Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services Jan-Mar 2012 Performance; 2012 Special Remissions impact

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that the report of the Inspecting Judge had been considered at a previous meeting. Some of the quarterly business had been discussed, but not in enough detail. This meeting had been arranged as a follow up. Certain matters should have been resolved. He had thought that the interaction between the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and the judge was no more than an academic activity. The Committee had conducted many visits to prisons, but not once had a prisoner thanked them for the office of the independent Inspecting Judge. The second issue was the introspection needed by DCS. Members could not believe everything told to them to by inmates, but there was still a question as to whether the judge was doing enough. Human rights were not being protected. The purpose was noble, but it was debatable if there was value for money.

The Chairperson called on Members and delegates to introduce themselves. He noted that the judge was not available due to a prior arrangement.

Mr J Selfe (DA) had read the report from the Judicial Inspectorate for the Correctional Services (JICS). There were a number of overarching issues. Access to certain facilities was a problem, as well as a lack of co-operation from prison authorities. In many cases, the report had noted that no feedback had been received from DCS. Feedback was needed in a reasonable time, and had to address the problems. There were some serious issues that were not being addressed.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) referred to the Thohoyandou Female Centre which had not responded to inspection requests. She asked why this was so, and if DCS had conducted any investigation. She asked how JICS and DCS worked together.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) asked if proper training was being conducted by JICS. On an oversight visit to Waterval, Members had heard allegations of torture. It had been an unannounced visit. Members had met JICS members but found that there was no communication. JICS staff were busy with different matters to DCS personnel. He asked if JICS worked as police or investigators, or even in some other way. Heads of Centres would explain the situation thoroughly. Members were still waiting for a report from the judge on Waterval.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked about response times to investigations. Many were still pending. It seemed that there was an increasing number of allegations of DCS members assaulting inmates. He asked what the reported finding of 'communication on a regular basis' meant. There had been problems with lengthy investigations while prisoners were deprived of their rights.

Mr L Max (DA) was also concerned over lengthy investigations.

Mr P Mnguni (COPE) asked if the JICS gave feedback to the inmates on the state of investigations. There did not seem to be any requirement for DCS to acknowledge the receipt of complaints.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had received a number of complaints from a Mr Khan in Barberton. He was on a hunger strike. He had been singled out for abuse by officials after Members had spoken with him. Where the Committee heard of such cases they would go back to address the official implicated. If DCS could not refute these allegations, then the Committee would have to go back to Barberton and take action. He asked why the Inspecting Judge did not alert Parliament. The Committee was sending reports to JICS. It should work the other way around. It seemed that JICS was not doing its work.

Mr Adam Carelse, JICS Chief Executive Officer, spoke on access to correctional facilities. There had been an isolated case in Van Rhynsdorp. This was the only such case. He had subsequently visited the centre together with the Regional Commissioner to address the problem.

Mr Carelse said that since 9 May the Inspectorate had undergone a radical change in terms of response times. Regional Commissioners had taken ownership of correspondence with JICS. Where responses were not within the agreed time frames the matter was referred to the Regional Commissioner. There was still a problem with some Heads of Centres. JICS was now 100% satisfied with their communication channels. He had met all the Heads of Centres in some provinces to communicate the role of JICS. He felt that this battle had been won.

Mr Selfe asked what was meant by a timeous reply.

Mr Carelse said that there was a policy in place. Heads had to respond to a complaint within three days. If this was not done, it was referred to Area Commissioners, who had to address the matter within a further two days. If this was not done, the matter was referred to the Regional Commissioner.

Mr Carelse said that the Regional Commissioner concerned would speak to the situation in Thohoyandou. JICS had only heard later that there was communication with the Regional Commissioner. Since the report had been submitted, it had also gone to Regional Commissioners and Heads of Centres. Substantial reports had been sent since the previous Friday.

Mr Carelse said that reports were made without fear of the consequences. Their report would differ from that of the DCS on certain occasions. The JICS should be credited with not being intimidated by DCS. In the Waterval case, JICS stood by their findings on the torture of inmates. It was up to DCS to prove the report incorrect. JICS had collected evidence. Inmates might respond differently to a JICS investigation than to one conducted by DCS. The Chief Inspector was currently undergoing training. The Judge had met with the Public Protector to see where that office could assist JICS investigations.

Mr Carelse said that two documents were not under the total control of DCS. These were South African Police Service (SAPS) reports on assaults and unnatural deaths. Autopsy reports were only submitted when they were ready, and in both these cases, JICS had to wait for the reports to be provided.

Mr Carelse said that each inmate laying a complaint had to receive feedback. Since the last meeting, JICS was trying to adhere to the Committee's request for monthly reports. Reports were received on an ongoing basis. The question was whether the Committee wanted to receive reports as they were submitted. There had been a mass assault at Helderstroom over the weekend. He had been informed over the weekend and had immediately despatched an investigator. One had to appreciate the number of inmates. Before the recent remission, this number stood at over 160 000. There was massive overcrowding. Some DCS members had still been trained under the previous regime. JICS appreciated the right to complain. One inmate might forward the same complaint to seven different institutions. JICS had no control over this.

The Chairperson responded that any riotous behaviour, no matter who was responsible, should be reported to the Committee immediately. The case of Mr Khan had now lasted over three months and should not be kept from public representatives. JICS should know what was important. The Committee should be informed of riotous behaviour and damage to property.

Mr Magagula wanted more clarity on the Khan issue. The report had been received in March. He asked what actions JICS had taken since then. It did not help that a report was compiled when JICS knew that it was wrong. In the Waterval case, the report was utterly inconsistent with what Members had found on their visit. This is why he had questioned the training of JICS members. Investigators needed to ascertain the truth.

Mr Selfe said that Mr Carelse had spoken on the responsiveness of JICS. However, he asked if the findings actually addressed the causes of problems. He quoted an example where a number of causes were listed, but there was not necessarily any resolution to these problems. At Modderbee, Members had visited awaiting trial prisoners. Inmates had kept Members busy for over two hours with real and imagined problems, and yet the official records reflected no complaints. He asked if JICS members were picking up on these unregistered complaints. Inmates might fear victimisation. At Helderstroom there had been an incident on 2 August. A previous incident had been reported on 1 March. This earlier incident was not mentioned in the quarterly report covering that period. He asked if investigators had noted these incidents.

Ms Phaliso asked if there was any mechanism to ensure that inmates did receive feedback on complaints. The experience of Members was that this was not happening. She still wanted a response on the Thohoyandou incident.

Mr Mnguni said that the intention of the policy was to make inmates aware of the complaints mechanism. The Committee was not aware of this policy. He did not know how this policy would be implemented to the lowest levels. The draft should also have been circulated to Members. The Committee could not hold JICS accountable. He asked if the policy was really addressing the gist of the matter. He agreed on the need for radical change. He asked what challenges were being experienced. DCS was aware of the policy, and was responding quickly as a result.

Mr Carelse said that reporting to the Committee had started with the October to December 2011 quarter. There had been no communication between DCS and JICS at the time. DCS had not responded to this first report. The report being discussed was only the second one. The report being prepared was a radical change in that responses of DCS had been included.

Mr Carelse said that there were several policies in place. This particular policy had been sent to DCS a month previously.

Mr Carelse said that at Modderbee, the official complaints register had an interview register. JICS had copies of this. These registers were audited. There must be proof of who was interviewed, the nature of the complaint and what action had followed.

Mr Umesh Raga, National Director: Legal Services, JICS, said that a report had been sent over the weekend concerning Mr Khan's hunger strike. He had ceased his protest over the weekend. This was not the first hunger strike on which Mr Khan had embarked. On a previous occasion, he had ceased the strike after investigation by JICS. The underlying problems had not been addressed, prompting him to start a new hunger strike. Some problems raised included that officials claiming to be from SAPS or the National Intelligence Agency had come to see him and had intimidated him. An inspector had investigated these claims, but the report had not yet been submitted. On receipt of the claim on the weekend, he had instructed the inspector to get to the bottom of the matter. Mr Khan wanted to be transferred closer to home. He had been harassed after speaking to the Committee, but the details of this allegation had not been made clear. The Regional Commissioner had been advised. He appreciated the guidance given by the Chairperson.

Mr Raga said that the Helderstroom matter was in the report under the heading: C van der Westhuizen. A cavity search had been conducted on this inmate. JICS had received the report and was considering it. A number of inmates had been searched. It took a while to get affidavits from all concerned. The general JICS finding was that the reason for the cavity search was unlawful. The regulations had been changed a day or two before the search had happened. This should have been done at a health facility and not in the prison hospital. Authorities should have known better. Dagga had been found on a small number of inmates. A search had found illegal cell phones. The prison authorities had decided to search all those suspected, and there was some debate over whether this constituted reasonable suspicion. The sister of Mr van der Westhuizen had laid a complaint. He would make sure that the report was copied to the Committee.

Mr Raga said that a number of findings were made during inspections, and had been summarised in the report. At Ncome there had been reports of deficiencies in the provision of ambulances and also of gang warfare. JICS had to accept that prison authorities were going to do what they said they would. An anti-gang strategy had been put in place. Ill inmates were being transported in Departmental transport. This was not good enough in the case of a violent assault.

Mr Ndlovu said that Mr Khan had stopped his hunger strike, but the report had not yet been submitted. He asked what was done if matters were not dealt with expeditiously.

The Chairperson commented that DCS acknowledged the matters raised by JICS, who took their word for it. He felt that JICS should verify that what DCS said was true. It was easy for DCS to say that the policy was being implemented, but JICS needed to prove that it was happening. The JICS foot soldiers should be empowering prisoners on their human rights. They should also be ensuring that the rights enshrined in the Correctional Services Act were being preserved. He mentioned two cases of seriously ill inmates at Baviaanspoort who did not know that they could apply for medical parole. This was why Members were saying that the role played by JICS was only academic. Time was also relevant as issues had to be dealt with swiftly. JICS needed to improve its service delivery.

Ms Nontsikelelo Jolingana, DCS Chief Operations Officer, said that DCS had responded to issues raised by the Inspecting Judge in a ninety page document. The necessary detail had been provided. In the Barberton case, the defective plumbing had been fixed. The report had included the identity of the plumber. Some things could not be fixed so easily. At Brandfort, there were findings that no educational or social programmes were undertaken. The DCS response was that there were no educators or social workers at Brandfort but staff were seconded from other centres. Staff retention was a problem but the DCS retained its responsibilities. Another example was the DCS response to requests for tuck shops where such facilities were not feasible. There had been engagement with the CEO of JICS to sort out issues of communication. When the judge visited centres there was direct communication, but the Regional Commissioner might not be aware of the visits. Copying all correspondence to the Regional Commissioner would maintain a flow of information. JICS would provide information to DCS on a monthly basis.

Mr Alfred Tsetsane, DCS Regional Commissioner: Limpopo, Mpumalanga and North West, said that communication had improved. DCS was in a better position to address the problems. Area managers could not be held to account. Regional Commissioners were in a better position to manage problems reported in their regions. There had been a response on Thohoyandou. Reports had gone through the head office. There had not been direct communication at regional level. This matter had been finalised. The report on Mr Khan's first hunger strike had been submitted in March with all his statements. A case of assault had been opened with SAPS. When SAPS came to take a statement, Mr Khan withdrew the charges. Over the preceding weekend, Mr Khan had embarked on a second hunger strike. One of his demands was for a chance to address the media including television show Third Degree. An investigation was under way regarding allegations of assault. Medical staff had investigated his claims. Reports were that Mr Khan had ended the hunger strike. The case needed to be investigated on the ground. The transfer requested had not been an issue before, but would now be considered.

The Chairperson noted that the report on Thohoyandou had gone to head office. The report before him was dated 3 August. The judge reported that Thohoyandou was the only centre that had not responded. It might be a problem that head office was not forwarding reports.

Mr Carelse said that the report had been received on 6 August.

The Chairperson was saying that reports should be processed properly. The public was getting the perception that nothing was being done.

The DCS Western Cape Regional Commissioner, Mr Delekile Klaas, said that different regions used different approaches to communication. There had been an agreement to streamline communication. Head office could conduct quality control. The initial report on Helderstroom was that one inmate had assaulted an official, leading to injuries to both. Subsequently it became clear that a number of persons were involved. He would be leading a team from the Western Cape to investigate the incident.

Mr Mnikelwa Nxele, DCS Regional Commissioner: KwaZulu-Natal, hoped that communication would be improved in the future. Some of the issues raised in the report were being reported for the first time. Some issues warranted intervention. The report submitted by the Area Commissioner had not made sense regarding the ambulance. The visits to Ncome had only taken place in June. Steps had been taken to restore normality at Medium A and Medium B. The position of Area Commissioner was vacant and an Acting Area Commissioner had been appointed. There was a leadership challenge at the Centres. There were historical challenges that needed to be resolved. Some people might need to be transferred to other Centres.

Mr Selfe was delighted to hear that there was a communications protocol in place. The Committee should have the same protocol. He had sent an e-mail to the KZN Regional Commissioner some time previously without receiving a response. This was not an isolated case. Some responsiveness was needed.

Mr Max had heard that an anti-gang strategy was in place. If JICS did not know what was entailed then neither would the Committee. Gangsterism took different forms. The problem was rife and would not be eradicated easily. DCS had the services of a Mr Malgas, an international expert. SAPS also had experts. A combined meeting was needed to address the issue. As Member of the Executive Committee (MEC) in the Western Cape, he had employed a cluster approach successfully.

Mr S Abram (ANC) said that the office of the Inspecting Judge had been established some time previously, and yet there were still communication problems. It was unacceptable that DCS was still trying to put a protocol in place. In KZN, the Regional Commissioner had pleaded that an Area Commissioner's position needed to be filled. He wanted to know how long this vacancy had existed. There were surely a number of people who could fill the post. The Chief Operations Officer had spoken on the difficulty of retaining social workers in the rural towns. He asked what the factors were leading to this retention problem, and what DCS was doing about it. Social and medical workers provided essential skills.

Mr Magagula felt that the KZN and Western Cape Regional Commissioners were trying to keep information from the Committee. These persons were the managers in their areas. It was not acceptable that information was taking so long to get to them as they should have been fully briefed before coming to Parliament. He noted that the other Regional Commissioners were trying to intervene. The Commissioner was now addressing Mr Khan's transfer request. It seemed that the problems had been caused by the visits of the Committee. This was evidence of victimisation. The Committee needed to obtain its own report on the hunger strike. Members still did not know exactly what the problem was in Barberton.

The Chairperson underlined the point made by Mr Magagula. The Committee had the option of conducting its own investigation. While there might be valid underlying reasons for his actions, DCS could not be blackmailed by inmates. It sounded like the DCS was having meetings before meeting with the Committee.

Ms Phaliso felt that there was collusion between gangs in prisons with their counterparts on the outside. The Committee needed information on this.

Ms Jolingana requested that the issue of social workers be included in the report as a challenge. The challenge of retention in smaller areas involved employees over a wide spectrum, not just social workers. There were also challenges with offender to staff ratio.

Mr Nxele said there was a situation where the CEO of JICS was complaining about outstanding reports. This was news to him, and if he had been made aware of this he would have delivered the reports in person. He took responsibility for what happened in his region. He would take the necessary action and stand accountable if he did not. It was on record that DCS had integrated technology (IT) challenges. This was common to all organs of state. Documents could not be traced. Emails were sent but not delivered by the IT system. He had reported on the Ncome issues and had the supporting documents. He would not lie to the Committee. The Area Commissioner was suspended in May 2010. The dismissal process had only been concluded in November 2011, and the process of filling the post was now under way.

Mr Klaas said that he had described the process of handling reports. A specific incident had been reported the previous week. There was a detailed response to the first quarter report. There were reasons why the body cavity search had been carried out. He had thought that the incident had been closed.

Mr Carelse said that there had never been a designated person in DCS to deal with the Inspecting Judge's reports. The COO was now playing this role. There had been a meeting the previous day. The forthcoming report, to be presented on 22 August, had already been handed over to DCS on 19 July. Members would see a very different style of reporting.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was serious about oversight. They would like reports from the Regional Commissioner of each region. Members wanted to be kept informed. Quarterly reports were normally at a global level. He would like to see these regional reports on the situation at the end of August.

Impact of 2012 Special Remissions: briefing by Department of Correctional Services (DCS)
Mr James Smalberger, DCS Chief Divisional Commissioner, said that the President had announced a special remission of sentence in April 2012. All prisoners in certain non-violent categories would be given a six month remission. A staggered approach was followed. In the first two weeks a preparatory process had been followed. A total of 25 338 probationers and parolees were released. During a ten week period, 19 695 offenders were released from correctional facilities. Of these, 52% were released unconditionally. He explained how the special remissions were applied. The total sentence of an offender was reduced by six months. After that, half of the new sentence was used as the time after which that offender could be considered for parole.

Mr Smalberger said that all cases were considered before releases were granted. The policy approved in 2007 was followed in considering release dates. All indications were that by the end of July, the backlog of cases to be considered had been reduced considerably from 1 369 in April to 522 in June.

Mr Smalberger said that the effect of the remission had been to give offenders a second chance. By the end of July, 114 of those released were back in custody. Of these, 27 had already been convicted and sentenced. Of the 87 others in detention, one had committed suicide. Twenty had not returned following their court appearances. Three had been granted bail and one had been deported. The remaining 62 had been remanded in custody.

Mr Smalberger gave a breakdown by categories of crime. Eighteen of the original convictions were for economical offences, five for aggressive crimes, two for narcotics and two for other offences. Of the offences for which these offenders had been re-arrested, eighteen were for economic offences, four fell in the aggressive category and four for narcotics. There was one in another category. There was a similar pattern to the 87 offenders who had not yet been convicted for new offences. The DCS had had a case-load of 68 653 in March 2012. This had decreased to 53 145 as at 6 July.

Mr Smalberger said that the occupation levels had reduced from 135% at the end of April to 123% in the first week of July. In terms of total numbers of inmates, there had been 160 251 inmates on 30 April, of whom 46 213 were unsentenced and 114 038 sentenced. The figures on 6 July were a total of 145 688 (44 086 unsentenced and 101 602 sentenced).

Mr Smalberger said that the National Task Team on Special Remission of Sentence was still conducting an impact analysis. There were some preliminary conclusions. The creation of the capacity within the community corrections system had been facilitated by a well planned schedule. DCS had also been given the opportunity to reduce the number of detainees, thus improving humane conditions as well as increasing the safety of its staff. In the remission of 2005, 65 837 prisoners had been released of whom 155 had been readmitted to correctional facilities.

Mr Smalberger said that the remission had given DCS the chance to reassess the effectiveness of its computer systems. A recent case in KZN had led to an accusation that an habitual criminal had raped a 94 year old lady. The investigation showed that the rape suspect was in fact a person convicted of petty theft and sentenced to six months. The person was not even on parole, having completed his sentence in terms of the remission.

Discussion
The Chairperson noted the closing remarks. This experience, should it be true, demonstrated the feeling that petty offenders were being turned into hardened criminals. Those with sentences of less than two years had no rehabilitation plan. A single re-offence was one too many.

Mr Ndlovu agreed that there was no rehabilitation plan for those with short sentences. He asked who decided on those to be released. He wanted to know to which country the one offender was deported. He asked how it came about that the person was charged with a new offence and then deported. He should have been deported on the original conviction.

Mr Max asked if sentences as short as ten days were still being incarcerated. The Committee had long advocated alternative sentencing in such cases. Twenty re-offenders had not returned from court. He asked if there was any accounting for these people. It might be that they had granted themselves a further remission. This was ridiculous. There should be some investigation.

Ms Phaliso said there were still more than 46 000 unsentenced persons in detention. They were simply marking time in prison with no rehabilitation, while being subjected to the influence of convicted criminals. The judiciary needed to respond to this issue at cluster meetings. She asked if any of those released from Modderbee had been given the chance to participate in rehabilitation programmes. A prisoner at that centre had told Members that he had finished his programmes and wanted to get out rather than spend more time exposed to criminal activity. She asked how efficient the DCS programmes were. There had to be some programme for awaiting trial detainees. Such persons should do some work to earn their keep. Juveniles should attend school.

Mr Mnguni felt it was clear that the notion of special remission had taken DCS by surprise. The Department had run out of ideas. The announcement was made while offenders were in programmes. The re-offences were the result. There were factors that needed to be considered. Rehabilitation programmes were being interrupted. The case described by Mr Smalberger was an example of a petty offender being turned into a serious criminal. It seemed that there was a feeling of getting rid of as many as possible. A huge number of these people would be unemployed. While in prison, offenders had food and accommodation. While it was exciting to go home, the released prisoner might be rejected by community and family, and might well not find accommodation. There were no conditions attached to the remission. Preparations for release had not been thorough.

Mr Abram said that any project one might undertake would be fraught with problems. In terms of time frames, he asked how long the pre-release programmes for offenders took under normal circumstances. When one looked at the preliminary conclusions, the impact was in fact already known. The analysis being conducted should have been completed already. He agreed that there was overcrowding in prisons, but this should not have been the real motivation for the remission. The DCS had been given an opportunity to consider problems of focus. He was worried about this. This was a tacit admission that the computer systems and identification of re-offenders was a problem. This was concerning. Society should be protected. He noted that 27 released prisoners included several convicted on crimes involving aggression. In the category of those still facing charges, thirteen were in the aggressive category. More than half of these were again being charged with aggressive or sexual offences. More research was needed here, as the preparedness of these people to be re-integrated into society had to be considered. His overall response was that government needed to engage seriously with the justice cluster as a whole. Alternative sentencing was needed for petty offenders. He felt that the majority of those released had not received adequate training whilst in prison. If Parliament had to allocate more funding towards such programmes, then it had to be done. Society must play a more active role in re-integrating released offenders. Politicians must play a role in this.

Mr Ndlovu said that the communication from DCS had been at fault in the case of the re-offender accused of the rape. It should have been made clear to the public that the accused had completed his sentence. Government was almost being seen as an accomplice.

Mr Mnguni said that some prisoners would not be able to return the detention centres to complete the courses they had started.

The Chairperson said that the Committee accepted that there was insufficient support for the released inmate. As far as possible, the family of the released offender should be prepared to receive him. Of the 27 convicted, he asked if there was a sense of how many re-offended due to rejection by their family or a desperate need for food. Research into this was needed. He asked what DCS would do differently should there be another remission in the future.

Ms Jolingana said that there was a gap with remand detainees. They only had access to medical and social services. The problem was that the length of time in detention could not be estimated, which made it impossible to plan programmes. Some services could be provided, such as making provision for continuation of schooling for juveniles. Remand prisoners had still to be tried, and it was difficult to incorporate them into programmes for specific categories of offence before these were proven.

Ms Phaliso said that this response showed that awaiting trial prisoners should not be put in prison, but should perhaps be detained by SAPS. She quoted the example of a juvenile who had not been able to write examinations. The mandate of DCS was to rehabilitate sentenced as well as non-sentenced detainees. A plan was needed going forward.

Ms Jolingana replied that many of the issues raised would be addressed by the implementation of the Correctional Services Amendment Bill. She was informed that a Justice cluster briefing to the Committee on this would happen on 22 August. She could deal with this matter holistically on that occasion.

Mr Smalberger agreed that the communication channels had failed regarding the alleged rape case. He had been interviewed on national television, but the portion of the interview where he had made the explanation presented to Members had not been included in the broadcast. Many of those released had been in the final phases of rehabilitation programmes. There was already movement in providing programmes for those with sentences of less than two years.

The Chairperson asked how the remission would have affected those recently sentenced to relatively short sentences. Six months was not long enough to rehabilitate a person with a drug problem. This was a fault of the system.

Mr Smalberger said that in the example made by the Chairperson, the prisoner would benefit. A ten module pre-release programme had been compiled and all those released had gone through this. Only those in custody on 27 April qualified for the remission. It did not apply to those sentenced after the announcement. Ten day sentences were still a reality. On the question of the twenty who did not return from court, some could have been released on a warning or acquitted. These cases were being investigated. DCS had been given three months to compile a report, and they were still busy with this.

Mr Smalberger said that it would be difficult to shoot from the hip. Over 120 000 had participated in rehabilitation programmes in the previous year and 96 000 had sentence plans. When released on parole, there was provision for continuation of programmes after release. He felt that the preliminary findings had been covered. Cabinet had given DCS three months to compile the report and there were still two months left.

Mr Smalberger said that there was a correlation to the observations made by Mr Abram on the categories of offence to the general prison population. He said that over 90% of offenders blamed social circumstances.

Mr Lucky Mthethwa, DCS Director: Corrections Administration, said that when a foreign national qualified for parole, the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) took over. There was a facility at Krugersdorp. Diplomatic staff from the person's country of origin became involved. Once this process had started it was in the hands of DHA. DCS had the Automated Fingerprint and Identification System (AFIS) system to track offenders should they again be arrested and detained either by SAPS or DCS. The entire cluster was involved, but it was difficult to track information in the rural areas.

Mr Mthethwa did not agree that DCS had been taken by surprise. The remission had been considered for some time before the announcement was made. On admission, an assessment was conducted so that the rehabilitation needs of the offender could be considered. Not all offenders did qualify for programmes. DCS was considering extending some form of programme to those with short sentences. There were about nine five-hour sessions in the pre-release programme. The main lesson learnt was that an upgrade to the computer system was needed. More focus was needed on rehabilitation programmes, including those with short sentences. Releases might have come too soon after the announcement as the process had been a bit rushed.

Ms Jolingana said that other matters would be dealt with in future sessions.

The minutes of the meeting of 20 June 2012 were accepted as correct.

The meeting was adjourned.