Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services on its January-March 2012 quarterly performance

Correctional Services

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

Meeting Summary

The Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services had both its new Inspecting Judge and the Chief Executive Officer present who set the tone in terms of leadership by guiding the Inspectorate to focus on its core function of monitoring the oversight of the treatment of inmates within correctional facilities. Its Administration programme had managed through its Human Resources and Development unit to achieve a 93% filled rate on the fixed establishment. The programme of Complaints Monitoring, Inspections And Investigations noted its Directorate of Legal Services had handled 24 inspections, 8 investigations and 217 complaints. Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs) provided information for the Directorate to make recommendations on. Assaults by DCS members on inmates had been reported on in depth by the Directorate, as were unnatural deaths. Under the programme of Community Oversight and Stakeholder engagement, the focus was on ICCVs and Visitors Committees. Thirty ICCVs had been inducted during the reporting period. A challenge identified was that stakeholder and community involvement in Visitors Committees required significant improvement.

In discussion, the general inability of the DCS to respond adequately about complaints again came under fire, as so often in recent meetings. Members remarked that the Department either ignored the JICS, or responded bureaucratically. The JICS was asked what actions they were taking to compel the Department to respond. An incident where a JICS inspector was denied access to Van Rhynsdorp centre, with the Head of Centre claiming that she did not know about the Inspectorate, caused grave concern. Also noted was the long time lapse between assaults on inmates, and DCS reporting about them. The Chairperson told the DCS delegate present that the Department was sabotaging the Minister, the Portfolio Committee and the JICS with their reluctance to respond with information timeously. He went so far as to warn both the DCS and the JICS that they could both be held in contempt of Parliament if they failed to reach an agreement to make the JICS more effective. The DCS was reminded that the Act required it to give information to the Judicial Inspectorate. DCS had to act with more alacrity. The problem was that there were no consequences for errant officials.  The two bodies were instructed to have an indaba before a forthcoming meeting on 23 May.

A COPE member was skeptical about the independence of the JICS. DA and ANC members alike were concerned about systemic and management problems in the DCS. Members remarked on a lack of urgency in the Department. A member asked how suicide could occur in a situation where there were 15 to 30 inmates in a cell. That prompted the Chairperson to tell the DCS, as often before in recent meetings, that if they could not cope with a problem they had to say so publicly. The general atmosphere of the meeting was a shared sentiment among members that fundamental change could no longer be deferred. It seemed that the DCS was not interested in making the JICS work. Against that background, the question arose what the purpose of the JICS was. The Inspectorate was warned that that question would be asked in the meeting on 23 May.

Meeting report

Quarterly Report for January to March 2012 by Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services
Judge Vuka Tshabalala, the Inspecting Judge, reported that he was in the process of getting a feel for conditions, seeing that he was still at the beginning of his term. He had had occasion to reflect on community oversight. There would be a future report on children and youth in prisons. His visits to seven correctional centres had not been included in the current report, but would be included in the report for the next quarter.

Mr Adam Carelse, CEO of the Inspectorate, presented an executive summary of the period from January to March 2012. He noted that it was only the second Quarterly Report, and it had to be considered as a “still developing process”. The JICS had to see where gaps had to be filled. The JICS had embarked on structured visits with the Inspecting Judge for the first time. The Judge had taken the lead in oversight. There had been 13 visits, which had included all the Regional Commissioners. There had been meetings with state organisations, to set up Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs).

Mr Carelse set out the three programmes running in the JICS. Those were: Administration; Complaints Processing, Monitoring and Investigations; Community Oversight and Stakeholder Engagement.

The Administration programme included the Human Resources and Development unit has achieved a 93% filled rate on the fixed establishment. Expenditure on the programme had increased by 19% over the previous year to a quarterly average of R6.6 million. Under the programme of Complaints Processing and Investigations, the Directorate of Legal Services had handled 24 inspections, 8 investigations and 217 complaints. Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs) had provided information that led to the opening of 123 files, of which 17 had been finalised. There had been in depth reporting on assaults by officials on inmates.
 
Under the Community Oversight and Stakeholder engagement programme, Mr Carelse reported that there was a vacancy rate of 13% in ICCV Committees. 30 new ICCVs had been inducted. There had been 186 Visitor Committee meetings. He admitted that stakeholder involvement in Visitors Committees had to improve.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) remarked that there was a general trend where many cases the JICS had referred to the DCS without receiving any feedback. The pattern was that even when the DCS did respond, it was bureaucratic. It would mentioned that a letter had been sent to x, y or z in the Department. He asked what actions were being taken to compel the DCS to respond.

Mr Carelse responded that in the JICS Annual Report of the year before it had stated that the Directorate of Legal Services consisted of three people. Currently it employed 10 people. The JICS was building new systems and opening up. That was the first phase. The second phase consisted of data and information gathering. The third phase was to continue working on cases. Each finding had to go back to the DCS. There had to be agreement between the Inspecting Judge, the National Commissioner and the Minister. There was frustration around the slow responses, and the JICS would also insist on a response within 30 days, as the Portfolio Committee had resolved to do.

Mr Selfe referred to the list of errata attached to the presentation. An inspector had been denied access to the Van Rhynsdorp centre. The same thing had happened to him some years before. A letter had been forwarded to the Head of Centre, the Area Commissioner and the Regional Commissioner, but there had been no response. It was a serious matter, and the mere writing of a letter was not sufficient.

Mr Carelse responded that a letter had been written to the Head of Centre about access denied at Van Rhynsdorp centre. She had replied that she was not acquainted with the JICS. He himself was scheduled to visit the centre on 23 May about this matter. The Head of Centre had apologised, but the JICS was not satisfied and had referred the matter to the Area Commissioner and Regional Commissioner.

Mr Selfe said that he could not believe that officials could be so unfamiliar with the Act. It was inexplicable. It pointed to a systemic problem of deep mismanagement.

Mr Carelse replied that it was for that very reason that the JICS had reported on the matter. It would be on the agenda at the next management meeting.

Mr Selfe objected that the standard of grammar and spelling in the Quarterly Report could be improved. On page 28 there was a sentence about assault by a DCS member. It mentioned that the complaint was…and then the sentence broke off in midair.

Judge Tshabalala replied that he shared that concern. There would be improvement in the next Quarterly Report. With regard to systemic and management problems, he noted that he had had meetings with Regional Commissioners about the role of the JICS. Henceforth he would tell them about the difficulties that the JICS were facing.

Mr Selfe referred to the long time lapse between the occurrence of incidents of assault, and reporting on them. In Table 8 there was an example where it had taken from 18 April 2011 to 10 January 2012. After such a long time, verification of the incident would have disappeared. Initial documentation could be lost, bruises could be gone and people could have forgotten details of an incident. There had to be a better way to act with more alacrity. The problem was that there were no consequences for errant officials. The question was how to speed up the process, and what the role of the Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs) could be.

Mr Carelse responded that the Independent Correctional Centre Visitors were allocated a specific number of hours. They had a specific function of conducting random interviews with 25% of inmates per month. Inmates did not come forward voluntarily with complaints, the ICCVs had to go and look for them. Sometimes inmates would only speak to their families a month after an incident had occurred. The JICS was investigating methods of obtaining information as quickly as possible. Rapid access to information was a challenge.

The Chairperson noted that the Portfolio Committee would meet with the Department on 23 May. He asked if the JICS could be represented at that meeting. He said that the consequences of DCS behaviour made life difficult for all concerned. The Minister had also expressed her frustration at the reluctance of DCS officials to respond and provide information. It sabotaged her, the Portfolio Committee and the JICS. The DCS and the JICS had to do the necessary spadework. They had two weeks for that.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) remarked that the DCS and the JICS seemed unable to bridge the gap between them.

The Chairperson told Mr Lucky Mthethwa, the DCS delegate present, that the Portfolio Committee would pronounce on 23 May whether there had been contempt of Parliament. It was a serious matter. If agreement was not reached, the Portfolio Committee would write to the Speaker and the Minister, and the DCS and associates would be held in contempt of Parliament. It had to be understood that there was a sentiment of frustration.

Mr Carelse responded that the National Commissioner had assigned Chief Deputy Commissioner Modise to meet with the JICS. The meeting had initially been postponed, but the JICS did approach the DCS on 27 April.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) thanked the JICS for the data they had provided. She asked for the number of a national contact person so that the Committee Secretary would not be bothered. The Portfolio Committee had to have a chance to become familiar with the facts.

The Chairperson asked that numbers be given to the Committee Secretary and Committee members.

Mr Ndlovu remarked that he shared the sentiments of Mr Selfe about mismanagement. There were fire hydrants at centres that were positioned outside the buildings. That prevented the taking of emergency action. Heads of Centres were not familiar with mandatory requirements. The problem was that the DCS was forever writing letters, but there was no indication of who had to respond, and no action behind it.

The Chairperson again addressed Mr Mthethwa, the DCS delegate. He told him that he and the Parliamentary Liaison Officer had to understand that an arrangement between the Inspecting Judge and the DCS was required by the Act, and it had to be adhered to. The DCS had to supply information. He insisted that the DCS and the JICS have an indaba before the meeting scheduled for 23 May, not to lament but to put proposals on the table. The situation the JICS was in, was not unique. The Independent Complaints Directorate in the Police was the counterpart of the JICS, and they were toothless. Independent funding for the JICS was a political matter, and the Portfolio Committee would deal with that.

Mr L Max (DA) noted that he had been on the Committee for two years, and had never before experienced such a lack of urgency. He referred to access denied at Van Rhynsdorp centre. It was a serious transgression that could be likened to obstructing a person about to enforce the law. In that case there had been obstruction of a Constitutional mandate. It was serious. It was mandatory for the DCS to report to the JICS. The DCS did not take the Portfolio Committee and the JICS seriously, and the JICS had no teeth as a result. The DCS did nothing beyond writing letters.

Mr Max continued that he saw a huge lack of management. It was up to the JICS to tell the DCS to put a room in the kitchen. There were no consequences for not complying in the DCS. The Portfolio Committee had to be answered to about everything that the JICS had reported on. The Portfolio Committee was lenient with the DCS, and they were taking things for granted. The status of every matter reported on had to be clarified. If a matter had not been resolved, reasons had to be given. When he was in the SAPS, non-compliance had occurred whenever people had been appointed just for the sake of filling a position.

Mr M Mnguni (COPE) said that he had thought the JICS to be independent, and not accountable to the DCS. As long as the JICS had to report to the Department about complaints against them, it would go nowhere. He said that there was confusion about dates reported. The date of the first letter written to the DCS was not supplied, nor the date on which matters had been resolved. The JICS was in the position of the middleman who collected information and sent it back to the DCS. The DCS were in the habit of sitting on JICS letters and taking their time. Then they would give a boring response.

Mr S Abram (ANC) remarked that the prevailing attitude in the DCS was one of: “laat Gods water oor Gods akker loop”, which meant let things take their course, do not rock the boat. He agreed with the Chairperson that it was not the time for lamenting. The way forward had to be mapped out. JICS had been created by statute, and it had certain duties and functions. The long time lapses that followed upon writing to the DCS, indicated a major systemic problem. The days were gone when officials were seen as sweethearts. There was a job to do and expectations had to be made clear. DCS officials had to start doing their work. One did not need a rocket scientist to fix a roof. Inmates could do that, instead of going through the filling out of works orders. Prisons had to become more self-sufficient. The riot act had to be read out to the DCS, so to speak.

Mr Abram continued that it would no longer do to have people employed who only used the DCS as a stepping-stone. Those who were not capable would have to give way. JICS had to tell the Committee about their real frustrations about getting information from the DCS.

Mr Carelse replied that the Inspecting Judge had told him and the Director of Legal Services the day before at a management meeting, that the names of people who had dealt with issues had to be obtained. Mr Carelse admitted that JICS needed to get its house in order. JICS was as yet unable to say to whom letters had been sent. Detail was needed for compliance. An appointment would be made for a follow-up meeting to the one on 27 April, to find a joint constructive solution.

The Chairperson said that JICS had to be present at the meeting scheduled for 23 May, to discuss the relationship between them and the DCS. He proposed that the DCS bring all seven Regional Commissioners with their delegation on 23 May. At that meeting, the Section in the Act that dealt with the role of the Inspecting Judge, would be revisited. If it were a budget issue, the appropriateness of report lines would be highlighted. The question was how appropriate it was for JICS to have to go back to the Department. The question regarding report lines was what happened next after violations had been discovered. He agreed with Mr Mnguni that it had turned into a talking shop. After the 23 May meeting, Committee members would lay down the law. Millions had been spent on something that bought nothing.

The Chairperson repeated that the seven Regional Commissioners had to be present on 23 May. They had to explain how it could happen that the Inspecting Judge could be denied access to a centre, with the Head of Centre saying she did not know about JICS.

Mr Mnguni referred to the fact that JICS had stated that dates related to certain cases were not applicable (Pages 26 and 27). When investigations were done, dates had to be asked for. It was not possible to correspond properly with a Head of Centre if dates were not known.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) said he could not understand how suicide could occur when there were 15 to 30 people in a cell. There had to be a thorough explanation for how inmates could manage to commit suicide under those circumstances.

The Chairperson said that actions taken to circumvent suicide had to be discussed on 23 May. If nothing could be done about it, South Africa had to be told exactly that. There was no point in merely lamenting the fact.

Mr M Cele (ANC) asked what had happened about damaged state vehicles, as noted under Programme 1.

Mr Carelse replied that there had been a disciplinary hearing about the one matter. The member was held liable for R100, which he had to pay. In the second incident the damage was far greater, and a full-scale investigation was under way. A preliminary report held the member liable.

Mr Magagula asked if it was appropriate to issue a final warning to a member when the damage was only R100.

Mr Carelse replied that when there was damage to state property, there had to be discipline action.

The Chairperson asked about the dates of the accidents.

Mr Carelse replied that it had been on 1 January and 2 February, respectively. A police report had to be awaited in the second instance. It was part of an internal process. In the first case only a number plate had been damaged. Someone stopped unexpectedly in front of the driver.

The Chairperson remarked that it had taken three months. As Mr Selfe had noted, in state matters everybody took their time. People were suspended with pay for indefinite periods in state departments. It created a bad impression when it took long to deal with damage to state vehicles. The DCS, along with the SAPS, had the longest suspensions among state departments. People were not on site but were being paid. The Portfolio Committee as public representatives had to account to constituencies about such matters.

The Chairperson continued that on 23 May there had to be clarity about the purpose of JICS. It was not good enough for JICS to claim that they were blowing the whistle. Challenges had to be highlighted.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

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: