Office and by the DIU section. The case of the members who had allegedly been involved in the June escape was taking place in Kimberley at present. The female members who had allegedly had sexual relations with inmates were also ongoing.

The Department was dealing with the simple matters that needed corrective action. He emphasised that the Department was not merely finalising the cases just for the sake of finalising them – it handed appropriate sanctions to those members who were found guilty.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would invite the Eastern Cape Department for another feedback session in about three months time. This would give members the opportunity assess the progress that would have been made by then.

He said that the Committee was very impressed with the report which reflected that the Eastern Cape was taking its work seriously. He echoed Mr Xolo’s comment that the Eastern Cape was setting an example for the rest of the country. He added that the Committee was not pleased with the report it had to right on their visit to the province but after having read the progress report and heard the presentation he felt that the province was in good hands.

The Committee’s remarks on the National Commissioner’s redeployment
The Chairperson said that the Committee had been very sad to learn that the National Commissioner was leaving the Department and had been redeployed to another field. He said that the Commissioner had been deployed to the Department in 2001 when "things were very, very rough" and he had still been very new to the field.

He said that the matters Commissioner Mti had had to deal with were not new – gangsterism and overcrowding dated back many decades. The Jali Commission was appointed to deal with matters that were very old and not unique to an ANC-governed South Africa. He thanked the Commissioner for his contribution and understood that addressing challenges that stemmed from the Apartheid prison system, which had been used to further oppress black people, was not an easy task. He was pleased that the Jali Commission had exposed everything that went on in prison. He agreed and accepted that there were many other challenges that had to be dealt with but felt that no one could say that Commissioner Mti had not contributed to the transformation of the Department. The Committee appreciated what he had done and wished him everything of the best in his new position. He added that people said many things because they were not in the Department but he knew that those involved with the Department lived and breathed it.

Commissioner Mti thanked the Chairperson for the kind words. He said that he would be issuing an official statement within the following day or two. He was looking forward to the new position and its challenges and believed that the experiences he had at Correctional Services would stand him in good stead. He believed that the Department he was leaving was different to the one he had joined in 2001; he too was leaving a different person and would remain part of and interested in the Department for many years to come – simply abandoning it would be irresponsible.

Turning to recent media reports claiming that he had caused an accident because he was driving under the influence and had then tried to intimidate the other driver, he lamented that they had tried to portray him as irresponsible without ever once contacting him for his side of the story. He assured members that he would be fine saying that if bullets had not managed to destroy him, no pen or paper would succeed in doing so.

The Chairperson requested Ms Seaton and Mr Fihla to say a few words on behalf of the Committee.

Ms Seaton wished the Commissioner everything of the best in his future endeavours and said that she too was certain that he would not be able to leave his experiences at the Department behind him. She wished him good luck with the current bad publicity and hoped that in future there would be better publicity.

Mr Fihla said that the Department of Correctional Services was a trying department that tried and tested its leaders. One proved ones leadership in this department and the Commissioner had done his work effectively, proving himself to be a true leader.

Committee minutes: adoption
The Committee adopted its minutes for the periods January to March, May to June, August to September and October to November 2006.

Committee’s Annual Report: adoption
In answer to Mr Selfe asking what the R1 100 spent on the Committee’s recent oversight trip to Pollsmoor Prison was used for, the Committee secretary explained that the money was spent on transport to and from the facility.

The Chairperson said that he was pleased that the matter had been raised because the Committee’s transport in and around Cape Town had always been a matter of concern to him. Rev Tolo also always raised concerns about it.

He said that sometimes a 25-seater bus would be used to transport 5 or 6 members. This was a waste of taxpayers’ money and the matter would have to be looked into. He added that considering the cost of the transport service it was important that all members took part in trips in order to get the best value for money.

Ms Seaton wondered whether there was any possibility that the Committee could again, as was the case in the past, make use of the Department’s transport when they visited facilities.

The Chairperson pointed out that such a request had been made when the Committee planned its trip to Pollsmoor. The Department said that it could not supply the transport and that Parliament had its own budget for travelling. He had accepted that response because he realised that there was a separation of powers. He felt that the Department should also accept that the separation of powers applied to their relationship with the Committee too.

Mr Xolo wondered if a resolution to that effect should not be sent to the Department.

The Chairperson did not think there was a need for such a resolution. The Constitution clearly stated that the Committees of Parliament served as oversight bodies over the Executive.

Jali Commission Report: way forward
The Chairperson reminded members that they had received the Executive Summary of the Jali Commission’s report three weeks earlier and that they had requested the Jali Commission’s full report because they felt that it was the Committee’s responsibility to monitor the implementation of its recommendations. The Report was very important and the President had in his State of the Nation Address said that the Jali recommendations would be implemented. The Committee now had to develop a strategy on how they would approach their oversight of the implementation.

Mr Mahote suggested that the Committee prioritised the recommendations and that they should then determine how far the Department had progressed in implementing them. He pointed out that not all the recommendations could be implemented at once and that they should be organised in terms of long, medium and short-term goals. The Department should then give the Committee clear indications of the time frames in which they aimed to implement them. The Committee should then invite them for regular feedback sessions.

Mr Selfe agreed and said that the report could be divided into three sections dealing with disciplinary steps, structural or procedural issues related to the department’s policies and the way in which it did things and lastly recommendations specifically related to certain centres. The Report made specific mention of C-Max and should therefore be discussed in detail. He suggested that the Committee could also visit the centres featured in the report so that it could determine what interim measures had been put in place since the release of the Report.

Mr Fihla thought it interesting that the Jali Commission questioned the need for C-Max and Kokstad facilities. He pointed out that the serious nature of some of the offences committed, and the risk the perpetrators posed to society and to fellow offenders necessitated their incarceration in maximum security facilities. Many of these offenders would have been sentenced to death had South Africa still used the death penalty. Keeping such offenders among less dangerous offenders would pose a problem not only to the Department but also to the rest of the society. He felt that the matter needed to be debated with the Jali Commission itself so that it could have a better understanding for the need for such facilities.

Ms Seaton suggested that a full day workshop be held. The Department should be informed that the Committee would expect feedback so that they could ensure that the appropriate officials would be present to account for the progress that had or had not been made. She agreed that the facilities mentioned in the report should be visited.

Mr Mahote agreed that there was a needed for a workshop but felt that it should be two days long so that all stakeholders, including the Jali Commission could participate. Out of that workshop proposals for a monitoring tool similar to the South African Police Service’s (SAPS) Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) should be made. Sometimes members of Parliament called him to find out what they should be looking for when visiting prisons; sometimes visits consisted of a report given in the prison head’s office while never setting foot in the actual facility. He felt that all members of Parliament should be adequately empowered to visit facilities; they could then submit their reports to the Committee. Such an approach would be necessary considering the fact that the Committee would never be able to visit all facilities.

Ms Nawa agreed with everything members had mentioned. She understood that there was a sub committee that monitored the recommendations of the Jali Commission and wondered whether this Committee could also monitor the implementation of the recommendations.

The Chairperson clarified that that Sub Committee dealt with the annual report and not the Jali Report.

Mr Fihla said that the report made much mention of the fact that certain individuals should be charged. He thought it necessary that the Committee enquired after the progress regarding these charges.

The Chairperson found it disturbing that three weeks after the Committee received the Jali Commission’s report which cost Government R27 million, allegations were made that corruption was still rife within the Department and now at a high level. There was talk that certain high ranking officials sat on the Technical Committee of Specifications responsible for tenders.

He said that the findings and recommendations of the report indicated that the Committee should, as a starting point, determine whether the Department had implemented the recommendations made after the previous two investigations by the Department of Public Service and Administration and the Public Service Commission. The Report would serve as a guideline for the Committee’s 2007 programme and much of its activity would centre on it. He predicted that the Committee would have to do much work in the coming year.

The Chairperson continued saying that trade unionism, abuse of power and disciplinary action against members, procurement, logistics, gangsterism, prison workshops and stock control systems also featured strongly in the report.

The power of the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP) should also be considered while the idea of a prison ombudsman might have to be revisited. The Commission had found that the JIOP was a "bulldog without teeth".

Mr Fihla pointed out that the Committee had time and again queried why the JIOP could not address issues related to with corruption which members felt should form part of its mandate. The JIOP feared that by raising certain issues it would jeopardise their relationship with the Department.

He recalled that the Committee had following a visit to Denmark, considered the notion of a prison ombudsman. The JIOP was then brought in to being and the Committee had been of the opinion that it would also deal with corruption.

The Chairperson said that the matter would be discussed. He felt that a structure similar to the ICD that investigated issues related to the SAPS was needed. An independent ombudsman would also be a good idea.

Preferential treatment for high profile offenders
The Chairperson said that the alleged preferential treatment for high profile offenders with money needed to be looked into. As public servants the Committee had a responsibility to look into the recent allegations of preferential treatment being given to Tony Yengeni and Schabir Shaik. If members failed to do so, it would be assumed that they condoned and approved of such practices. The Department was governed by very clear policies and the Committee should make its views heard when it appeared as if these policies were ignored.

Ms Ngwenya said that the Committee had approved the Department’s policies and expected everyone regardless of their position to comply with them. If it was true that procedure was not followed in the Yengeni case, the Committee should make its dissatisfaction very clear.

Mr Selfe said that in addition to the Department’s policies, the Correctional Services Act of 2001 also laid down certain requirements. For example, a prisoner who failed to return to the prison at the specified time was guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to the penalties prescribed in Section 117 of the Act. He or she was liable on conviction of a fine or imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, to imprisonment without the option of a fine, or both. Considering the punishment, it was clear that the alleged transgression was considered a serious offence. The Area Commissioner (of Malmesbury) should be invited to explain what had really happened and to indicate what steps had been taken. He agreed that there could not be one law for the "rich and politically connected" and another for the ordinary man on the street.

The Chairperson said that the Committee should take care not to interfere in the work of the relevant structures involved. The parole board and the Area Commissioner should be given the opportunity to investigate whether Mr Yengeni had done anything wrong. The Committee had advocated for the establishment of parole boards chaired by independent members of the community and should not impinge upon their processes.

Rev Tolo said that the newspapers reflected one side of the story; no one had heard Mr Yengeni’s side of the story so far. Although he was not acting as Mr Yengeni’s advocate, he felt that it was prudent to determine why he was not able to report back to the prison on time.

The Chairperson said that structures had been put in place to deal with the violations made by any of the 120 000 inmates in South African prisons. The Committee was an oversight body and had to ensure that those structures did their work. The relevant structures should be allowed to investigate the allegations made against Mr Yengeni and should report to the Committee. He would never allow a situation where anyone violated the laws governing correctional services. While the Committee could come out strongly against anyone violating the rules and regulations of the Department, it had to allow the relevant structures to do their work. He was not sure when the investigation would take place but, if needs be, he would call a special meeting to discuss the matter.

He added that preferential treatment was also wrong and should be condemned in the strongest terms. The Committee expected that if one went into prison one went to be rehabilitated.

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their contributions, support, dedication and hard work throughout the year.

The meeting was adjourned.