Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services on its Third Quarter performance; Briefing on torture in correctional centres

Correctional Services

07 March 2012
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

In the meeting, the new Inspecting Judge for the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services was introduced to the Portfolio Committee. The Judge in his turn announced the appointment of the Acting CEO.

The briefing on the Third Quarter performance of the Inspectorate stated that human resources had increased, but there were more contract posts. Recruitment of Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs) had increased. Upgrading of web-based application was a challenge. 205 complaints had been received from the Portfolio Committee (PC), and other agencies. 85 deaths described as “other” or “unknown” caused concern. 703 segregations had been reported. There was concern that inmates did not know their rights of appeal against segregation. A number of provinces had not reported any use of force. Stakeholder and community involvement in Visitors Committees had to improve. The Department of Correctional Services was thanked for its willingness to meet regularly with the Inspectorate

During the discussion, the Chairperson asked what the Inspectorate would do to ensure complete reporting from the Department. He further asked what had been happening to negligent officials and objected to delays in making reports public. He noted that inmates had complained that some ICCVs had been talked to for years and nothing had happened. An ANC member complained that the families of some inmates were calling her with complaints. She asked where the ICCVs were and also noted that juveniles and sentenced offenders were not being kept separate in centres visited by the PC. ICCVs were not present during Committee oversight visits. She asked about capacity and training for ICCVs. The Inspectorate replied that isolated failures received attention, whereas success cases went unnoticed. The Chairperson insisted on continuous progress reports in the future.

The briefing on torture in correctional centres stated that the Inspectorate supported the Bill of Rights, which provided protection against pain and suffering inflicted, even for those not incarcerated. Torture was not defined as crime or criminalised in South Africa. It was indicated how assault on a deceased inmate over a period of time, and withholding medical care from him, would constitute the crime of murder, had torture been criminalised. The suffering inflicted on the inmate was both physical and mental. The JICS supported the Bill on torture. Evidence was presented about acts by officials that qualified as acts of torture.

In discussion, the Chairperson asked what the Committee and the Inspectorate could do about torture. The JICS replied that it had moved to closer scrutiny, and had strengthened monitoring. Quick reaction to incidents of torture could be preventative. The presence of the JICS had been instrumental in bringing down unnatural deaths over the preceding years to the present. The Chairperson urged that the JICS inform the PC timeously and pro-actively. There had to be consequences for inmates who committed prison rape.

Meeting report

Introduction by the Chairperson and introduction of the new Inspecting Judge
The Chairperson noted that the powers of the Inspecting Judge in terms of the Act was to inspect prisons and report on the treatment of inmates, inmate conditions, and corrupt and dishonest practice. He urged the Judge and his Office to make it effective, towards the protection of human rights in the country.

Mr Tom Moyane, DCS National Commissioner, introduced the Judge on behalf of the Minister.

Judge Vuka Tshabalala, said that he had not yet been involved in the compilation of the Third Quarter report. He had attended a number of stakeholder meetings and functions. He announced that Mr Adam Carelse, Acting CEO, had just been appointed as CEO. Centres at Pollsmoor, Westville, Kokstad, Johannesburg, Zonderwater and leeukop had been visited with Mr Carelse.

Judge Tshabalala said that he would let the emphasis fall on juveniles. That was the key to resolving the problems of incarceration. Young people had to be given a chance to fit in when they left prisons.

Briefing on the Third Quarter performance of the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS)

Mr Adam Carelse, newly appointed CEO of the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS), noted that it was the first time in 12 years that the JICS was presenting a quarterly report. He thanked the Inspecting Judge and the National Commissioner for his appointment. He was humbled by this and pledged his loyalty to the organisation. Mr Carelse then commenced with his briefing.

The summary highlighted the Programmes of Administration; Complaints processing and investigation, and Community oversight and stakeholder engagement. Human resources had increased to a 90% filled rate on the fixed establishment, but contract worker posts had increased to 18. Recruitment of Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs) had increased. In total, expenditure for the 2011/12 budget stood at 82% of the allocated budget. No internal auditor had yet been appointed. The upgrading of web-based application was a cause for concern.

Within Programme 2, there had been 205 new complaints from the Portfolio Committee; the South African Human Rights Commission; the Office of the Public Protector; the Independent Complaints Directorate; the Public Service Commission; the Law Society; the Department of Justice; inmates; family of inmates; and ICCVs / Visitors Committees. Of concern was the 85 deaths reported as “other” or “unknown”. For the Quarter, 20 unnatural deaths had been reported, which included 4 in the vulnerable category of women and children.

