Minister of Correctional Services briefing on general issues & Jackie Selebi parole issues

Meeting report

Briefing by the new Minister of Correctional Services
Mr Sibusiso Ndebele, newly appointed Minister of Correctional Services, said that there had been a vision of criminal justice in the Freedom Charter. The White Paper on Corrections could oversee critical policy. He gave a breakdown of the inmate population, underlining the prevalence of aggressive crime, and said that this type of crime had to be addressed. 40% of the inmate population were remand detainees. There were 195 000 probationers. There was an established attitude that incarceration was the best deterrent for crime. The number of women incarcerated had increased over the preceding three years. Conditions for mothers and babies had to improve, and there had to be skills development.

South Africa had the highest percentage of inmates per population in Africa. It was only exceeded by countries like the USA, and these statistics pointed to the violent nature of South African society.

The bulk of the prison population was composed of young black men between the ages of 18 and 35. 40% of the prison population were serving life sentences. The public had to be educated about rehabilitation, and the remand detainees had to be effectively managed. It was necessary to take more steps to prevent re-offending. The Minister emphasised the importance of non-custodial sentencing, parole, and restorative justice. Production workshops, farming and skills building had to be improved, to assist reintegration. The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had to develop management accountability and deliver on programmes.

There were challenges of overcrowding, structural dysfunctionality, IT infrastructure, misalignment of the budget allocation and performance indicators. There had to be education and skills development. Libraries were needed for “reading for redemption”, as he phrased it. The community had been called upon to donate books. A trading entity had been established for work done by inmates. Parole supervision would be improved, and it must be understood that community corrections had an important role. The position of remand detainess was a governmental and Departmental priority.

Discussion
Mr S Abram (ANC) remarked that the current situation was one where offenders were simply being “warehoused”. Inmates were being kept locked up for 23 out of 24 hours, and had no time to be productive. He urged that, in particular, men in the group of 18 to 35 year olds had to make a contribution to society.

Mr Abram continued that everyone detained had the right to accommodation at state expense. Inmates also had a right to medical treatment. The Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) had stated the importance of health care in a previous meeting, having received many complaints on that issue, so it was a serious challenge. The Portfolio Committee (PC) would render unqualified support to the Ministry in addressing this problem.

Mr Abram turned to problems around creating work for inmates. At Baviaanspoort, the PC had been told that most inmates were of urban background, and not suited to or willing to do agricultural work. At Modder B, it was indicated that there was a need to do agricultural work.

Mr Abram noted that the Minister had said that corrections was a societal responsibility. He was convinced that other state departments also had a responsibility, notably the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR). Inmates could contribute to food production, yet it did not appear that the DCS had interacted with other departments. There was nothing being done in urban centres. He urged the DCS to think more creatively and come up with a plan to make better citizens out of inmates.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that he had enjoyed the Minister’s presentation and appreciated the good intentions expressed. However, he had to admit that he had seen good intentions expressed also by five previous Ministers. The question was whether these intentions were being implemented, and he noted that, admirable as the White Paper on Corrections was, it too was not being implemented. The right resources were not being applied in the right places.

Mr Selfe continued that community corrections and alternative sentencing had to be prioritised. Inmates with sentences shorter than two years were being held without sentence plans. They were exposed to criminal elements and were adopting worse attitudes. The judiciary had to get involved. There had to be proper management, and it was necessary to look at where the Criminal Procedure Act could be amended. Every effort had to be made to keep people with sentences of less than two years out of prison. If inmates were incarcerated, then they had to have the opportunity to work, or study, or both. He agreed with the Minister that “reading for redemption” was a good notion, but pointed out that most people would read after work, so that inmates similarly should work an 8 hour day as well.

Mr L Max (DA) said that he had an interest in management. Oversight had underlined the reality that the DCS was at the dead end of the criminal justice process. The Ministry was passionate about reintegration, but it still remained only an ideal. The reality in correctional centres was that there could be no programmes if inmates were not sufficiently motivated. The 7-day establishment was a generic problem in that regard. Managers were being prohibited from implementing programmes, as there were, in fact, only two DCS members to oversee 500 inmates.

Mr Max continued that there was no relationship between management and members on the ground. Grievances could be heard formally for redress and arbitration, but DCS officials lived in constant fear of victimisation. There had to be the assurance that one would not be victimised for speaking out. At Kimberley, it seemed certain that there would be negative consequences for those who spoke out. There was a communication breakdown between the Area Commissioner and the rest of the officials. Three female members had recently resigned because of victimisation. Officials had to borrow uniforms from each other, even if they did not fit, and they were unhappy about promotion policy.

Mr Max referred to the fact that the Minister said he relied on the expertise of his Deputy Minister, but cautioned the Minister not to rely on that too much. He had, at times over the preceding two years, thought that there were signs of change, but there was still frustration at centre level. The reality was that there was a huge gap between top management and DCS officials at the grassroots level. If a person wanted to know about the morale of members on the ground, there was no sense in asking top management, but instead the enquiry should be done by an independent labour practitioner. He urged that the DCS look after its members, and said that at the moment, top management was not doing that.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) expressed trust in the Minister’s leadership. The fact that the country had the highest percentage of inmates in Africa had to be corrected. It was unfortunately the case that South Africa had inherited foreign nationals from the rest of Africa, who got involved in crime in this country.

The Minister responded that there was the possibility of deporting prisoners from Botswana.

Mr Ngoako Ramatlhodi, Deputy Minister of Correctional Services, said that foreign prisoners were a difficult issue. He had recently attended SADC deliberations on defence and security. The South African Constitution did not permit extradition if this was to be done to a country or region where the death sentence could be enforced, except where the President of the receiving country gave an undertaking that the extradited prisoner would not be executed. He noted that people were already fleeing from California to South Africa, which was regarded as a haven.

The Minister added that as long as such people did not commit crime locally, they could move about freely in South Africa. There were people who had murdered in other countries walking the streets of South Africa.

Ms Phaliso said that the increased number of female inmates caused concern. Something more was needed to address the issue than Women’s Day events. There had to be programmes. South Africa had a legacy of broken families. Whilst the Department of Social Development addressed some issues, it was not enough. The economic environment was unfavourable to many women. Some had to resort to crime to make a living for their children. In addition, programmes for youth were necessary. She urged that there must be interaction with the Ministry of Social Development to develop appropriate programmes for women, youth and broken families, Oversight had shown that centres were overcrowded with traumatised children. Officials could not train inmates if they had not been trained themselves. Some inmates were difficult to deal with. On oversight, one inmate had insisted that he was a boxer, and another that he was involved with martial arts, and the impression was gained that they did not want to work, but to train at their sport. S

Ms Phaliso noted that the previous Northern Cape Premier had insisted that only local people work at Kimberley Centre. People from other provinces were not accepted. She added that staff vacancy rates in the DCS still caused concern.

Ms Phaliso said that the late Ms Nyanda had been most concerned about the vetting of officials. The PC had picked up some sensitive things related to vetting.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) said that the overflow of Remand Detainees (RDs) was due to the working hours of lawyers and Legal Aid South Africa, as well as the fact that cases were not speedily attended to.

Mr Ndlovu said with regard to foreign nationals in local centres, that the DCS was part of the Justice Cluster. Whatever protocols existed in countries of origin had to be used to reduce the rate of foreign nationals in local centres. Offenders were leaving their own countries to commit crime in South Africa.

Mr Ndlovu remarked that it was impossible to rehabilitate juveniles who were incarcerated for only three or six months. The relationship between staff and the DCS management would one day break out in chaos. If people did not meet and talk, they fought.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Ndlovu about juveniles incarcerated for short periods. At Baviaanspoort, there were some who were incarcerated for between ten and one hundred days, and this made no sense in terms of rehabilitation. Maximum section inmates did not work, as the DCS said that they were dangerous and could escape. There were hundreds of inmates who were doing nothing nothing. The PC did not accept that maximum security prisoners could not work.

The Chairperson remarked that the PC was also concerned about the fact that gangs took over after dark. The PC was in favour of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in centres, and many stakeholders were in agreement. The DCS and the National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS) were saying that it was against government policy, but he cautioned that the Committee felt very strongly and would push forward on this point.

The Chairperson continued that there were cellphone signals in correctional centres, and said that the situation would not improve while DCS staff were smuggling cellphones in. The only solution was to jam the cellphone signals. Inmates and officials were colluding, and criminal operations were being run from within cells.

The Deputy Minister remarked, with regard to restorative justice, that sometimes the victim would agree to the offender being released into society, but the community would not. It could be difficult to persuade communities that no matter how long an offender was kept in, sooner or later he must come back. The Ministry was in favour of interventions to prepare communities to accept the offender back into communities as part of them.

The Deputy Minister continued that there was not enough awareness of the role played by drugs. People who were drug dependent would steal for a fix. The situation was aggravated by peer pressure, as people wanted the cellphone or gadget that others had. There was a process of reaching out and raising consciousness, that was being undertaken together with the Departments of Social Development and Education.

Medical parole granted to Mr Jackie Selebi: DCS and Medical Parole Advisory Board briefing
The Chairperson remarked, by way of introduction, that the private medical specifics of Mr Jackie Selebi, former Commissioner of Police, were an issue between him and his doctor. The Portfolio Committee was interested in the process that led to the granting of medical parole to Mr Selebi, and whether that process had been compliant and transparent, whatever his medical condition was. There had been weaknesses in the medical parole legislation in the past, but the Committee had adopted the amendments made in respect of medical parole in the Correctional Services Amendment Act.

Mr Magagula remarked that as a Member of the Portfolio Committee he had a right to know about medical parole, and that it was better for the matter to be discussed in Parliament, than to hear about it in the media. Mr Selebi was clearly ill, and he had gone through the medical parole process and had been paroled for medical reasons. He asked if any applications for medical parole had not been granted.

Mr Selfe remarked that he was not fully acquainted with the medical facts, although they had been disclosed in the media. He was interested in the credibility of the medical parole system. The system from which this derived had firstly been questioned when a prominent member of the ruling party had been released, despite his apparent good state of health. This was now the second time that a prominent ANC party member had been released. Details were needed about the process followed with Mr Selebi.

Mr Selfe noted that medical parole involved a two stage process. Firstly, the medical condition was interrogated, and then the case went to the Minister, the National Commissioner and the Parole Board.
Mr Selfe asked which institution had approved medical parole for Mr Selebi. He quoted from section 79(5) of the Correctional Services Act, which described factors taken into account for medical parole release. Important factors were whether the presiding officer was aware of a medical condition, the type of offence, and the length of sentence outstanding. He asked if those factors had been taken into account. If not, there could be a consistent perception that medical parole was being unevenly applied.

Mr James Smalberger, Chief Deputy Commissioner, DCS, said that it was a detailed process. When the length of sentence remaining was up to 12 months, the Head of Centre could grant medical parole. If the sentence time outstanding was longer than this, the decision on medical parole became that of the Correctional Supervision Parole Board and the Minister. The Medical Parole Advisory Board guided the process. Section 79(5) was taken into consideration by the Parole Board.

Mr Ndlovu referred to the policy statement in Slide 8, which stated that inconsistent application of medical parole procedures between regions had resulted in the death of some offenders before their release process had been finalised. He remarked that people would be asking why the same process was not followed for ordinary inmates as had been done for Mr Selebi. The swift process here could cause the perception that some were considered better than others.

Mr Smalberger replied that there had not formerly been a Medical Parole Advisory Board to assist with an independent report. Mr Shabir Shaik had been released under the previous dispensation.

Mr Ndlovu continued that people in prison did not understand their rights and privileges, and had to be informed about that. There were difficulties around the family and community not wanting the offender back, or if he was not really sick.

Mr V Mnguni (COPE) remarked that it was significant that Mr Selebi was an important person. He asked if the medical report had been checked at the time of arrest. If not, it appeared that he had been incarcerated and had suddenly became very ill. He referred to the statement in Slides 2 and 3 to the effect that terminally ill patients had to be provided with palliative care, and noted that DCS had a limited capacity to provide palliative care. He said that the community had to be assured that popularity was not the issue. The process had been damaged by past events. He asked if people knew that anybody could assist them with an application. It was not necessary that an inmate be a former Commissioner of Police to get the process started.

Mr Smalberger replied that anyone was currently able to apply for medical parole. That fact was known to more and more people. More applications were being received.

Mr Max likewise asked if the medical condition had been noted at the time of sentencing. He remarked that the Minister had announced the release of Mr Selebi by saying that he and others would be released. He asked if that implied that there had been a trade-off.

Mr Smalberger denied that there had been a trade-off. Other applicants had been released on 9, 12, 20 and 21 July 2012.

Mr Abram referred to Slide 17. Three people had died whilst documentation was being processed. He asked how much time elapsed between receiving the documentation and the deaths of those three inmates. He referred to the three offenders not recommended for medical parole mentioned on Slide 17, and asked what the reasons for refusal had been. He asked if there had been a review of recommendations. He asked if the six people recommended for medical parole pending examination by a Medical Parole Advisory Board member had been released, and if the Board was satisfied that they were not going to die in the following months.

The Chairperson remarked that the medical parole principles as embodied in the legislation were not wrong, but the question was whether that legislation had been followed to the letter. There had to be the assurance that the law had been vigorously implemented, and complied with.

Mr Tom Moyane, National Commissioner, DCS, responded that any inmate could be released according to the amended Act, as long as due process was followed. He reiterated that there had been a shift in policy. Mr Shabir Shaik had been released under the previous dispensation. He had received Mr Selebi, in his capacity as Accounting Officer, in December 2011. There had been statements about alleged ill health. The same process was followed for Mr Selebi as for other inmates. He had to be taken to a hospital within seven days. There was an independent investigation into Mr Selebi’s health at the Steve Biko Centre, where he was indeed found to be ill. The DCS had to be accountable in the matter. A medical parole application had been launched the previous April. It had received the same attention as the applications of other inmates. There were 11 professionals on the Medical Parole Advisory Board, and their careers were on the line if their decisions were incorrect, so there was not room for favouritism. Medical parole was based on the principles of humane incarceration.

The Chairperson asked if the DCS was satisfied that it was able to monitor the conditions of Mr Selebi’s medical parole. He asked if the judge had been aware of Mr Selebi’s condition at the time of sentencing.

Mr Smalberger replied that the DCS was able to monitor his health, and there was a full record of all visits.

Mr Moyane replied that it was the duty of the presiding officers to establish illness at the time of sentencing. The DCS could only consider the conditions once Mr Selebi had been sent to that Department.

The Chairperson urged that previous inconsistencies should not again be repeated. It was obvious that Members were thinking that many inmates could benefit from the process, if they were aware of it. He reminded Mr Smalberger that three people had died while their applications were being considered, and this seemed to be a time consuming process. He asked if there was a conscious campaign to inform inmates about medical parole, and urged that an intense awareness campaign had to be launched.

Mr Smalberger replied that the DCS was not yet satisfied that that awareness of the new process had been created properly at all levels. He agreed that the message had to be intensified. The previous Act had based the decision on parole solely on a medical doctor, but it was currently a far more open process. Individuals could apply, and then the application would be considered by a doctor, the Case Management Committee and the Board. The Medical Parole Advisory Board was currently committed to extra sessions.

Mr Max asked if it had been the Medical Parole Advisory Board or the Minister who had taken the decision to release Mr Selebi, in terms of the process flow chart on Slide 16. He also asked why there had been delays which had led to the death of other applicants.

Mr Smalberger responded that in terms of the process flow, the Medical Parole Advisory Board only advised, and then passed information on to the Case Management Committee (CMC). The Correctional Supervision and Parole Board had a transcript of court proceedings as part of their file.

Mr Abram asked at what stage an inmate was made aware of the opportunity to apply for medical parole. The Act had to say that the inmate had to be examined.

The Chairperson gave Medical Parole Advisory Board (MPAB) members an opportunity to comment.

Dr Victor Ramathesele, MPAB member, said that ideally the MPAB would like to send a member to examine an applicant, but some did not apply soon enough. It was necessary to rely on the medical process to sift applications, but some applications had been sent with inadequate recommendations. Inmates would put pressure on medical practitioners to declare them sick, when the practitioners themselves may not be convinced on this point. If the doctor was not able to motivate an application, a key element was lost. He himself reviewed applications every week, and sometimes had to send a member to request more information, so as to get clearly motivated applications. It had to be established whether the medical condition was chronic and irreversible. A review system was being created. Some applicants did not qualify initially, but could do so later. The process could be made smoother and more transparent within six months.

Dr Angelique Coetzee, MPAB member, noted that Mr Selebi was a chronic renal patient who had been treated for that condition long before his trial. There had been acute renal failure on admission. According to the US renal data basis, there was generally a mortality rate of five years for his condition. He had had two infections in the year before he was seen by the MPAB in July. His condition only allowed for one per year. He had also had a stroke, and a pulmonary embolism. There was also eye disease and motor function impairment, which meant that he could not attend to dialysis himself. There had been no favouritism. The decisions had been based on clinical diagnosis.

The Chairperson concluded that the Committee would continue to oversee DCS compliance. Credibility had to be regained by adhering to due process. There had to be compliance with principles. The PC would not be driven by the media.

The meeting was adjourned.