Department of Correctional Services (DCS) feedback on outstanding matters

Correctional Services

14 September 2010
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The meeting had been convened to deal with a list of 22 outstanding matters, outlined in the document titled: Follow-up Matters from 1 September 2010. However, the Department of Correctional Services effectively presented only the first matter, namely that of Litigation. Interrogation by members started even while the Department was presenting the first item. The Department had to face severe criticism from all quarters, not only as regards the way in which it dealt with issues, but also for its perceived inability to provide detailed and comprehensive information. The Department was not only criticised for running up litigation costs, but also for being vague and unspecific about the specific claims and the categories under which they fell. A member expressed disbelief that Correctional Services could have claims against it for Unlawful Detention. There were objections to the use of a category such as Pain and Suffering, without giving any indication of who had suffered, and how.

It was noted that litigation costs were increasing, which meant that problems were not being solved. The Committee called for details about the number of litigation cases, payments and claimants. A DA member felt that many claims could have been prevented through better management and discipline. The capacity of the DCS legal team was questioned.

As the Department moved on to the matter of the Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) for Educators, a member noted at the outset that irregular appointments without due process pointed to a systemic problem, and that statements made were not being unpacked. Several members then objected that the Department had not come properly prepared, and that there was little sense in continuing with the meeting. The DCS briefing ended there, and the Department was instructed to return with information that was beyond reproach. The DCS was reminded that it was in partnership with the Portfolio Committee, and that it could not afford to take the Committee for granted.

The Chairperson conceded that the Department might not have had sufficient guidance in the past. The current Committee had new members, and institutional memory was lacking. The Department had to use researchers and consult annual reports to provide extensive information. He assured the Department that the Portfolio Committee would not rubber stamp the budget.

The Chairperson expressed strong dissatisfaction with the absence of the National Commissioner. He wished that to be recorded. The Commissioner had given the guarantee that he would be present, only to inform him two days before that he would be attending a conference in Accra. He opined that nothing short of death should prevent an official from adhering to such a guarantee.

It was decided that the DCS and the Committee would meet in the next term for a whole day. The Commissioner, management and legal team had to be present, and a comprehensive document for scrutiny had to be provided one week in advance.




Meeting report

Introduction by the Chairperson
The Chairperson welcomed Mr Lennit Max, who would replace Mr A Fritz as a DA member. He noted that the National Commissioner had given the guarantee to appear at the meeting, but had informed him two days before that he would be attending a conference in Accra. He wanted that information to be tabled.
He continued that there were four matters that had to be added to the list of outstanding matters, namely that of Mark Scott Crossley, who had been released while his co-accused Mathebule was still being held; the issue of officials who were members of prison gangs; the suspension of Gauteng and Limpopo/Noth West/Mpumalanga Regional Commissioners, and the concern about sexual harassment expressed by POPCRU.

Department of Correctional Services (DCS) feedback on outstanding matters
Members began to interrogate the Department straight away, and discussion ensued

Mr J Selfe DA) queried the total amount for litigation claims which was R1,4 billion.


Mr S Sokhela, DCS Chief Financial Officer, replied that the figure might be reduced. He cited the example of a case where R3 million had been claimed, but that the amount had been negotiated down to R600000.

Mr Selfe noted that the Portfolio Committee needed a breakdown of how many cases, payments and claimants there had been.

The Chairperson noted that the total amount had increased from R1,3 billion at the end of March, to the current R1,4 billion. He asked if it was a situation of open-ended litigation that might continue indefinitely. He asked whether there would be prescription, at a cutoff date after 3 years. If the total amount kept increasing, the Department would remain liable and exposed. If figures did not go down, it meant that problems were not being solved. He suggested that the Department consider dealing with claims within 6 months.

Mr Sokhela admitted that the Department did not know how many claims there were. The “open-endedness” of claims was worrying to the Department also. There had been engagement with the DCS legal team to fast-track claims. The R3 million claim referred to earlier, could be brought down because there had been a commitment to finalise the matter.

The Chairperson asked about claims related to Bodily Injury/Assault that had amounted to R900 million.

Ms Jenny Schreiner, DCS Chief Deputy Commissioner: Offender Management Services, answered that it represented a single claim by a number of claimants. The number of claimants were not known.

The Chairperson asked that the DCS supply the numbers, and subject it to age-analysis.

Mr S Abram (ANC) referred to Claims for Legal Costs, to the tune of R40 million; for Unpaid Rental and Breach of contract (slide 5). He asked what those categories implied. Concerning the category of Rape, he asked if claims had arisen from rape of inmates by officials. Regarding Pain and Suffering (slide 5) he asked who had caused that. R95 million had been spent on the category of Other. Mr Abram found such a category vague. He was visibly aghast that Correctional Services could have claims against it for Unlawful Detention. He asked what it implied, and how it had at all become possible for such a claim to have arisen.

Mr Selfe remarked that prescription only happened when there was no claim. The Department could find itself sitting with some claims forever, as he phrased it.

Mr L Max (DA) said that the DCS had to explain the matters referred to in the slides. Some of them were preventable. There were problems of management and discipline. The Department had to obtain clarity about what it had to prevent.

Mr Sokhela responded that a full report in writing could be compiled.

The Chairperson insisted that the DCS legal team had to appear before the Committee. There were questions about its capacity. If it had indeed been an official who had been guilty of rape, the question was where that official currently was. He noted that Mr Max’s comments could prove to be helpful.

Ms Schreiner replied that legal services would be involved to supply a breakdown of categories. Rape cases did not necessarily involve officials. The Department had been taken to court for inmate on inmate rape.

Mr Abram said that the Committee wanted information on every item. He reminded all concerned of the adage that a bad settlement was sometimes better than a good court case.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) noted that the category of Motor accidents also had to be explained.

Mr Sokhela was asked to proceed to the next outstanding matter, that of OSD for educators. He noted that 424 educators had been translated on 5 July 2010. Five educators had not yet been translated.

Ms Ngwenya interrupted to say that the Department was not serious. They were playing marbles, in her words. She asked who had been supposed to deal with the 5 educators not yet translated.

Mr Abram said that he was getting worried. There had been irregular appointments without due process, which pointed to a systemic problem. He told the DCS that their wheels were going to come off. He asked about the 19 educators with terminated services who had not yet been finalised. The question was in terms of what had not been finalised. He said that a document from a state department had to have integrity. It had to be beyond question. Statements had to be unpacked.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) said that the Department had been instructed to return with a correct report. She felt that the Department had to go back and compile a complete report.

Mr Max referred to the unfinalised 19 educators mentioned by Mr Abram. The Department had to explain how long the issue had been dragging on.

The Chairperson called on Mr Selfe to provide wisdom as he had long experience in the Committee. Pending items were unacceptable. He asked how matters could be resolved. Answers were needed.

Mr Selfe recommended that documentation be made available earlier. The document for that meeting had only been received that morning. That would enable members to scrutinise documents and say if more detail was needed. Information in the current document was superficial. The Department had to drill down for detail.

Mr M Cele (ANC) said that he supported Ms Nyanda. The Department had to go back and prepare well. The same thing had happened in the previous term.

Ms M Mdaka (ANC) said that it was useless to continue. The Department had to go back. It was the last week, and members had other programmes to attend to.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) said that the Portfolio Committee had clearly indicated what was expected of the Department. She felt that DCS officials were undermining the Committee. She agreed that the Department had to go back and procure more detail. The Committee was willing to render advice and help, but the same questions kept cropping up, and remained unanswered.

Ms B Blaai (COPE) asked how soon the Department would be able to return with more complete information.

Mr Max agreed with Mr Selfe that information had to be made available beforehand. He said that as a former commanding officer, he found it essential that the National Commissioner be present. He suggested that a whole day be put aside for a meeting with the Commissioner and other top officials, armed with the relevant information.

Ms Ngwenya protested that the Department were supposed to report on outstanding matters, but the Mark Scott Crossley and Ms Wilson matters had been omitted from the report. Crossley had been released, while his co-accused Mathebule was still in prison. The Committee had enquired about those matters time and again. The Department was singing a song that did not heal. It was time for the Department to bring a healing song.

Mr Abram said that he did not intend to lecture the Department. But the Department had to accept that it was in partnership with the Portfolio Committee. Parliament approved the budget, and provided policy and oversight. When information was requested, the Committee wanted that information to have integrity. Well-researched, correct and credible information was needed. The riots at Kimberley Centre had taught the Department a lesson which had cost millions. It had resulted in bad publicity for the DCS, and yet the lessons learnt from it had been crammed into 6 bullet points. It was not acceptable to merely tell the Committee that inmate complaints had to be attended to on time. Officials had noticed on the surveillance screens that mattresses were being carried out by inmates. Yet it was not disclosed what officials did about the situation. It seemed that the DCS was taking the institution of Parliament for granted. The Department had to revisit its classification tools, and say how such tools were to be used. All in all, he found the information presented to the Committee to be shabby.

The Chairperson said that he agreed with remarks by members. He referred to slides 18 to 23, concerning Bosasa’s Phezulu Fencing and Bosasa’s Sondolo IT. It was clear from slide 23 that both companies provided surveillance technologies. Yet the Committee had found such technologies out of order during oversight visits. There was duplication, and the ‘value for money’ had been questioned. There were researchers and Annual Reports to refer to. The Department had to come up with information, even if the document produced resembled a bible. He conceded that the Department might not have had sufficient guidance in the past. Most members were new to Correctional Services, there was a lack of institutional memory.

The Chairperson continued that the Portfolio Committee would decide in the first week of the next term if the budget had been used properly. He stated emphatically that the Committee would not simply rubber stamp the budget. That much had been made clear from day one by the present Committee. He agreed with Mr Max that the National Commissioner had to be present. The Commissioner had given the guarantee that he would be present. Once such a guarantee had been made, nothing short of death should stand in the way of it being adhered to. The National Commissioner had subsequently decided to attend a conference in Accra, and was currently there. If that was his priority, he was free to go there, but strong discomfort on the part of the Committee had to be recorded. There were pressures from Parliament in terms of the new Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act. That had been discussed before. Committee deadlines were becoming unattainable.

Mr Sokhela responded that the Department would heed the call for clarity, accuracy, completeness and integrity of information. Guidance was appreciated. The Department was willing to be educated. It would return with as much research and information as possible. He apologised for the lack of adequate performance in this instance.

The Chairperson told the Department that it would be given a date for the next meeting. On that occasion, all relevant role players had to be present. The Committee wished to meet with the DCS management and their legal team. The DCS had to come with all its resources. There were 26 items to get out of the way. The issue of long suspensions had to be added to the list. Someone had to answer. Sexual harassment was an issue brought up by POPCRU, there was an obligation to stakeholders to respond.

Portfolio Committee programme
The Department was excused, and the Committee discussed how a full day meeting with the DCS could be fitted into its schedule.

Mr Selfe recommended that documents be supplied a week in advance for that meeting. More information was needed on Sondolo IT. The Committee had to know how many officials were at Head Office, and why money was not being spent at Centre level.

Mr Abram moved that a letter be sent to the Department confirming the decisions of the day.

The Chairperson agreed that such a letter had to be sent to the National Commissioner and the Minister.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

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: