Interaction with Department of Correctional Services on Correspondence and Information sharing

Correctional Services

02 May 2012
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The meeting provided an opportunity for the Portfolio Committee and the Department of Correctional Services to reach agreement on matters of correspondence and communication between them, especially about complaints from inmates received by the Committee. Such complaints were mainly about parole, transfers and remission of sentences.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee Secretary had become overburdened with correspondence to the point of burnout, largely because the DCS Parliamentary Liaison Officer (PLO) in Parliament was not actively involved. The Secretary had suggested that the Committee have an internal meeting once a month, for an update of where things stood with regard to correspondence with the DCS. The Chairperson referred to a letter received from the DCS, in which they requested a period of 30 days to respond to Committee queries. The letter noted that information from the centres and regions had to be verified by Head Office, which could be time consuming. The Chairperson noted that the DCS had trouble with responding systematically.

The DCS was told that an effective mechanism had to be developed to share information. The role of the DCS PLO in Parliament was again stressed. The Committee accepted the DCS request for a 30-day response period, but Members felt that the Department had to improve in adhering to timelines, and had to render an apology when they could not do so. One Member expressed concern that the DCS Head Office might be doctoring information from the centres and regions, if they anticipated that the facts might be unacceptable to the Committee. The DCS emphatically denied that.

As often in the past, there was concern about DCS IT capacity, and how the lack of that compromised effective communication. The Chairperson told the DCS that the Committee and the DCS had to develop a basis for holding each other accountable. When it came to inmate complaints, the Committee needed information to tell inmates what was being done about their case, and whether the DCS was updating them about progress. Inmates had to be satisfied that their complaints had been heard at the highest level. The DCS agreed that they could commit themselves to establishing such a system of effective communication.

Meeting report

In-house discussion about correspondence with Department of Correctional Services (DCS)
The Chairperson remarked that Ms Cindy Balie, Committee Secretary, had begun to suffer burnout because of the way in which matters of correspondence with the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) was currently proceeding. Things could not proceed in the current fashion. The DCS had a Parliamentary Liaison Officer (PLO) in Parliament, who could be engaged more actively. Ms Balie had suggested that an internal meeting be held once a month, to keep track of what the Portfolio Committee and the DCS were saying to each other. The DCS would be asked to provide progress reports within 14 working days, which would indicate that a matter had reached the Minister’s office, for instance.

The Chairperson referred to a letter from the DCS he had just received, in which they requested a period of 30 days for that purpose. The Committee had housekeeping matters to attend to. If minutes were not brought up to date, the proposed Committee study tour could not take place. Correspondence would be provided on a weekly basis by Ms Balie. The DCS could appoint someone to do parliamentary minuting, and PMG reports could also assist with that.

Mr J Selfe (DA) asked if the DCS would be speaking about parole matters in the meeting.

The Chairperson replied that the DCS had been reminded of parole matters since 3 February. It was important to get parole issues out of the way. Nutrition would follow. With regard to that, he noted that the DCS had blamed the Department of Public Works (DPW) for shortcomings in the food supply process. However, the DPW had replied to that by saying that the DCS had asked them to fix up only six of the 18 kitchens where problems were being experienced. The DPW claimed that it had neither been told about the other 12, nor had they received a budget for them. Ms Jolingana of the DCS had to be asked where her task team was with that exercise. Pressure had to be applied to deal with the matter of kitchens.

Mr S Abram (ANC) remarked that Mr Moyane, the National Commissioner, had promised to respond at the end of a previous meeting about the matter, but time constraints had prevented that. The Committee had a right to hear a response from him within a matter of days.

The Chairperson replied that a formal letter had been sent to the Commissioner. A forthcoming meeting had to deal with outstanding parole issues, together with the Quarterly report by the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS).

The Chairperson returned to the letter received from the DCS the day before, on Departmental responses. The letter read that complaints from citizens, inmates and officials were received by the Committee. Those were referred to the National Commissioner, and sent for response to centre management level. It was hard to get information from centres. A period of only 14 days to report, would pose the risk of unverified information reaching the Committee. Operations Management Support (OMS)  had developed a format to improve the system, but 14 days was too short a period. The DCS requested a timeframe of 30 days.

Mr Abram remarked that the request for a 30-day timeframe had to be weighed against how the DCS had hitherto performed with regard to keeping to timeframes. One could ask Ms Balie how they had kept within their own timeframes in the past.

The Chairperson replied that the DCS had trouble with responding systematically.

Mr Abram suggested that the request be granted, but that the Department should be reminded that they had been unable to keep to timeframes in the past.

The Chairperson replied that there would be acceptance with conditionalities attached. A budget position had to be adopted on 9 May. Ms Balie had been upset by the fact that the DCS did not apologise when they were late.

Mr Abram remarked that the DCS were masters of deviousness.

The Chairperson advised that the DCS be given a copy of the Committee minutes.

Meeting with Department of Correctional Services on Correspondence & Information sharing
The Chairperson told Mr Zachariah Modise, DCS Chief Deputy Commissioner (Corrections) that there had been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing on the DCS work method. There were problems related to PLO links between the Ministry and Parliament. There had to be a more effective mechanism of sharing information with the DCS. The Parliamentary PLO was not even present in the meeting. There was a communication breakdown. It would no longer do for the Secretary to have to remind the PLO to issue communications.

He continued that the Secretary objected to the fact that she did not receive documents from the DCS, even when the agenda, date and time of meetings had been given to them long beforehand. The rule that documents had to be submitted seven days before a meeting, had to be adhered to. Correspondence received from the DCS had to be reworked by the Secretary to make it understandable to Parliament. The quality of DCS responses made her work burdensome. It was essential that the PLO be present at the meeting. The PLO had to be the eyes and ears of the Ministry.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) asked if Mr Modise could summon the PLO to the meeting.

The Chairperson asked Mr Modise to speak to the letter received from him the day before.

Mr Modise told the Committee that timelines for furnishing information to Parliament were a challenge. Correctional centres in the provinces had to submit information to area level. From there it proceeded to the National Commissioner. It was hard to verify that information. In the past the DCS had told the Committee on occasion that information had not been verified yet, and could not be submitted. He had spoken to the Commissioner and top management about the challenge of timely submission.

Mr Modise continued that the Parliamentary Liaison Office would be strengthened. Challenges had to be admitted. The DCS would comply with supplying names of delegations to meetings, in advance. He admitted that the DCS was struggling, and that communications between his office and the Committee secretary had to improve.

Mr Selfe remarked that there was an information challenge. Over the years the quality of information received from the DCS had decreased, and the time taken had increased. The nature of challenges had to be specified. The DCS had to comment on the nature of steps taken, and how long it would take to rectify the situation.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) agreed that the DCS had to be granted enough time to verify information. The DCS had to be clear about how much time they needed.

Mr Abram objected to the fact that when Ms Phaliso asked Mr Modise to summon the PLO to the meeting, Mr Modise had commented that the PLO was at “the Select Committee meeting”. That was not good. Officials had to take trouble to get the PLO to the meeting. He said that Ms Ngwenya had agreed with the DCS about more time needed to verify information, but he had to warn that if there was agreement about time frames, the DCS had to see to it that they were adhered to. It was human to err, but when the DCS could not make deadlines, they had to apologise for their failure. The DCS had to say how much time they needed.

Mr Abram continued that Parliament operated in terms of the Constitution. One of the important functions of Parliament was to interrogate the budget. The DCS had to understand that Parliament could consider slashing budgets, or suggesting that certain DCS functions required more funding. Parliament had the right to cut budgets, or even reject them. That had not happened yet, but Parliament needed to be adequately informed. He asked Mr Modise to indicate information challenges, and bring it to the Committee. He said that the DCS had to apologise if it could not deliver on time.

The Chairperson emphasised the role of the PLO in improving relations. The PLO was not there to capture decisions taken. The PLO was the ideal one to report.

Mr Modise responded that Mr Phiko Mbambo, PLO in the DCS, usually took the minutes, which were completed in the national office. There was also a full-time PLO officer in Parliament. Mr Mbambo was trying to call him. The DCS needed a period of 30 days to ensure quality and accuracy. Operational matters raised with the DCS, had to be seen to by officials responsible. Decisions had to be taken about which information received from the regions, was relevant to the Committee. When information from the regions was of low quality, it caused delays. The DCS Master Information System (MIS) was at times not accessible, and then information had to be processed manually. There were office management systems in place in the Corrections branch, which could improve provision and storage of information. There were interventions for accuracy, through weekly meetings with the PLO in Parliament, Mr Lucky Mthetwa.

The Chairperson advised that Mr Mbambo and Mr Mthetwa work together to strengthen the PLO function.

Mr Abram remarked that he was worried by Mr Modise’s response. There had been major budget spending on IT in the Department. If the regions could not be relied upon to pick up irregularities, the whole system needed a major overhaul.

He was especially concerned that if the national office saw that information might not conform to parliamentary expectations, it could be doctored. He had to question the final product that the Committee received, whether that might be the result of interference. It might be better for the Committee to receive unadulterated information from centre level and decide for themselves. That would remove the doubt that middle and top management may have concocted things. There was a larger problem, that inmate interests such as nutrition and rehabilitation, might be compromised. When that happened, the DCS was taken to court, because the Constitution allowed inmates access to courts. And court cases were costly, as the e-Toll matter had demonstrated.

Mr Abram continued that the DCS had a constitutional obligation to carry out functions in the interest of the citizenry. If any person wanted to challenge the DCS, they had a lot to answer to. Constitutional rights were being violated. He suggested that people from centre level be brought to the Committee, instead of always having to rely on national level officials. There was clearly a gap between centre and national levels.

Mr L Max (DA) remarked that sifting of information was generic in government departments. It was possible that lower rung officials interfered with access to information. He asked who the Chief Deputy Commissioner was that had to coordinate information and check for correctness.

The Chairperson likewise asked which CDC was ultimately responsible for integrity of information. He agreed with Mr Abram that delegates from regions had to appear before the Committee. It could be a good idea to get people from all nine regions when matters such as parole were being discussed. The DCS could bring shop floor mangers to the Committee. The Minister had also suggested that route. She was also not sure if headquarters knew what was going on at centre level. The Committee would not micromanage the Department. Unless the DCS improved in terms of IT, there could be no clear communication, also between the national Commissioner and the Minister. Having to rely on manual systems would be the downfall of the Department. The State Information Technology Agency (SITA) had been tasked to corroborate and improve the integrity of information in the criminal justice cluster. Information was need on people who were out on bail. SITA had been called to appear on 23 May about that matter. He asked if a single person was responsible at headquarters level for integrity of information.

Mr Modise responded that offender matters came to his office, and from there, to Ms Jenny Schreiner in the Operations Management Support (OMS) office. He assured the Committee that information was not doctored, only verified. It was also often necessary to check language. No information about offenders was altered. If the information was correct it was relayed, if not it was referred back to the regions. There were officials at national level who had long service behind them, and could provide information with integrity. He repeated that information was not interfered with. If there was information that was not in line with government policy, it was supplied nonetheless.

The Chairperson insisted there had to be a basis on which the DCS and the Committee could hold each other accountable. There could not be another incident where a meeting was out of the question because information had not been provided on time. That amounted to fruitless expenditure. The DCS had to indicate sensitivities on supplying names of offenders when discussing parole matters, for instance.

The Chairperson asked Mr Modise to report on how recent complaints by inmates had been handled.

Mr Modise responded that a Baviaanspoort inmate had been assured that he would be transferred early in 2012. The Gauteng Deputy Commissioner had granted approval and the inmate was transferred to Modder B on 12 March.

A lifer at Zonderwater had complained that he had not been reclassified, although there had been no challenges during his sentence, and he had participated fully in programmes. He had written to the Head of Centre. Approval was granted to have him reclassified for a medium security sentence.

An 30 years old Leeukop inmate had been sentenced in February 2001 for serious assault and rape. He had received a life sentence. As he had been sentenced before 2004, the provisions of the Act were he would have had to serve 20 years, but 6 years and 8 months were deducted from the sentence.

The Chairperson asked Mr Modise to confine himself to inmates with parole issues.

Mr Modise referred to the Groenpunt Medium Centre inmate who had complained about parole and health issues. He was transferred to Johannesburg Medium in February 2012.

A Kimberley inmate who complained about parole and transfer, was transferred to Klerksdorp in February 2012.

The Chairperson interjected to ask if it was possible to correspond with the individuals referred to. When an inmate wrote to Parliament, there had to be the ability to respond. It had to be possible to go back to the inmate in Groenpunt, for instance, and answer him about progress with his complaint.

Mr Selfe stressed that accurate information was needed, in written form. There had to be an opportunity to interrogate, to make sure if information was complete.

The Chairperson asked if the original correspondence in a case like that of the Groenpunt inmate was available. He asked if it was possible to have a list of original complaints, matched with responses from the DCS. If an inmate claimed that he was not transferred from Johannesburg to Modder B because the prison authority did not like him, the Committee had to be able to provide the real reasons why the transfer had been withheld. The Committee was struggling to complete the accountability cycle.

Mr Modise granted it could be possible to provide both the inmate and the Committee directly with updates on the case.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had to be in possession of information which could enable them to tell an inmate how his case was progressing, and what decisions had been taken.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that there were other mechanisms to deal with everyday complaints. It was important to deal with matters rapidly. The Committee had sat down with the family of an inmate in Mpumalanga to ask for a transfer. The Head of Centre was approached. Gauteng centres were checked for a suitable alternative. The transfer happened within 7 days. The Head of Centre’s office phoned to say that the inmate had been transferred. The family reported that they had received a call to say that their child had been transferred. It had been a simple procedure. The key element was to deal with such problems immediately.

The Chairperson agreed that that was the reason why the Committee was willing to grant a period of 30 days for the DCS to supply information. It was to give the Department time to report accurately on what had happened, and what correspondence there had been.

Mr Mbambo, DCS PLO, asked if the Committee was insisting on seeing the original correspondence about a complaint.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee wanted to see progress reports. It had to be possible to tell an inmate, for instance, that two of his complaints were unfounded, but that he would appear before a parole board. The Committee would also want to ask the inmate if he had been informed about decisions taken. There had to be the reassurance that his story had been heard at the highest level. There was a backlog. The Committee would not mind being told that an inmate had been released, and there was no longer anything to talk about. It was a matter of fixing up the accountability cycle. The Committee would do the internal work once a month to see what could be written off.

Mr Modise noted that the complaints list could be worked through and updated by that Friday, 4 May.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would see the Department on 16 May for its Quarterly report. The Committee wanted to be able to say by then that the list of 30 cases had been dealt with. Information had to be received seven days before that.

Mr Modise replied that it was an attainable goal. It could form part of the documentation for the Quarterly report.

Mr Mbambo noted that 16 May was budget day for Correctional Services.

The Chairperson replied that the budget would be dealt with in the afternoon. The committee meeting would take place in the morning. The Department had to be in Cape Town anyway. He repeated that documentation had to reach the Committee by 9 May.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: