SITA on IT matters in Department of Correctional Services; Ncome management challenges; recent DCS lockout from leased building; beating of juveniles in Umtata

Correctional Services

12 September 2012
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The State Information Technology Agency (SITA) spoke about DCS Information Technology challenges. There were issues of licence renewal, and Virtual Private Network (VPN) installment. There had to be payment by the DCS of a R34 million debt to SITA. SITA would avail key members to be interviewed for a forensic investigation into previous IT procurement. The DCS, SITA and Dimension Data would cooperate on the Remand Detainee Offender Management System (RDOMS) that had stalled. IT infrastructure in the DCS would be upgraded. Local Area Network (LAN) systems would be installed in correctional centres in the Western Cape.

In discussion, it was asked why an external investigator was not used for the forensic investigation. The DCS replied that an internal investigation had indeed been escalated into an external investigation. The status of the RDOMS project caused interest and concern. It was asked what the impact of delays were on service delivery. There was grave concern about the R34 million owed by the DCS to SITA. It was a deadlocked situation, with the DCS demanding supporting documentation before they could pay, and SITA not being sure if such could be supplied. The Chairperson told the DCS that they had never been provided with a contingent liability grant in their budget, hence the money would probably have to be taken from programmes, or possibly from a slush fund. The Chairperson eventually told the DCS and SITA that they had embarked on a project together without proper costing and budgeting. The DCS was asked to report in writing on the findings of the forensic investigation, seeing that the National Commissioner did not want to discuss it on account of a contractor’s present in the meeting. The DCS was confronted with the fact that the Auditor General had referred to unreliable performance information, related to delays with the RDOMS project. A DCS member challenged SITA about progress with LOGIS, which led members to conclude that the two parties were not talking to each other. The Chairperson pointed out that IT was the life blood of the DCS with serious consequences for service delivery.

The Portfolio Committee had paid an oversight visit to the Ncome management area and discovered divisions among managers and between managers and personnel, leaking of sensitive information and intimidation. The DCS proposed that personnel be shuffled or transferred as there had been a breakdown of managerial control and officials disrespected authority.

In discussion, there was concern about the DCS proposals of scattering personnel through transfers. It would result in bad apples being migrated to other areas. It was suggested that there had to be disciplinary action and dismissal. The role of labour unions was discussed. It was asked if the core group earmarked for transfer were still being paid, even though they were allegedly not working. A member drew attention to the fact that people from “outside” the area could not obtain work at Ncome. Members warned against what was defined as mutiny or insubordination in the security establishment. The DCS was advised that it could expect to be taken to labour courts, and would have to justify the transfers in terms of operational requirements to integrate skills and as part of career development. The DCS insisted that radical measures were required, and that the transfers could also be to the benefit of those transferred. The Committee felt that the challenges at Ncome pointed to the need for vetting of DCS officials. The DCS committed themselves to consultation with organised labour, and to bringing them on board. Members asked about the role of traditional leaders.

The lockout of the DCS from a leased building in Johannesburg was explained. DCS officials had proceeded to enter into an agreement with the landlord to lease an extra two floors, without consulting the Department of Public Works. When there were problems with payments, the landlord locked the DCS out. The Chairperson said there had to be an internal audit, and lessons learnt. It was inconceivable that the DCS could have spent five years squatting in a building.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Chairperson relayed information from the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) about continued beatings administered to juveniles at Umtata. There had been the use of excessive force, and victims were prevented from laying charges. The Chairperson was convinced that it clearly amounted to torture.

Meeting report

Introduction
The Chairperson welcomed a member of the DCS Audit Committee, Ms M Maponya, who was also on the Audit Committee of SITA. She said that since March/April, the Audit Committee had met with the Auditor General (AG). Challenges were recognised and an action list had been compiled. Issues were tracked to see what management was doing. The Audit Committee would report regularly.

Mr Tom Moyane, DCS National Commissioner, said a permanent representative of SITA had to advise the DCS. Staffing issues and appointment of high level consultants, were being dealt with. Those were down from 100 to 10 or 20. The challenge was that the DCS had IT programmes that predated 2006.

Ms Nthabiseng Mosupye, DCS General Information Technology Officer (GITO) said that the main issues were outstanding payments of R34 million to SITA and connectivity. Contractual issues had to be discussed. The DCS could not pay certain amounts until supporting documentation had been obtained.

State Information Technology Agency (SITA) on IT matters in Department of Correctional Services Ms Mmakgosi Mosupi, Executive: ICT Service, said that there were issues of licence renewal, and Virtual Private Network (VPN) installment. The DCS owed SITA R34 million. Interventions by SITA included the workshopping of a new business agreement. SITA was to avail key members to be interviewed by DCS forensic investigators, to assist with forensic investigations into previous IT procurement.

Ms Mosupi noted that the DCS, SITA and Dimension Data would cooperate on the Remand Detainee Offender Management System (RDOMS). IT infrastructure in the DCS would be upgraded through providing server rooms, cabling and telephony. Tenders had been issued. 400 VPN sites and Local Area Network (LAN) infrastructure would be provided for correctional centres in the Western Cape.

Discussion
A representative of the Auditor General noted that the LOGIS system had to be improved for IT to be used effectively in the DCS.

Mr J Selfe (DA) remarked that the Portfolio Committee had insisted on an external forensic investigation. He asked why that had been adhered to.

Mr Selfe asked how the slow progress with RDOMS was affecting day to day management. There was not enough urgency. It was good that cabling had been done, but cabling could be included as part of the construction project at new centres, so that IT could be up and running sooner. It had to be made part of operating procedure.

Ms Mosupi replied that the SITA CEO and the DCS National Commissioner had met about RDOMS the previous week. She said that it was not practically possible to install cables during construction, as there could be liabilities for damages.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) asked what the correct amount was, as referred to on Slide 5.

Ms Mosupi replied that the correct amount was R62 million. It was down from R63 million because of recent movement of money.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked what was causing the delay referred to on Slide 5. She asked why the contract had been extended.

Mr Abram asked if SITA still had the supporting documents required for payment of debt by the DCS. There had to be interaction at a high level. If SITA failed to submit, it could be serious.

Ms Mosupi replied that invoices were based on time sheets. Coming up with supporting documents depended on their availability.

Ms Ngwenya asked about delays in payment referred to on Slide 5. She asked about delays related to cooperation between the DCS, SITA and Dimension Data. She again asked about the extension of the contract.

Mr Moyane told the Committee that contractual matters could not be discussed in the presence of a contractor, who was present at the meeting. The contractor would have to leave.

The Chairperson remarked that the Portfolio Committee did not deal with DCS service providers. Yet its meetings were open meetings. The question was how the matter had to be handled. His personal position was that service providers could be present, but could not participate in discussion.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) supported that position.

Ms Ngwenya noted no objection to their presence, as long as they did not participate. She was curious about who had had invited the contractor.

Mr Moyane said that he had to respond about the forensic investigation, and could not speak whilst the matter was under investigation.

Mr Abram remarked that it did not matter who had invited the contractor. It was an open meeting, but a forensic investigation was under way. If the Committee decided to go “into committee” over the matter, the Parliamentary Monitoring Group and others would strictly speaking have to leave as well.

The Chairperson reminded all that Mr Selfe’s question was about why the forensic investigation had not been handed to an external investigator. He advised that the results of the investigation be given to the Committee in writing, with relevant names included. The Commissioner could stick to the question of why the investigation had been internal. If the content of the investigation could be handed to the Committee, people named would be held accountable.

Mr Moyane responded that there was indeed an external investigation. There had been an initial internal investigation which was escalated into an external investigation.

The Chairperson remarked that the ideal body for an external investigation would be the Auditor General. Once completed, recommendations of the report had to be studied and implemented.

The Chairperson referred to the R34 million owed to SITA by DCS, saying the Committee had never agreed to a contingent liability budget for the DCS. The question was where the DCS would find the money, if SITA managed to come up with the supporting documentation. He told DCS and SITA that they were both responsible for the expenditure. In his days at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, it would have been classified as unauthorised expenditure. An exercise had been commissioned without a budget. Budgets could be changed in the BRR Report. He asked SITA if it had R34 million.

Mr Abram protested that he had not received a response about why invoices had not been submitted.

The Chairperson asked how SITA accounted to the Auditor General.

Ms Mosupi said that SITA had copies of the invoices, but the DCS wanted original documents.

The Chairperson asked when there would be clarity on the matter. He assumed that SITA was anxious to get its money. Every year added to contingent liability. Some part of DCS was likely to suffer. The Committee would not approve a contingency budget. The DCS had to account for the money. It was unacceptable for funds to be rolled over for five years.

Ms Mosupi responded that SITA could not write the debt off from their books.

Mr Siphiwe Sokhela, DCS Chief Financial Officer, said that SITA needed to prove the debt. There had to be documentary proof of delivery invoice requisition. Some of the payments made were still coming up. DCS had agreed with SITA in 2010 that SITA bring all its disputes. Meetings were held. At the end of 2010 it was resolved that SITA had to provide proof without doubt.

Mr Sokhela said that he did not know from where the figures came. According to DCS most of those accounts were not owed. In the event of it being proved that DCS owed the stated amounts, the DCS would apply in terms of Section 43 of the Public Finances Management Act for a virement. As CFO he could not go ahead and do that. He had to write to National Treasury for permission. If that was not granted, it would go through as unauthorised expenditure.

The Chairperson told Mr Sokhela that if he was to claim that the DCS had savings of R34 million, he did not deserve his job. The budget had to be planned. If the DCS claimed that it had such savings, it either meant that some programme was going to suffer, or that a slush fund would be used. The DCS and SITA had to come to a conclusion. The Committee did not wish to escalate the matter as Parliament, but the matter had to be resolved and dealt with.

The Chairperson reiterated the question about the impact of the RDOMS delay.

Ms Mosupye replied that the purpose of RDOMS was to provide a single version of the truth. It was impossible to get the real truth about offender information while the project was stalling.

The Chairperson asked when the project would be up and running.

Ms Mosupi replied that it was currently not running.

The Chairperson said that nothing had been done since 2008. The Committee was more interested in the reference by the Auditor General to unreliable performance information. He asked what was being done to fix the RDOMS or find a substitute for it. Profiles on offenders were needed. It would not do to have people awaiting trial for one offence, to be released for another case. There had to be facts about possible other charges the offender faced. IT was the life blood of the DCS. There were serious consequences for finance and service delivery.

A DCS member asked SITA about the enhancement of LOGIS. He asked how far SITA had advanced with that, because it affected him personally.

Ms Mosupi replied that SITA hoped to implement LOGIS. Infrastructure would be built and the network would be upgraded.

Mr Ndlovu remarked that he had thought that there was no quarrel between SITA and the DCS. Yet the DCS was interrogating SITA about LOGIS at this meeting. It was clear that the two parties were not meeting. They had to put their blockages on the table.

Mr P Mnguni (COPE) said that he was worried. Programmes were not being implemented, and people were not talking to one another. The current meeting was a platform between the Portfolio Committee and the DCS, not for the departments.

Mr Cele (ANC) said that a time frame related to work in progress was needed.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) said that the DCS member had opened up a topic that had been closed. It was unacceptable to drag things back in that manner. The DCS had jumped the gun. It was obvious that there was not a combined task team.

The Chairperson concluded the matter, saying that progress with the forensic audit be forwarded to the Committee. The matter of the R34 million debt had to be resolved. If it proved to be impossible, the Committee had to be informed. There had to be realistic timeframes for the RDOMS and LOGIS systems. The impact on the DCS service had to be known, also to help the DCS move to an unqualified audit. The matter would be raised again in November. The Audit Committee also had to provide an assessment.

DCS on issues identified at Ncome management area during oversight visit by Committee
There was no formal presentation, and discussion on the document supplied, commenced straight away. The background to the Ncome matter was that there was division among managers; division between managers and personnel, and the leaking of confidential and sensitive information by managers loyal to a group of employees at Ncome who were said to have created an unstable situation at Ncome. Intimidation was alleged.

The DCS recommended the solution of shuffling and transfer of staff. Operational line function mangers should be transferred and replaced with “new blood”. Twenty members of a “core group” were being considered for a transfer out of the Ncome management area.

Discussion
Mr Selfe remarked that the proposed transfer of staff was a radical intervention. Problem managers would be transferred to possibly become bad apples in the barrel in other areas. He asked why dismissal was not rather considered for the core group.

Mr L Max (DA) asked if the recommendations were based on the results of a proper investigation. It would not do to end up punishing managers who were still willing to manage properly. If unions were involved, he would advise that they not be allowed to manage the situation.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) asked if the core group members were still working. During the oversight visit there were complaints that they were not coming to work and that the centre was not being safeguarded. She asked if their salaries were being paid. Labour laws covered them, but pay without work was unacceptable.

Mr Magagula remarked that inmates were saying that there were days when they received no food. He was reminded of the saying that when elephants fight, what happens to the grass? The question was: how were the inmates being affected? There was culturalism in the area, people from the outside were not allowed to work there.

Mr Abram said that he had a radical view on the matter. The proposals did not make sense to him, being poorly thought out. There had been a severe failure on the part of senior leadership to anticipate problems, which had been allowed to escalate. The proposed solution only came down to shunting wrongdoers around. He agreed that it was a matter of migrating bad apples. All aspects had to be taken into account. He referred to the situation of no permanent Head of Centre at Medium B (Slide 18) as a deep seated problem. A mutiny against a security establishment was being dealt with, but there was no total picture nor real solutions supplied.

Mr Abram asked if the DCS considered its solutions the best, against the background of evidence and research about the psychological state of the staff involved. The transfers could have a profound psychological impact. He warned the DCS against mutiny in the security establishment. There was the fear of touching certain people but if people deliberately de-stabilised security, there could be no mercy for them. Otherwise mutiny would be exported. Where there was cancer, it had to be removed completely. Nothing had been said about taking disciplinary action.
 
Mr Max opined that in technical terms it was not mutiny, but rather insubordination, seeing that it had come down to a refusal to obey orders. Labour law cases emphasised selection criteria. It would be asked if there had been a proper investigation. Labour courts would say that there had been distinction on a haphazard basis.

The Chairperson remarked that there were major challenges. He asked if there were matters that the Committee were not aware of. Deliberate labour action and the possibility of regionalism in the area, were important factors. He urged the DCS to trust the Committee on the matter. If the Committee had not gone on oversight to Ncome, they would not have known what was going on. The DCS were not open and honest with the Committee. These challenges had not been mentioned to the Committee. He assured DCS that the Committee was on their side, and that issues had to be resolved together.

Ms Ntsiki Jolingana, DCS Chief Operations Officer, said that the changes in leadership at Ncome over time, had been outlined. Groups would be transferred in terms of that history. Changing one person would not help. One new leader would be overwhelmed by the situation. The transfer of the core group would dilute corruption. To scatter them would allow them to mix with different people, which could influence them positively. It was difficult to institute disciplinary action, because it was hard to prove intimidation. People were not willing to testify. The Department had only received anonymous calls.

The Chairperson remarked that things were proceeding slowly. The oversight visit happened in June. He asked the DCS to consider the risks in their solution. The unions could decide to fight them.

Mr Mnikelwa Nxele, DCS Regional Commissioner for the KZN region, responded that Ncome had been watched for a long time, among others by four people who had worked as Regional Commissioners in the area. There had been observation based on first hand experience. It was true that over time management functions had been reserved by officials. The advent of the Occupation Specific Dispensation had made matters worse. It was no longer possible to enforce management decisions at Ncome. There were divisions among managers, and intimidation. There had to be intervention among the leadership. Intimidators had been earmarked for transfer. They had to be removed, but they would remain accountable thereafter. Thirty junior officials were involved. The DCS could not compromise.

Mr Nxele assured the Committee that DCS management was on the ground, and knew what they were doing. The background to the Ncome challenges had been pointed out. The Ncome matter had in fact been in the public domain. Matters had gone to court. There had been order at Ncome from 2005 to 2009, under an Area Commissioner who had since been dismissed.

Mr Nxele said with regard to transfers, that there had to be strong leadership at Ncome. Leadership had to be decisive and bold. They were not to be intimidated. People with good track records, known to the department, had to be appointed. A better team would be installed. Unions had to be engaged. There had been a breakdown in relations with unions. People in unions had acted outside of their mandate. There would be disciplinary steps, and a turnaround would occur before the end of the year. Complaints about food would be attended to. The Department had clamped down on illegal items in the centre. Offenders had taken them to court. But the DCS was convinced that its proposals could provide what was needed for a turnaround at Ncome.

The Chairperson remarked that Mr Nxele had made it sound as if things were under control at Ncome. The question arose why there had not been action at Ncome before.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that rehabilitation was important. Inmates at Ncome had complained that there were not any programmes running. The Committee had to go to Ncome again. The food was bad, and there was no one in the kitchen.

Mr Cele said that the Regional Commissioner’s remarks had been encouraging. There seemed to be four groups of unions, which included POPCRU and the Public Servants Association. He asked about the role of traditional leaders.

Ms Phaliso referred to divisions among managers. The person who had to show the kitchen to the Committee during oversight, had run away from them. The person who was supposed to work there, could not be found.

Ms Phaliso reminded all that the late Ms Nyanda, a former member of the Committee, had always emphasised the importance of vetting. Ncome had to be prioritised in that regard. Ncome had become a threat to KZN security. Senior intervention was needed, above the level of Regional Commissioner. If management were being played off against each other by junior members, it showed that there was no working relationship. Unvetted members might well be members of the 26 or 28 prison gangs. There was no relationship between management and labour. Intervention was called for at the highest level.

Mr Max noted that the was not happy with the process. Members with rights had to be treated fairly and consistently. The Department could be taken to court. The Committee could not be part of disputes. It was up to the DCS to address matters. Vetting had admittedly to be done, but it could not lead to a change in attitude.

Mr Moyane responded that he had engaged with the acting Director General of the State Security Agency about vetting. They were under immense pressure. There were no teams available for DCS vetting. The DCS would approach the problem in a phased manner. Senior management had to be vetted first. It had to be borne in mind that not everyone needed a top security classification, only those who handled sensitive documents. For the rest, SAPS could check that there was no criminal record. The DCS employed 39 000 to 41 000 people. State Security also had to serve the SAPS and Defence Department. The DCS needed time to interact. To obtain top security clearance, family members had to be interviewed. Security clearance was more achievable than vetting. The status of security clearance could be made known by the end of the year. He reminded all that people had to be re-vetted after five years.

Mr Max told Mr Nxele that he would have to change his terminology. The DCS planned to scatter people to solve the problem. There would be a burden of proof. He advised that the term ‘operational requirements’ be resorted to. It could be used to justify retrenchment to maintain profit, for instance. The Department could be asked what its excuse was for resorting to scattering. The DCS could justify it in terms of skills integration and career development. The DCS had shot down disciplinary action. The shortest way was to scatter people. Grounds would have to be provided. Interviews would have to be held with them, so that transfer could be justified on the basis of their skills and experience. He asked if a time frame had been given to the task team.

Mr Mokoena, Chief Deputy Commissioner, DCS, said with regard to the basis of redeployment at Ncome, that the challenge was unique. There had to be consultation with organised labour. It was necessary to go beyond procedural fairness and bring the unions on board. Lacking that, investigations of intimidation could come to nought. The transfers had to be seen as precautionary transfers to minimise risks. There were suspicions, but people were not being judged. Legal process had to be followed. The DCS had to take care not to fall foul of its own procedures. Transfer had to be justified in terms of operational requirements.

The Chairperson agreed that the Committee had to visit Ncome again. The Defence Force members were presently “being talked to” at Lenasia [by Julius Malema]. Disgruntlement had been exploited. The same could happen to the DCS. Vetting had to be taken seriously to prevent agitation and chaos.

Mr Mokoena returned to the remark by the Chairperson that the DCS seemed to think of itself being in control at Ncome. It had to be remembered that Ncome had in the past functioned well, until the change in leadership after 2009. That had been dealt with. Division and the privatisation of management could not be allowed. With regard to relationships with traditional leaders, he noted that there had once been a good relationship with the king, which could be restored. He could play a significant role. The DCS was committed not to fight with people, but to bring them to the table. There was support from the State Security Agency for vetting. The DCS was on the ground and could be trusted.

Recent lockout of DCS Community Corrections from its leased building in Johannesburg
Ms Jolingana, COO, said that there had been a lease agreement for the DCS to occupy three floors of a building in Johannesburg. The Department later proceeded to occupy five floors, without consulting with the Department of Public Works (DPW) who administered the lease. DCS managers had negotiated on their own with the landlord. It had not been proper, but it suited the landlord at the time. The landlord demanded payment of R2 million in rent, and there was insufficient documentation. The landlord had the floors locked and evicted the DCS from them. Parolees and probationers had to report to an open air office in the parking lot. This meant that It was regrettable. Space had been occupied illegally. There would be a formal investigation. Community Corrections Branch of the Department of Correctional Services in Johannesburg continues to operate without an office as the Department owes R2 million in rent and officials have been locked out since 3 August. on the pavement.

Discussion
The Chairperson remarked that it was incomprehensible that the DCS could spend five years squatting in a building. He told the CFO that it was his job to enforce compliance. If he did not know that, there would be trouble. He advised that control be jacked up. An internal audit had to be done, and lessons had to be learnt. It would not do to say that it was all the fault of “Kenny Bauer”. He had to be found and dealt with.

Further discussion of this issue had to be curtailed because of time constraints.

Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services on torture of juveniles at Umtata
The Chairperson drew attention to information received from the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) that juveniles had been beaten at Umtata for a number of days. The JICS went to investigate on 7 September. Excessive force had been used, and victims were prevented from laying charges. Officials said that the juveniles had fought among themselves and had smoked dagga. That made no difference to the fact that if a person was beaten for a number of days, it was clearly torture. The juveniles were beaten on the soles of their feet. The JICS would do an inspection and write a report.

The Chairperson concluded that matters that could not be discussed due to time constraints, would be dealt with in a forthcoming meeting. He 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: