National Council for Correctional Services briefing, Judicial Inspectorate Annual Report 2008/09

Correctional Services

03 November 2009
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS) briefed the Committee on its structure, function and duties. The primary function of NCCS was to advise the Minister on policy matters relating to the correctional system and the sentencing process. The structure, function and powers of the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board (CSPRB) was outlined. The CSPRB was selected from the NCCS and consisted of a judge, a director or a deputy director of Public Prosecutions; a member of the Department; a person with special knowledge of the correctional system; and two representatives from the public. CSPRB was the first to be consulted if an inmate on life sentence was to be released on parole and the final decision was made by the Minister.

The members questioned the lack of consistency, whether time constraints hampered the NCCS's efficiency, the problems regarding parole and the issue of over population in correction centres. They also asked whether there was a relationship between NCCS and the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (Judicial Inspectorate) and the non-attendance of a board member was also. The need to rewrite the Correctional Services Act (the Act) was debated.

The Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services presented its Annual Report. The Inspectorate’s duty was to ensure that every human right of people in correctional centres was considered. Although the White Paper on Corrections sought to introduce a rehabilitative and restorative justice approach, it was not being consistently applied. Some correctional centres were critically overcrowded and the number of deaths was a cause of concern. The Judicial Inspectorate had called for every death, whether classed as natural or unnatural, to be followed up with a post-mortem. The need for, the role and nomination of Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (Independent Visitors) were highlighted. The report addressed issues of lack of self sufficiency in correction centres. The Inspecting Judge differed from the NCCS in his view of the Act, suggesting that whilst amendments were certainly needed, there was not a need to rewrite the entire Act.

The members questioned the efficiency of the Judicial Inspectorate, the ill treatment of inmates, the problem of overcrowding, the issue of transfers, the lack of self sufficiency in the Department, parole and the budget of the Judicial Inspectorate. Members requested lists of centres with excellent programmes, and those severely lacking in facilities, and a list of complaints that inmates awaiting trial made. Further questions were asked whether the Judicial Inspectorate was audited by the Auditor General and why public representatives were not informed of stakeholder meetings. The classification of natural deaths, HIV/AIDS and gangsterism in the centres and the death of an ex offender at Pretoria prison were also interrogated.

Meeting report

Opening remarks by the Chairperson
The Chairperson welcomed the presenters, and noted that the Committee, in terms of Section 55 of the Constitution, was to exercise oversight over the National Executive and any organ of the State. The Committee would refer to the White Paper on Corrections of 2005, which highlighted the roles, functions and responsibility of the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services and the National Commission, and he also noted that the Committee had identified five or six policies as focus areas.

Presentation by The National Council for Correctional Services
Mr Justice Siraj Desai, Chairperson: the National Council for Correctional Services, stated that this was the first engagement that the National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS) had with this Committee. He noted that it consisted of two judges, a magistrate, a director or deputy director of Public Prosecutions, two members of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJ) , a member of the South African Police Service (SAPS) and a member of the Department of Social Development (DSD), all of whom were l appointed after consultation with the relevant bodies. Additionally, the NCCS included two persons with special knowledge of the correctional system and four or more persons who were not in the full time service of the State or were members of Parliament, and these were appointed as representatives of the public after consultation with the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services. He said that the NCCS tried to create geographic representation when making its choice.

The primary function of the NCCS was to advise the Minister on policy matters relating to the correctional system and the sentencing process. The Minister must refer draft legislation to the NCCS for comment and advice. The Commissioner must provide the necessary information and resources to enable the NCCS to perform its primary function. The NCCS could examine any aspect of the correctional system and refer any appropriate matter to the Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services. The NCCS must fulfill any other function ascribed to it in the Correctional Services Act (the Act).

The Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board (CSPRB) had received much lot of publicity lately. The CSPRB was selected from the NCCS and consisted of a judge, a director or a deputy director of Public Prosecutions; a member of the Department; a person with special knowledge of the correctional system; and two representatives of the public. Not all players were immediately available for parole hearings, which were usually urgent, so as a result the CSPRB had a quorum of four. A significant problem that it had encountered was that a large number of inmates on life sentence had been considered for parole and that contributed to the backlog in the parole review process. The task of considering someone for parole was a taxing and difficult one as there were implications of releasing an unreformed offender. If any inmate given a life sentence was to be released the consideration must first be brought to the CSPRB and then to the Minister, who made the final decision.

The NCCS met on a quarterly basis and the CSPRB met as and when the need arose. 47 inmates were considered for parole for the period October 2008 and October 2009, whilst 18 cases were reviewed by CSPRB. He also discussed the various issues surrounding the Correctional Services Amendment Act, 2008 (see attached presentation for details).

Discussion
The Chairperson said that he had deliberately reminded everyone that the role of Government was informed and authorised by the Constitution, and that all legislation must be implemented. He noted that the Act stated that the  Minister must defer legislation to the NCCS. It appeared that this was sometimes done, and sometimes not. He asked how the NCCS dealt with that problem. In addition, he noted that the Act required the Minister to consult when considering an inmate on life sentence for parole, and he asked if Ministers had ever placed someone on parole without first consulting the NCCS.

Judge Desai answered that no inmate that was given a life sentence had ever been put on parole without there being consultation with the NCCS. He stated that the problem emerging in Gauteng was that inmates believed they could place their parole applications before the court, but in fact the courts had no power to grant parole. There were in-house lawyers in Gauteng State Correctional Centres that were precipitating this situation. The issue of parole was difficult, as it was a somewhat subjective decision. An offender who was imprisoned because of a conviction on rape and murder charges still had the possibility to re-offend, despite having spent twenty years in jail.

The issue of private prisons was never brought to the NCCS. The NCCS would have liked to put input into that decision as it was aware of the current debates happening around the world. It was a complicated issue as there were cost implications for the country as a whole.

Mr J Selfe (DA) asked what progress was being made on the development of the Incarceration Framework which was referred to the NCCS in terms of the Act. He stated that the inconsistency of the parole board undermined its credibility.

Mr Desai said there was documentation available that contained detail about the Incarceration Framework. The Incarceration Framework had been refined but was not yet in operation, as it still had to be approved by the NCCS. Previously, an offender had to only serve a third of the sentence before being considered for parole. The  Incarceration Framework made provision that offenders must in future serve at least one half of their sentences. The advantage of the Incarceration Framework was that it offered consistency in defining when an inmate could be considered for parole.

He admitted that the credibility of the system had taken a blow. He suggested that the decision had to be taken out of the hands of the Minister and Commissioner. It was suggested that that power should be given to the Inspecting Judge, whose role was to look after the welfare of inmates. However, he also did not understand why the NCCS should not take this decision, as its members were certainly the most experienced. He urged the Committee to amend the legislation, as representatives of the public must explain the process. There was a need to avoid a situation where misunderstandings around the parole process were created by the press. He gave the case of Tony Yengeni as an example and stated that no decision made by CSPRB was wrong in that matter, despite what the media had portrayed.

Mr Z Madasa (ANC) said that it appeared that the NCCS had an ongoing responsibility to monitor the correctional system to ensure that it worked properly and to find ways to improve CSPRB. Judge Desai had alluded to time constraints, and he asked if the NCCS was satisfied that it could properly discharge its monitoring functions, given these constraints.

Mr A Fritz (DA) commented that the figure of 47 inmates being considered for possible parole was an impressive figure. He wondered if there were any serious concerns regarding parole. He asked what kind of remedies the NCCS proposed to streamline the efficiency of the parole board.

Mr Desai answered that the NCCS was not meeting ad hoc, but meeting regularly, more than four times a year. He admitted that there were some problems and that these would increase in intensity over the years. It had been twenty years since the death penalty was abolished, so as a result now in excess of 10% of the inmate population was serving life sentences. He admitted that the work that the NCCS did would have to become full time after five years.

Mr Madasa said that there was a huge problem regarding the functioning of parole boards, especially regarding its divisions and constitution. He said that part of the problem for the parole boards was they were not able to work properly as they relied on information that was not captured accurately. Judicial officers were not aware that the way they wrote had a huge impact on the matter of parole. He recommended that the NCCS look into these problems and find corrective measures.

Mr Desai said that the review systems had problems. He says that even though the CSPRB might consist of lay people, the NCCS was different as it consisted of experts. After the first term, the NCCS now had a clearer idea on what kind of people to choose for the review board. He said that not all Chairs of Parole Boards gave coherent reasons for the decisions they made. He said the problem was maintaining a balance, as there was a need for a board that could understand the circumstances surrounding offenders and especially problems around literacy. He remarked that he did not know how the Board Chairs were appointed and how the positions were advertised and he emphasised that the process needed to be more open. He did not understand why the best possible people for the job were not always chosen.

Mr Charl Cillier, NCCS member: University of South Africa (UNISA), said that one of the judges was adamant that the Act nust be rectified and, as an academic he agreed.

Mr Madasa asked whether the NCCS was discussing the way in which judgments and reasons for judgment were being written with the judiciary.

Judge Desai said that when an inmate was sentenced to life twenty years ago, in most instances a reason was given but was not adequately transcribed. He recommended that reasons should be transcribed and put into the file of the inmates as these reasons would help when the inmate was being considered for parole. He said that he went around the country to speak to role-players about the problem of over population in correctional facilities as he believes the matter needs urgent attention. He, as a single individual, would not like to make the decision of releasing an inmate who was sentenced to a life sentence. This should be the task of society at large, as it was a societal and not a judicial issue.

Mr S Abram (ANC) asked if the NCCS believed that the Act required some tweaking, or a complete overhaul.

The Chairperson expressed that the kind of comments being made about the Act worried him. He noted that Parliament had put aside R13 billion aside for the implementation of the legislation. He asked the Department of Correctional Services if it had heard these comments before, and to give any recommendations.

Judge Desai said that the matters did not warrant a mere “tinkering” but it was necessary to comprehensively re-look at the whole Act. Sections of the Act were currently not gelling together. The Act had to be streamlined. The last time it was looked at as a whole was in 1999.
Ms Jenny Schreiner, Deputy Commissioner, Correctional Services said that the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had already initiated this process. The Act had been written before the White Paper had given any direction. A substantial amount of work had to be done. She stated that the DCS would need to work with the NCCS.

The Chairperson asked if there was an indication of any time frames as to when tangible results might emerge. He noted that society must ultimately be afforded an opportunity to engage with the Act.

Ms Schreiner said that within the next month the DCS would be able to give a better defined timeframe detailing how the process would unfold.

The Chairperson said that the Committee needed to ensure that the delicate balance between continuing with the work and effecting the changes was met, without one compromising the other.

 Mr Madasa asked if there was any relationship between the NCCS and the Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services (JICS).

Judge Desai answered that Judge Van Zyl, Inspecting Judge, attends all the NCCS meetings. At present the NCCS was working on the draft of the medical parole, which would be complete by the end of the year. South Africa currently did not have a comprehensive medical parole system. The NCCS was currently developing the circumstances under which an inmate could be released on medical parole, and wished to put mechanisms in place to prevent abuse of the system.

Ms Mdaka asked about the non-attendance one of the members of the NCCS at meetings.

Judge Desai answered that she had been unable to attend on previous occasions as she had commitments to the Court and she was no longer available as she had now been appointed to the Constitutional Court. The NCCS could either employ someone short term, or wait until March when the whole council would be reconstituted, and NCCS preferred the latter.

Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS): Annual Report
The Chairperson reiterated that the Committee's role was to check implementation of legislation and to therefore improve service delivery. Chapter 14 of the White Paper indicated that correctional facilities in South Africa should be subject to independent inspection. The duties of the Judicial Inspectorate had been defined as including reporting on the treatment of offenders in correctional facilities, and to report on any corrupt or dishonest practices in correctional centres. Members of Parliament had regard to the Constitution and he noted that this, the White Paper and the Act would all have a bearing on debates and questions.

Judge Deon Van Zyl, Inspecting Judge, JICS, began by stating that he did not agree with Mr Desai's assertion that the whole Act needed to be rewritten. He believed that only certain sections of the Act needed to be considered. The terminology of the amended Act had be brought into line with other legislation to create some consistency.

Judge van Zyl noted that this was his first Annual Report, and that it had been slightly delayed. The role players changed with the change of Government. The JICS had not been sure when the Amendment Act was going to be brought into operation. It was postponed several times, before finally being implemented in October 2009, and this had had quite an impact on the JICS. The JICS was a reporting and an oversight body and served a similar role to that of the Portfolio Committee, so the amendments were very important. Every reports had to be delivered to the Minister and Committee, and it was hoped that monthly reports would be prepared.

The duty of the JICS was to ensure that the human rights of people in correctional centres were considered. He said that the 2005 White Paper was very important but very little was done to achieve what the White Paper had set out to do. The White Paper said that restorative justice needed to replace justice that was based on retribution, as the aim was to achieve rehabilitation of every offender who was imprisoned. The whole system must be reconsidered. Although JICS could not tell the Department of Correctional Services how to do its job, it could make recommendations. The issue of overcrowding could be alleviated by introducing plea bargaining, and by reducing the number of people who were in jail merely because they could not afford bail. He admitted that the function of the Judicial Inspectorate was a limited one.

Mr Gideon Morris, Director, JICS, briefed the Committee on Chapter 1 of the Annual Report, 'The State of Our Correctional Centres'. Referring to page 15 of the Report, he stated that the female population in correctional facilities had reduced dramatically. There were 19 correctional centres in South Africa that were critically overcrowded. Overcrowding led to conditions that were not consistent with human dignity. He stated that in certain correctional facilities, inmates did not have eating utensils and had to use objects such as phone cards to eat. He stated that what used to contribute to overcrowding was the number of the unsentenced inmate population, or awaiting trial detainees (ATDs), which had grown by approximately 20% per annum for a while. However, since 2000 this had shown a negative growth. Currently, the main cause of overcrowding was the number of inmates serving life sentences, and the difficulties with the parole board, which he illustrated with pie charts on page 20. The Judicial Inspectorate had recommended that the Department should develop forecast models for future inmate populations.

Mr Umesh Raga, Acting Manager: Services Unit, JICS, presented Chapter Two on the Prevention of Human Rights Violations. He said that one of JICS’s objectives was the prevention of human rights violations in correctional centres. Every Head of Centre must report to the Inspecting Judge any incidents of death, solitary confinement, segregation and the use of mechanical restraints. He said that there was a discrepancy between the number of deaths recorded as opposed to the Judicial Inspectorate's records. The Judicial Inspectorate considered the classification of deaths as either natural or unnatural to be problematic. Only unnatural deaths were subject to post mortem. He contended that it would be preferable if natural deaths were also subject to post mortem.

Mr Michael Prusent, Regional Manager: JICS, briefed the Committee on Chapter three, dealing with the complaints received from inmates. He stated that the Judicial Inspectorate was primarily dependant on reports made by the Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (Independent Visitors). He detailed the process that was used to nominate Independent Visitors, and explained their function. He said that Independent Visitors were community members of honesty and integrity that were appointed by the Inspecting Judge after a process of publicly calling for nominations and consulting with community organisations.

Ms Violet Rubu, Area Coordinator: JICS, explained how Independent Visitors deal with complaints from inmates. She stated that Section 93(1) of the Act required that the Independent Visitors deal with complaints in various ways. They must visit correctional centres regularly, interview inmates in private, record complaints in an official diary, monitor the manner in which the matter was dealt with, and discuss complaints with the Head of Prison or the relevant subordinate official. She stated that most complaints referred to transfers, lack of communication with family, and legal problems.

Mr Adam Carelse, Regional Manager: JICS, discussed Chapter 4, relating to community involvement. He stated that the Judicial Inspectorate's aim was to promote and facilitate community involvement in judicial matters. His presentation dealt with the establishment and functioning of Visitors Committees which aimed at involving local communities in the functions of the Judicial Inspectorate and in the correctional centres in the communities.

Judge Van Zyl said that as illustrated on page 42 and 43, judges had some powers, and they had the right to visit any correctional centres, yet very few of them did this. He remarked that it appeared that the Department of Justice had told them not to visit any centres.

Mr Morris concluded by quickly outlining the last three chapters of the Report, briefly detailing the impact of the Correctional Services Amendment Act 25 of 2008 (see page 44) and the 2x2 Matrix on page 50. With regard to  the analysis of the budget in Chapter six he highlighted that the rate of increase was not sustainable, there was little consideration given to the mandate of the Department's self sufficiency and funds were not distributed in line with the White paper. He highlighted the salient points in Chapter Seven, and outlined that the mission statement – ensuring that prisoners were kept in humane conditions within human dignity – was not listed. In regard to page 58 of the Report, he stated that JICS only had 63 posts, with 6 employees on contract, and that during the financial year no overtime was paid.

Discussion
Mr Madasa thanked the team for their presentation. He asked whether Judge Van Zyl was confident that the JICS had the capacity to prevent human rights abuses or to at least secure the rights of inmates.

Mr Fritz asked how the Judicial Inspectorate dealt with the issue of ill treatment of inmates in a substantial way.

Judge Van Zyl answered that the conditions prevailing in correctional centres should be interpreted widely. Conditions would always affect the manner in which inmates were treated. He said that the function of the JICS was primarily a reporting function, with oversight, so that it was mandated only to report on abuses. Since there were many abuses that were not brought to JICS’s attention it was a slow process. The relationship between the JICS and the Department of Correctional Services had improved. He said that if reports brought by Independent Visitors were adequate these could help diminish the poor conditions.

Mr Madasa said that there was no sense of an inclusive judicial approach on how to deal with matters. He suggested that all matters should be dealt with at the same time. He asked if the budget belonged to the Police, the Department or the entire Cluster. He asked what the role of judicial officers should be in helping to improve the conditions of prisons.

Judge Van Zyl said that far too much money was spent on detaining the wrong people, and wrongful treatment of people. The JICS heard about this from Independent Visitors and other sources. As the Inspecting Judge he actually had less power than he had had when he was a District Judge. The JICS had some difficulty in having to report to the Minster, because it was hard to establish the response to a report or recommendation. However,  he was grateful that the Committee now had access to reports so that they could track progress. He said the Judicial Inspectorate had always focused on the importance of Clusters and the need for total cooperation from all the involved parties.

He said that the judiciary itself could get the Cluster together. The Office of the Judicial Inspectorate was focused on the importance of a holistic approach and demanded total cooperation from all players.

Mr Fritz asked if the placement of Independent Visitors helped prevent the ill treatment of prisoners. He asked what measures would be taken during December where bodily abuse would no doubt increase.

Judge Van Zyl said that the JICS trained Independent Visitors so that they could be involved in resolving conflicts. The Independent Visitors were not all lawyers or clinical psychologists, but could learn the basics and could thus help in conflict resolution.

Mr Fritz noted that the issue of transfers seemed to be the most frequent complaint, and he noticed in the report that very little internal discipline was done. He noted that when someone complained they were merely transferred.

Judge Van Zyl answered that the problems pertaining to transfers had been bothering the Judicial Inspectorate. It seemed that Heads of Centres would get rid of their problems by transferring inmates, instead of taking disciplinary action. The Judicial Inspectorate was asking for an amendment to the Act that would require all transfers to be reported to the JICS. Furthermore it wanted to stipulate that the person being transferred should have the right to appeal against the transfer. The Judicial Inspectorate would then have some power to intervene. The problem was that in some instances the cases that were reported to them could not be properly addressed, as the person concerned had already been transferred.

Mr Abram asked if the Judicial Inspectorate could make a list available of centres that had excellent programmes in place and those that did not.

Mr Morris said that the Judicial Inspectorate was planning to give a full audit of programmes on offer at correctional centres in next year's Audit Report. He believed that wonderful work was being done at some centres, including attempts to alleviate poverty in poorer communities.

Mr Abram said that the basic duty of any correctional centre was to provide food, clothing and shelter. He asked for information on centres that were overcrowded and those that did not have the basics such as eating utensils.

Mr Morris answered that the previous year's Audit Report gave a detailed report on centres with inadequate necessities such as eating utensils. He said that he would forward the report to Mr Abram.

Mr Abram noted that pages 52 and 54 showed the unsustainability of the rate at which the inmate population was increasing. He noted that there was a steady decline in inmates being involved in activities that could add value to their future and contribute to their self sufficiency. He said it was a disturbing trend and asked if the Judicial Inspectorate had been able to determine why this trend continued and what had been done to increase involvement.

Mr Morris said that the issue of sustainability was almost an ethical one, and had to do with how much the government was willing to spend on correctional centres. There was a need to achieve a balance. DCS would not get the budget it had requested for the coming year. There was a slight window period, but there was a need to invest money for higher levels of sustainability.

Mr Abram was concerned that prisoners awaiting trial were not considered for medical parole, and he asked the Judicial Inspectorate for its suggestions on the matter.

Judge Van Zyl answered that the issue of medical parole was being carefully looked at. He said that he was not in a position to offer a full answer.

Mr Morris referred to Page 25, and said that according to those statistics it was clear that it was not up to standard.

Mr Abram noted that the spending of the JICS had been the same amount for the last two consecutive years. He questioned the reasons.

Mr Morris answered that there was no increase in the JICS budget. There was continuous competition for limited resources. JICS received its budget from the Department of Correctional Services. Costs had remained stagnant, and the JICS had contained then by having only had three acting judges for three years, thus limiting its operations. He asked the Committee if it was expecting the JICS to become another department, or whether it should stay small and focus on reporting, as they would prefer.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) commented that nothing had been done to pursue the recommendations of the Committee years ago, but only a report had been received. She could not see any recommendations on how to address mismanagement. She asked how effective the Judicial Inspectorate was, as she thought it was too small.

Mr Morris answered that the question of the efficiency of the institution was a real challenge. That was why it appreciated the value-add associated with the Committee, as the more the JICS could align its services to the needs of the Committee, then the more efficient it could be. JICS had listed its challenges with efficiency, and had made recommendations on page 50. He requested that the Committee give feedback on inefficiency or problems.

Ms Phaliso stated that she was confused by Judge Van Zyl's statement that the Act should not be rewritten, as she felt that the matter should be left for public debate

Judge Van Zyl said that he felt it was unwise to state that the entire Act should be rewritten if there were problems with only a few provisions. He reiterated that he did not agree that a complete re-write was necessary, but that the pertinent issues should be isolated and receive attention.

Ms Phaliso said that it would have been useful if the report had included offenders who had applied for parole but were not granted it.

Mr Morris answered that Page 25 showed the statistics regarding medical parole, and the numbers of inmates who complained were also supplied. JICS did not have the power to grant parole but could only facilitate the process. The Report should enable the Committee to address problems.

Ms Phaliso asked for a list of the real complaints that could be immediately addressed, with regard to ATDs. She wished that the report had made recommendations on how to address the issue of overcrowding. She stated that JICS must not give comparisons to other countries. She asserted that, as a result of overcrowding, people were not rehabilitated efficiently and thus were even more violent when they left correctional centres.

Mr Morris responded that the Judicial Inspectorate had tried to make recommendations on page 22. These recommendations included stipulating that all awaiting trial inmates who did not pose a threat should be released and that police should reconsider their key performance indicators.

Judge Van Zyl said that the Judicial Inspectorate had been occupied by the issue of overcrowding since 2000. He stated that when JICS suggested introducing plea bargaining and bail it was effectively entering into the realm of other departments, and was hoping to facilitate some sort of solution, as no single department could address overcrowding as this needed a combined effort.

Ms Phaliso asked if the financial statements were audited by the Auditor General.

Mr Morris responded that the Judicial Inspectorate was not listed as a public entity, so could not be audited by the Auditor General. The Judicial Inspectorate was part of the Department of Correctional Services, and the Auditor General audited the whole department.

Ms Mdaka said that the statistics on Independent Visitors were confusing. She said that the report was supposed to explain how it had arrived at this number.

Judge Van Zyl answered that the number of complaints were statistics that they were given. Any report, however trivial, was reported and sometimes inmates made several complaints.

Ms Mdaka said that the issue of unnatural deaths at the hand of officials was a major concern. She asked what the main causes of these unnatural deaths were and requested that they be categorised.

Judge Van Zyl explained that the Judicial Inspectorate first would establish that there was an unnatural death. It would then ask if there was an indication of capability or liability of some other party. The Judicial Inspectorate did not try to give legal opinions on whether anyone was culpable. In most cases there was immediately an internal investigation, and if the Judicial Inspectorate was not satisfied they it would make its own investigation. The categorisation depended on what the charge was. If it was an unnatural death JICS would refer this to the Minister, and the Judicial Inspectorate could only accept that necessary changes would be done.

Ms Mdaka noted that the issue of HIV/AIDS and gangsterism was not addressed in the report.

Judge Van Zyl said that there were many factors at play regarding the numerous deaths resulting from HIV/AIDS. He said that most of the early deaths were attributed to AIDS. The problem was that at times DCS was not aware of the stage that an inmate’s HIV had reached, and some did not disclose their status. JICS wanted to suggest that every person admitted to a correction centre must be subjected to a full medical examination.  He said that to a large extent gangsterism did not play the same kind of role as it previously had done.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) asked how deaths of inmates seemed to be classified as natural. She asked if the families of the inmates were involved in the post mortem investigation.

Judge Van Zyl responded that when he first came into office he was bothered by the number of natural deaths. He stated that sometimes the classification was misleading. JICS had requested the legal services unit to investigate all the cases. Presently, post mortems were only held for unnatural deaths but JICS wished to extend this to all natural deaths, as this might throw up bigger problems.

The Chairperson commented that he heard someone refer to stakeholder meetings where Independent Visitors were nominated. He said that he was very active in his constituency but had never heard of such meetings there. He thereby requested that Ministers of Parliament be informed about such meetings so that they could be involved.

Mr Carelse said that currently, the Independent Visitors would elect Chairpersons, who were able to identify and notify stakeholders in the community. Stakeholder meetings were now rotated. JICS was aware of the gaps, but had now addressed this.

The Chairperson said that all public representatives should be informed about stakeholder meetings. He said that he had received a report in the previous week about a death of an inmate by an official in a Pretoria Correctional Centre. He asked the Judicial Inspectorate for feedback.

Mr Carelse agreed that JICS had been asked to follow up on the allegations. There were only two deaths in that particular correctional centre in Pretoria in the last three months. The death took place on 28 October and the man was an ex-offender. The Department had discovered illegal dealings with drugs, specifically marijuana, in the correction centre. On 28 October the ex offender had been found climbing over the wall at 1am. Shots were fired, and although the man was allegedly not actually shot, he fell off the wall and died in hospital. The JICS provided directions on how to proceed with the matter.

Judge Van Zyl added that it was not yet certain whether the man died because of the gunshot or the fall. It was  disconcerting that the officials had fired to apprehend someone. The investigation was beyond the mandate of the JICS, but the report suggested that the conditions of the correctional centre left much to be desired. JICS had requested a post mortem report.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would not discuss whether this did fall in the mandate of the JICS. He asked for a written report from Ms Schreiner.

The meeting was adjourned
 


Share this page: