State of Nation Address: Impact, Correctional Matters Amendment Bill: further deliberations, meeting with Zimbabwean delegation

Meeting report

State of the Nation Address: Impact on Committee
Mr Mpho Mathabathe, Researcher, Parliament, stressed that the State of the Nation Address, delivered on 10 February 2011, had focused on the overall theme of “job creation”. It had not identified any specific issues with regard to Correctional Services. Certain sections had some relevance to the Criminal Justice Cluster, such as reiteration of measures to improve the capacity of the police to ensure effective investigations, a focus on combating crimes against women and children, a focus on variables that exacerbated the violent nature of crime or that could lead to the breakdown of families, and the need to reduce court backlogs to ensure more speedy resolutions of cases. The Address also identified a number of issues which cross-cut departments, and which were relevant to the Department of Correctional Services (DCS or the Department). These included the creation of decent work, filling funded vacant posts and fighting against corruption. 2011 was declared as the year of job creation, through meaningful economic transformation and inclusive growth, and creation of jobs was acknowledged as a critical challenge. The President therefore required that all government departments must put in place appropriate programmes, and establish the right environment for, the creation of decent and sustainable jobs in every possible way.

It was stressed that between the 2005/06 and 2009/10 financial years, the DCS had created 7 431 new positions, but only 4 600 additional people were employed in these financial years. The DCS vacancy rate ranged between 8% (2005/06) and 13% (2009/10), whilst the vacancy rate for medical practitioners was the highest in comparison to other critical occupations. In 2009/10, the DCS had experienced a high vacancy rate in artisans’ posts. Over the years, the DCS had been struggling to reduce the vacancy rate. It attributed its difficulties to high staff turnover and the moratorium on filling vacancies. However, the Minister of Public Services and Administration attributed lack of appointments to poor management, and said that serious action would be taken if the President’s instructions were not adhered to. That Minister had instructed each department to provide accurate figures of how many posts it needed to fill over the next three months.

The DCS had, in its 2010 Strategic Plan, indicated that it would maintain a vacancy rate of 3% in the 2010/11 financial year. The main challenge for the DCS was to address high staff turnover, which, over the past five years, was attributable to resignations (2 758), death (1 409) and dismissal (1 053). The high resignation figures were in themselves a cause for concern. DCS attributed its difficulties in filling vacant posts to shortage of scarce skills in the country, non competitive remuneration packages, poaching by other departments, lack of growth opportunities and unpredictable and dangerous working conditions. In an attempt to mitigate the challenges, DCS had developed a Recruitment and Retention Strategy, to provide a framework for recruitment and retention of employees, with specific emphasis on scarce skills, and to create an organisational culture that would attract and retain employees.

In relation to the call to address corruption, Mr Mathabathe noted a decrease in the number of corruption related cases within the Department. This could be attributed to measures that the DCS had put in place, including the implementation of the Anti-Corruption strategy, the establishment of the Departmental Investigation Unit, and the implementation of the Fraud Prevention Plan.

Mr Mathabathe raised a number of issues for action by the Committee, arising from the State of the Nation Address.  It would need to monitor, on a continuous basis, the measures taken by the DCS to implement its retention strategy, and the DCS initiatives to fill vacant posts within reasonable time periods. It would also need to monitor the implementation of both the Anti-Corruption Strategy and the Fraud Prevention Plan within the Department.

Discussion
Mr L Max (DA) said that the presentation was very helpful. He noted, however, that the presentation had not mentioned that vacancies did not always open up at lower levels, but at senior levels as well, where policy might prohibit the filling of senior posts.

Mr S Abram (ANC) asked what recommendations had been implemented and what the outcomes were. He questioned the sustainability of a strategy of making counter offers to employees, since this raised the possibility of employees “auctioning themselves” of to the highest bidder. He asked why people had resigned from the Department, and what gave rise to the dismissals based on. He also asked whether the DCS could train inmates in order to address the shortage of artisans.

The Chairperson said that there was a need to look at the role of civil society and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). He added that the claims of difficulties in appointing artisans were unacceptable, because literally hundreds were looking for work in his township alone. The President had urged that the vacancy rate should be down to nil, so planning for 3% vacancies was not acceptable. He noted that Mr Mathabathe had categorised corruption narrowly, and hence there was a need to broaden it.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) pointed out that she had not heard of former staff members of the DCS who had been arrested on charges of corruption.

Mr L Tolo (COPE) asked why the number of resignations had decreased.

Mr Max requested that the DCS make available to the Committee its promotion policy.

The Chairperson said that he was under the impression that Brandvlei Correctional Centre was not operational.

Mr Mathabathe responded that there was an advertisement in the City Press newspaper for a Head of Centre for Brandvlei

Mr Abram noted that the DCS was supposed to provide a quarterly report for assessment by this Committee.

The Chairperson stressed that the oversight trip to Brandvlei had been cancelled because this correctional facility was not complete. He asked why the DCS was hiring and paying for a new Head, when in actual fact he could start his duties later in the year.

Mr J Selfe (DA) stressed that the real question was why the building of this correctional centre had been delayed, and noted that the Committee was also supposed to be kept informed on this.

Correctional Matters Amendment Bill: Proposed Committee amendments
The Chairperson said that the intention of the discussions on the Correctional Matters Amendment Bill (the Bill) was for the Committee to identify and agree on the amendments that were being proposed. Once this was done, the Committee would obtain a “B” version of the Bill for adoption, and would write its report on the amendment for submission to the National Assembly (NA) and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP).

The Committee then went through the Bill, isolating the clauses where amendments had been suggested, and making their comment:

Clause 1
There were no suggested amendments.

Clause 3
There were no comments.

Clause 5
There were no amendments.

Clause 6
Mr Selfe stressed that the correct term to use was “vulnerability to” and not “vulnerability for”.

Clause 7
There were no comments.

Clause 9
Mr Selfe suggested that wording should be added to the effect that remand detainees may be allowed to have food and drink “sent or brought” to them.

Under paragraph 4, subclause (3), Mr Selfe asked what “the most essential” meant.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Selfe that everything should be covered.

Clause 12
There were no comments.

Clause 13
Mr Selfe stressed that if an individual approached the court in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) he or she had to prove locus standi, which could be difficult, if not impossible. He had asked the Inspecting Judge how long it was likely to take to decide if a case had merit, and had been assured that this should not take more than two to three minutes. For this reason, there was nothing wrong in allowing the Parole Review Board (the Board) to initiate a review. He suggested that the Chairman of the Board should be able to initiate the review.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked whether Members wished to discuss parole in general, or only specific categories of parole. He asked whether it was possible for the name of the person whom it was intended to release on parole to be published, in a newspaper, to allow the public to comment if they wished.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) stressed that he did not see any sense in including the Parole Review Board in this issue.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) stressed that there was a Constitution in South Africa. She did believe the issue of review should be opened up to the public, especially since the public had representatives on the Board, and suggested that the wording should not be changed.

The Chairperson stressed that the issue concerned parole in general, and was not just about medical parole. He explained that there were two options; either to leave the wording as it stood, or to include the Chairman of the Parole Review Board.

Mr Ndlovu asked how the issue would reach the Chairperson and how this person would determine whether or not to review a decision.

Mr M Cele (ANC) believed that the clause was acceptable as it read. He pointed out that South Africa was a Constitutional state, and there should be no fear of the organs of that state.

The Chairperson identified the need for the Committee and the DCS to embark on a campaign of education.

The Chairperson added that another issue was whether the Committee should include a reference to the whole of the Parole Review Board, or just the Chairman.

Mr Selfe stressed that the Committee allowed debates in order to improve the law. He stressed that the Committee was dealing with a law and not a policy. The Chairperson had highlighted the substantive issue, which was that of the Chairman being both judge and referee. He ended by saying that the text could be improved.

Mr Ndlovu suggested that the issue should not be discussed any further.

Ms Phaliso stated that the experts were supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt. She said that there was a need to speed up the process.

The Chairperson stated that if, with hindsight, the clause that would be adopted was not working, then the Committee must not be dogmatic about revisiting the issue. He agreed with Mr Selfe that the issue was going to remain with the Committee for a very long time. However, he noted that although Members had some reservations, they had decided that the clause should stay as it was.

Clause 14
There were no suggested amendments.

Discussion with Zimbabwean Delegation
The Chairperson welcomed a delegation from Zimbabwe, and asked the delegates to summarise what they were hoping to gain from their trip to South Africa.

Mr Rangu Nyamurundira, Project Manager, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, said that his non-government organisation had been in existence for about 15 years. The delegation wished to learn from the experiences of South Africa. The delegates had visited a correctional facility in Goodwood, which appeared to have the standards of a two-star hotel. He pointed out that the main objective of his organisation was to promote human rights in Zimbabwe, including the rights of prisoners.  Zimbabwe was facing challenges and lack of resources, and many inmates in correctional centres were dying through lack of basic things. The organisation was hoping to achieve reform and a guarantee of inmate rights, and was hoping to emulate the system in South Africa.

Mr Selfe said that there had been a marked shift in the South African correctional system over the past 16 years, by a move away from simply warehousing offenders, to trying to rehabilitate them. He stated that gangs had evolved to protect themselves from the brutality of the system. This resulted in money being spent on security and not, as this Committee wanted, on rehabilitation. The building of new correctional centres was not the solution to overcrowding; instead the solution was to use alternative sentencing. He noted that there were some unfortunate incidents of corruption in South Africa.

Ms Ngwenya explained that there were programmes that helped to rehabilitate inmates. The Correctional Community Forum looked after former inmates, once released, and helped them to meet members of the community. There were other organisations that also assisted inmates. Where programmes failed to work then they would be reviewed.

Mr Tolo stressed that he had visited the rural areas of Zimbabwe, when sitting with the Portfolio Committee on Defence, and had seen ordinary people suffering, so the question was how much more suffering was experienced by inmates in the correctional centres. South Africa should be learning from its neighbours and there should be united efforts by all African countries to relieve suffering. He stressed that rehabilitation was very important. He asked about the conditions of inmates in Zimbabwean correctional facilities.

Mr Abram said that the main problem in South Africa was that there was a huge prisoner population, of about 116 000, of whom around 20% were remand detainees, and this created overcrowding. He said that there was need to do something within society to bring down the levels of crime. He asked for an indication of the types of crimes that the majority of inmates in Zimbabwean correctional facilities had committed. It was the intention in South Africa to make correctional centres as reasonably habitable as possible. However, skills development within the facilities was difficult, and this issue needed to be addressed. He stressed that there was a need to create a situation where inmates became worthy citizens.

The Chairperson said that 70% of inmates in South African correctional facilities were under the age of 35, and they had committed very serious crimes. He added that women were allowed to keep their children with them, up to a certain age, with them, but there was some question whether this was correct. He pointed out that there were two privately-built, operated and maintained correctional facilities. The important question was how the Department of Correctional Services should attract investment from the business community without allowing business to control the correctional facilities. He added that there was an intention to introduce a uniform for awaiting trial detainees, which would be different from other inmates’ uniforms. He pointed out that there was a strong need to increase inmate labour, but there could be strong disagreement on this from human rights activists. Furthermore, he stressed that he was arguing that there should be “centres of expertise” and not “centres of excellence” - for example by making a facility into a welding centre.

The Chairperson said that there was a problem in that 90% of the staff in DCS facilities had not been vetted, hence the DCS did not know exactly who was working for it. There was a need to vet every single person working within the DCS.

The Chairperson noted that the DCS ran six programmes, which included administration and financial management (in which the DCS would report regularly on finances), development and care, parole, which involved re-integration, and was also addressing issues of overcrowding. He said that the Committee would focus on the programme for the coming five years.

Mr Ndlovu said that the South African Police Service (SAPS) motto was to protect and serve people in South Africa, which included visitors and VIPs, and that it would arrest those accused of crime and ensure that investigations proceeded properly, with an emphasis on ensuring that citizens were safe. For this reason, there was a need to ensure that there were no corrupt officials within the service.

Mr Nyamurundira said that he felt that there was a sense of openness in South Africa, but the Zimbabwean government was facing some problems with regard to that issue. He said that the question was how the Zimbabwean government could work with civil society.

Mr Peter Mandianike, Executive Director, Prison Fellowship Zimbabwe, said that he was touched to see that Committee Members were concerned about the conditions in correctional centres. The situation in Zimbabwean prisons was bad. As a result of the destruction of the economy in Zimbabwe, many inmates had gone hungry and some lives had been lost. He stressed that, thanks to the efforts of some donors, the situation had been improved. He said that the structure in Zimbabwe and South Africa were more or less similar, as Zimbabwe was also moving away from the “punishment” mentality. Mr Mandianike said that his organisation had been trying to have the Zimbabwean government change the moniker “prison”. He added that there were rehabilitation programmes in place, comprising input from social workers, psychologists, NGOs and religious groups. He stressed that the main challenge was the issue of resources. Prisoners were classified in A, B and C categories and only some were allowed to work. In terms of rehabilitation, he said that prisoners were sent to work on farms so that they could train to become farmers. Although there were workshops, there was no machinery. He stressed that if a person went to prison, he or she would be stigmatised for the remainder of his or her life, and the organisations were challenging government to take a leading role in addressing these perceptions. No one, not even Christian organisations, wanted to employ ex-convicts.

He stated that 70% of the inmates in Zimbabwean prisons were under the age of 30. Zimbabwe had a law that mothers in prison could not be separated from their babies, up to the age of two. However, the government did not have a budget for the children, who ended up suffering for their mother’s behaviour. The NGOs had been helpful in addressing the situation. Mr Mandianike went on to thank South Africa for accepting people from Zimbabwe who at the same time had brought some benefit to South Africa. Lastly he said that the Limpopo River should not divide countries and agreed with what Mr Tolo had said.

Ms Gladys Dube, Senator, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-Tsvangirai), said that there was no standardised monitoring of prisons. When the Human Rights Committee visited the prisons, it would table its findings and thereafter make recommendations, but there was no dedicated Ministry that dealt with prisons directly. Parliamentarians were not working together with civil society. She added that there was no oversight role for the monitoring of Commissioners by Ministers. In addition, the fact of three political parties running the country made the situation very difficult. She said that the delegation had noted that in South Africa, doors had been opened to civil society.

Ms Phaliso thanked the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research for facilitating this meeting with the Zimbabwean delegation. It had been a pleasure to hear from the delegation and exchange ideas. She reiterated the need to reach harmony, and rise united, in Africa.

The meeting was adjourned.