There had been evidence that proper disciplinary process was not being followed, and that inmates were not aware of their right to appeal to placement in segregation. 703 segregations had been reported. There were 48 uses of mechanical restraints reported. Eastern Cape; Limpopo; North West and Mpumalanga did not report use of force. The level of stakeholder and community involvement at Visitors Committees had to improve.

Mr Carelse thanked the DCS for opening its doors to the JICS. Since 2011, 11 meetings had been held with the DCS. There could be discussion without appointment.

Discussion

The Chairperson remarked to Mr Carelse that he had referred twice to reports not received from the DCS. He assured Mr Carelse that the DCS would not of its own accord admit when it had erred. He asked what the JICS was doing to ensure that things did not remain unreported. There had been no reports on abuse from the Eastern Cape, for instance. He asked what was in place to counteract that.

Mr Carelse replied that the Judge and himself had met with Regional Commissioners to explain mandatory reporting. The Judge had met with the Regional Commissioner (RC) from the North West the previous Friday, and would meet the RC of Gauteng the next Tuesday. The Judge had personally told the RCs that reporting was not optional. In future the JICS would be in a position to point out non-compliance.

The Chairperson remarked that the new relationship did not assist the three inmates who committed suicide through setting a mattress alight in Krugersdorp. The question was what had happened to those who had been negligent. It was not enough to say that relationships were being built. The Committee wanted to know what was being done that it could take up with the DCS.

Mr Carelse replied that there was also more operational capacity. Legal services had been strengthened. Any unnatural death would be seen to, with a report submitted to the PC by the weekend.

Mr Umesh Raga, JICS National Director of Legal Services, said that every incident was investigated. At Krugersdorp, the three inmates had barricaded their door and set the cell alight. It was found that the DCS had acted appropriately. There would be consistent reporting to the Minister and the Committee. The JICS had reported on Krugersdorp and Grootvlei. His obligation was to write reports that would reach the Committee. All could rest assured that legal services would be a presence whenever unnatural death occurred. Previous delays with the finalisation of reports had been rectified. He assured the PC that even if they had not yet received a report, an investigation was taking place. Prima Facie reports would reach the Committee.

The Chairperson said that the whole of the country had heard of an unnatural death in November, and the DCS only described what happened 5 months later. It would not do to wait 5 months to dispense justice. Even if that meant saying to the parents it was your son’s fault.

Mr Magagula opined that the new CEO had to be willing to move to Durban to work with the Judge there. He asked about the situation regarding the Director’s Office.

Mr Carelse replied that the office in Durban had been opened in June 2011. There were regional offices in George and Bloemfontein, with the head office in Cape Town. Area coordinators had to travel distances of up to 1200 kilometres to get to Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs). If the Judge instructed him to go to Durban, he would go. The head office would remain in Cape Town. The tenure of the Judge was 3 years. The procurement of offices in Durban had been requested. The procurement instruction had been given to the Department of Public Works, but it was still on the desk of the Acting DG. The DPW had been called every second week, but there was no progress.

Mr Magagula noted that no use of force had been reported for Limpopo, North West and Mpumalanga. Yet he had been to the Barberton centre and had obtained evidence of torture, in the form of a letter.

Mr Carelse replied that the use of force at Barberton would again be investigated. The Head of centre had to report about inmate complaints in terms of the Act. No report meant that the head of centre had failed to report, in spite of a statutory obligation to do so.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee had picked up what the head of centre had failed to report. Inmates had reported that a certain independent visitor, a young lady, had been talked to for years, without any result. The relationship between inmates and ICCVs had to be considered.

Mr Cele asked what kind of instruments had been used in the 48 cases of mechanical constraint.

Mr Raga responded that he did not have exact details with him, but in the majority of cases it had been handcuffs.  Details were in the case files and could be provided.

The Chairperson told Mr Carelse that he had to be prepared to defend whatever was reported. It would not do to be held accountable, and to defer the explanation to the following week.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) asked if the JICS was being effective. She told the Judge that she was called every day by the mother of a certain inmate. She asked where the ICCVs were if inmates were constantly calling. The Committee needed to know particulars of ICCVs, so that they could be contacted and sent to solve problems

Ms Phaliso said that at Ceres centre juveniles had not been separated from habitual offenders, even though it was said to be done. The DCS had to be held accountable on that matter. She said that during oversight visits, the Committee did not encounter independent visitors. Inmates complained that problems were not attended to; there were HIV positives who were not getting medicine.

Ms Phaliso continued that the JICS report had been silent about an incident at a Public Private Partnership (PPP) facility. The Committee wanted inmates to be human again. When they were angry and aggressive they resorted to things like burning cells. They needed care and rehabilitation. They were human.

Mr Carelse responded that independent visitors worked under a contract of 3 years to retain their independence and not become institutionalised. They were allocated 40 hours for a whole month. It was inevitable that they would not be at the centre sometimes. At small prisons it was 25 hours per month.

Mr Carelse said that he was privileged to have an understanding of how inmates operated. He had worked as an independent visitor for two years. Inmates would complain to him and he would address the issue. But they would register the same complaints to the Judge, and tell him that they had not seen anybody. There had been 69000 interviews for the Quarter, and 16000 private consultations. There was the perception among inmates that prison visitors could solve their problems. It was in fact outside the JICS mandate. It was referred to the DCS and followed up. A complaint was taken to be resolved when an inmate said so. But again inmates would declare that a complaint had been resolved, and then say to a higher authority that it was not. There were personal inspections by area coordinators. If it was evident that ICCVs had let crucial complaints slip through, they were dismissed. There was disciplining when the mandate was compromised.

Ms Phaliso asked about capacity and training processes. A register and database were needed. Inmates were saying that ICCVs were not returning to them.

The Chairperson noted that the JICS had not answered the question about having to report to the PC on the separation of Remand Detainees and sentenced offenders. At Ceres he had seen a youngster who may have done no more than steal a bread, next to a sentenced inmate covered with tattoos. Judge Cameron had also commented on the lack of separation. Within a year that youngster might be a general in the 26 or 28 prison gang.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said that not enough had been received. Transport for the Judge was a challenge, in terms of policy guidelines for a car for him. There was no solution for the high numbers of unnatural deaths. There was a lack of discipline. The ICCVs had to report on transfers of inmates.

Ms Ngwenya welcomed the appointment of Mr Carelse as CEO, and asked about the results of the last AG audit of JICS. She asked what the use was of interviews with inmates if problems could not be solved. ICCVs had to be depended upon more.

Mr Carelse replied that the JICS was independent in terms of the Act, but in operational and financial terms it was dependent on the DCS. There had been two meetings with the ICD about the JICS office becoming a public entity. But the JICS did not want to rush into a possible qualified audit. The AG visited the JICS office, but it was audited as part of the DCS. Gaps had been identified. There was no internal auditing as yet.

Mr Carelse continued that the reason behind the existence of the JICS, was in terms of the rights granted to inmates according to Section 2 (35) of the Constitution. In practice it was guided by a mandate. Overcrowding had been influenced by the Judge’s Office. Every year there was research that focused on a specific aspect, and it was put on the table. The previous year it had been on transfers. The Commissioner could go and look afresh. Right things were done for the right reasons. The current year’s research would be on health.

Mr Carelse reminded all concerned that the Independent Visitors were human. Isolated cases of failure got attention while 16000 successful cases went unnoticed. The JICS had strengthened its focus on unnatural deaths. It continuously asked if it was rendering service.

Mr P Mnguni (COPE) asked Mr Carelse if it was true that the salary of the previous Inspecting Judge had sometimes not been paid.

The Chairperson advised Mr Carelse not to talk about the conditions of employment of a superior.

Mr Mnguni asked about the internal grievance system, and whether it was adhered to by officials. His own experience had been that it was hard for an inmate to charge an official. He asked why the fact of 69000 interviews and 16000 consultations were not in the public domain. The public reports one got to read portrayed the DCS as a bad creature. Inmate deaths in prison had been on TV the previous week. Management strategy had to be reviewed.

Mr Carelse replied that assault by officials on inmates was monitored. When it occurred there was an internal investigation, and an external investigation by the SAPS. The JICS then sent inspectors to checkfor loopholes in the investigation. The inmate would have a chance to register a complaint with the SAPS. There were reports to the Head of Centre and the Area Commissioner. There were 60000 consultations per year. Information was divulged about individuals in the process. It could implicate inmates and officials. Access to sensitive information could be made possible.

Mr Mnguni asked if Independent Visitors had access to inmates during Operation Vala over the festive season. He asked what challenges the visitors experienced on a daily basis.

Mr Carelse replied that prisons were a challenge to ICCVs during Vala. Mr Modise of the DCS had told Regional and Area Commissioners about the problem. No independent visitor had complained that they had ben denied access during Vala. Two missives had been written to visitors to visit once a week during Vala.

Mr Carelse continued that challenges to prison visitors had to do with personality clashes between them and heads of centres. It was dealt with on a daily basis. In terms of infrastructure, prisons were poorly equipped for ICCVs. There was no electronic equipment or private rooms at their disposal. Systems were being put in place. It was at times necessary to move beyond the Head of Centre to the Area Commissioner. Stubbornness and immaturity on the part of ICCVs was a challenge.

The Chairperson remarked that through the JICS system an inmate could get writing out. Some inmates never received visits from their families. The PC did not believe everything that inmates said, but it had to arrive at their desk.

Mr Mnguni opined that it was premature to say that no one was implicated in the 3 deaths at Krugersdorp centre.

The Chairperson insisted that continuous progress reports were needed. The PC was serious about human rights. It had led a debate about monitoring of cells through closed circuit television. It had to be explained to the PC why the right to not be abused was not prioritised above the right to privacy. Prison rape was an abuse of rights. The PC would take the issue all the way to reduce the prevalence of human rights abuses. It had been discussed with stakeholders, some of whom had warmed to that position.

The Chairperson asked about the JICS perception of the prevalence of torture. The Bill of Rights stated the right not to be tortured, or treated and punished in cruel, inhumane and degrading ways. It would not do to debate if the DCS was free of torture. They were not. Rape happened. The PC insisted on CCTV. It insisted on work for inmates. Sitting idly in cells caused inmates to think up things. There were critics of inmate labour who asked if the PC was advocating slave labour. But work built up self-esteem. Taxpayers paid R6000 for inmates to watch TV. That was not what the Bill of Rights was saying. The question was what South Africans were doing to reduce human rights abuses.

Briefing on torture in correctional facilities
Mr Umesh Raga, JICS National Director of Legal Services, stated that the Office of the Inspecting Judge supported the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protected everyone against pain and suffering inflicted, whether incarcerated or not. Torture was not defined or criminalised as a crime in South Africa. He referred to page 6 of the Annexure to the document. Officials had assaulted a deceased inmate over a period of time. They failed to administer care while the deceased was awaiting transfer to a hospital. Had torture been criminalised, the crime would have been murder. Minimum sentencing would have applied.

Mr Raga stated that the JICS supported the Bill on Torture. Assaults by officials caused severe pain over a period of time, also mental pain and suffering, as happened when officials refused medical assistance. Incidents included in the Annexure where assaults caused physical and mental suffering, would qualify as acts of torture in the Torture Bill.

Discussion
The Chairperson stated that the PC knew that there was torture. They wanted to know what was being done about it. The question was what the PC could do, and what the JICS could do. Human rights were a common responsibility. If the JICS could do nothing, it had to say so.

Mr Raga responded that the Quarterly Report showed that the JICS was applying closer scrutiny. Monitoring had been strengthened to identify human rights abuse acts. Legal services had stronger investigative powers. He conceded that it was a reactive process, but quick reaction could be preventative. Assaults that amounted to torture had to be identified. What happened in SAPS facilities was a challenge. There was no system of independent visitors there. The Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) could only investigate after the fact. The public had to be aware of rights against torture.

Mr Raga stated that the rates of unnatural deaths could stand as a measure of success. There were 55 in 2009/10. The schedule had been in the public eye. There had been a drop to 48 in 2010/11, and to 40 for the current year. The presence of the JICS counted. Crime could not be slowed if the police were slow. The JICS intervention in unnatural death was showing results.

The Chairperson advised that a meeting be held with independent visitors to educate them. Workshops had to be held. It would not do to wait until suicide occurred. The PC did not want post factum stories. It had to be informed pro-actively. He welcomed that the JICS was providing figures, so that the DCS could be confronted with what officials had done. Publishing of post-mortem results was welcomed. The JICS reported sexual assault, but in his view it was rape. He advised Mr Moyane to see a TV feature on a prison gang leader who explicitly described how he took a new “wife” every week, and provided details of how he did it. No one in South Africa had said anything about it. It was not consensual sex. There had to be consequences. Everyone knew who the gang leader was. He asked what needed to be done.

The Deputy Minister of Correctional Services said that all concerned had to assist to improve conditions and evaluations.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

Audio

No related

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: