Prisoner complaints: Committee strategy, & 2009 and 2010 Committee Programmes
Meeting Summary
The Committee met to finalise and adopt the 2009 Term Programme. Members noted that the oversight visits would need to be longer than scheduled and agreed that in principle all oversight visits should be planned from 10h00 to 16h00. They also split the programme to focus on public/private partnerships on 16 September, and overcrowding issues on 23 September. A briefing by various departments on their progress in preparations for the coming into operation of the Child Justice Act, on 10 April 2010, would be held on 11 November and the time for this was also extended. Members would try to arrange a briefing by academics and activists on the Act and its ramifications prior to that meeting.
The Committee discussed the draft 2010 programme and proposed that the Correctional Services Act would need to be reviewed in its entirety, as also a possible pilot project in terms of which officials from the Department of Correctional Services, the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) could assess all persons arrested to try to bring less serious crimes forward for trial at an earlier date, in order to reduce overcrowding due to Awaiting Trial Detainees.
The Committee considered a letter sent by an aggrieved inmate to the Speaker of Parliament, and discussed how this and similar issues should be handled. Many Members cautioned against sending delegations to investigate every matter, stating that many complaints were spurious, or incorrect, that internal remedies in the correctional centres should first be exhausted, and that sending of delegations would have financial implications. It was suggested that in this instance, two Members should investigate the matter, including how the letter had left the correction facility and reached the Office of the Speaker. It was suggested that Members should visit correctional centres in their own constituencies if complaints about these were lodged. All delegations should attempt to be multiparty. This letter would be discussed further on 8 July.
Members adopted the minutes of meetings on 10 and 25 June 2009
Meeting report
Draft 2009 Committee Programme
The Chairperson noted that the Committee had, during a previous meeting, made useful input on the programme. He tabled a draft programme.
The Chairperson commented on the forthcoming briefing by the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) and National Council on Correctional Services (NCCS), and noted that the Department of Correctional Services (DSC) workshop would now be a one-day workshop only, on 4 August.
Mr J Selfe (DA) raised concern about the time span set for the proposed correctional service centre oversight visits. For example, on 5 August the Committee was to visit Pollsmoor for three hours. Pollsmoor had five different divisions and he felt that a three hour broad and superficial viewing would be unsatisfactory. He proposed that a whole day session be scheduled instead, so that the fundamental issues with the prison could be examined.
Ms M Mdaka (ANC) agreed with the point raised by Mr Selfe and suggested that the oversight visit be held from 10h00 to 16h00.
The members approved this, and also said this time frame should be set for all future oversight visits to correctional service centres.
The Chairperson proposed that the Auditor-General or his representative be invited to attend the session on 26 August, when the DCS would present its Quarterly Financial and Status Report. This would give Committee Members an all-encompassing view of the state of the financial affairs and progress in the Department, and the Auditor-General could help to clarify any areas. Members should undertake their own research in preparation for this meeting.
Mr Selfe raised further concerns over the meetings scheduled for 16 and 23 September, between 10h00 and 13h00. Once again, the subject matter for discussion was quite complex and the allocated time would be too short. He felt that the topics of Public / Private Partnerships (PPP), remand centres and consideration of new and existing correctional service centres would each require at least three hours. He suggested that overcrowding should be discussed as a topic on its own. He proposed that the meeting on 23 September be confined to the New Prison Building Programme and the funding model of the PPPs.
Mr N Fihla (ANC) believed it would be preferable to get a general view of overcrowding in South African prisons, as opposed to a prison-specific view. He also suggested that the Committee should get a report on PPPs from the management of those partnerships, rather than the DCS. Members agreed that overcrowding would be the primary agenda item for 16 September and that on 23 September both the management of the PPPs and the Department would be asked to give a briefing to the Committee.
Mr Selfe noted briefings scheduled for 11 November, by Departments of Education, Justice, Social Development and Correctional Services relating to children in conflict with the l and juvenile courts. He asked who would be making the presentations. The allocated three hours would be too short to cover all presentations and interrogate the pertinent issues.
The Chairperson responded that letters had been sent to the Ministers and Director-Generals of these departments, and they would choose which officials should brief the Committee. He suggested that this meeting could be extended to 14hoo, but pointed out that providing lunch for all delegates would carry cost implications. He further suggested that the Committee discuss what precisely it wished to achieve in this meeting.
Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) suggested that the meeting should rather commence at 09h00, and Members agreed.
Mr Fritz proposed that the Committee should have a presentation from experts, activists and academics on the Child Justice Act prior to the meeting on 11 November. The Act was inter-sectoral and it would be useful to hear how far the various departments had progressed in putting the necessary structures in place, in preparation for the Act coming into operation on 10 April 2010.
Ms Cindy Balie, Committee Secretary, explained that a meeting with the activists and academics had been removed from the programme on the previous week, so that only one meeting a week was necessary.
The Chairperson noted Mr Fritz’s proposal, and suggested that perhaps this could be held on the Tuesday preceding 11 November.
Members adopted the Committee programme.
Draft 2010 Programme
Mr Selfe put forward proposals in relation to the amendment of the Correctional Services Act, following the Minister’s statement published recently in the media that this Act could be amended in relation to medical parole and Awaiting Trial Detainees (ATDs). He suggested the Committee meet early in 2010 to caucus on possible amendments. He also suggested a week-long programme to inspect correctional facilities.
The Chairperson agreed. He indicated that there would be oversight visits in early 2010. The whole Correctional Services Act would be reviewed.
Mr Fihla described overcrowding as “a cancer in the South African justice system”, largely caused by the high number of ATDs. He suggested formulation and implementation of a pilot project to reduce the number of ATDs. This could be achieved if senior officials from DCS, the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) were to assess each person arrested, to try to bring the less serious offences before a court at a much earlier date.
The Chairperson confirmed that he would arrange for a joint meeting of the Portfolio Committees on Justice, Police and Correctional Services early in 2010, to discuss this proposal.
Prisoner Complaints
The Chairperson tabled a letter sent by an aggrieved inmate to the Speaker of Parliament. He questioned whether this Committee needed to establish some basic principles for handling such matters. It might be necessary to send a delegation to speak to the inmate. He requested that Members be prepared to visit a correctional centre should an emergency situation arise.
Mr Fritz cautioned that Members should not accept the veracity of all grievance letters without question, from past experiences. Before a Parliamentary delegation attended a centre, there should be an investigation as to whether all internal remedies had been exhausted.
Mr Fihla reiterated the point made by Mr Fritz. He was wary of the financial implications of sending delegations to investigate such letters.
Ms Ngwenya also warned that if inmates were to find out that a delegation had visited one complainant, every inmate could send real or imagined grievances through, demanding that a delegation come to his or her assistance. She cited a previous instance in which an inmate had complained to the Portfolio Committee that he was not being granted medical parole, despite being chronically ill. A delegation went to investigate and discovered that the complainant was not a prisoner, but an ATD, for whom no medical parole would apply. She also suggested that the Committee should find out how the letter had left the correction facility and reached the Office of the Speaker.
Ms Mdaka proposed that two delegates should investigate this matter. However, in future the importance of each letter would have to be carefully considered.
Mr Selfe accepted that there might be truth in these particular allegations, but also said there was a need to exercise careful judgment. He suggested that if a complaint was received from a correctional centre within a Member’s constituency, then that Member should perhaps visit the facility and arrange with the head of the facility that the establishment be inspected.
Ms B Blaai (COPE) agreed with Ms Mdaka, stressing that it was important for a delegation to visit and address the issue indicated in this letter.
Ms Mdaka queried whether the delegation should also include delegates from the “ghost parties” who did not send their Member representatives to the meetings.
The Chairperson stressed that all members should attend to oversight visits in their own constituencies. Any delegations sent to correctional facilities should be as broadly representative of parties as possible.
This letter of complaint would be discussed further on 8 July.
Adoption of Minutes
The Chairperson thanked all Committee Members on the constructive debate in the previous meeting around the Draft 2009 Term Programme.
Mr A Fritz (DA) echoed the need for the robust debates on pertinent issues of concern for the various constituencies and stakeholders.
Members then adopted the Committee Minutes of 10 June and 25 June 2009, with no amendments..
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
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.