Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services 2011/12 Annual Report: analysis by Parliamentary Research Unit

Meeting report

Parliamentary Research Unit presentation
Mpho Mathabathe, Researcher: Parliamentary Research Unit, presented an analysis of the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) 2011/12 annual report.

JICS was fully dependent on the cooperation of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) for the payment of all its expenses, which was of concern. The voted budget of the Inspectorate for 2011/12 had been R19 312 000, which had eventually been increased to R21 291 000. The final expenditure of the Inspectorate had been R24 174 206, which represented an overspending of roughly R2 900 000.

Year-on-year, expenditure on “other” costs had increased from R133 093 to R892 629. Expenditure on stationery and printing costs had increased from R188 928 to R333 554. Expenditure on travel and subsistence had increased from R1 082 903 to almost R2 000 000. The reason given for this last increase had been an increase in the number of inspections conducted.

There had been 11 investigations conducted in 2011/12, the cited causes of which included “allegations of assault by officers on inmates” and “an unnatural death”. The researcher knew, however, that there were hundreds of thousands of complaints of assault made by inmates each year. How many of the 11 investigations had actually been related to allegations of assault?  And why had only one unnatural death been investigated, when the annual report mentioned four unnatural deaths caused by officials in KwaZulu-Natal, and 47 unnatural deaths in total in 2011/12?  Of the 47 unnatural deaths, 20 had been attributed to suicide and 12 to homicide. Why was the cause of death in the remaining 15 cases unknown?

The number of general complaints had dropped from 381 924 in 2010/11 to 595 in 2011/12, and the number of transfer-related complaints from 42 185 to 97. What was the explanation for this? Had inmates lost faith in the complaints system? The contracts of 13 Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs) had been terminated because of deliberately dishonest claims of unverifiable visits to centres.

In spite of all of these concerns, there had still been an overspending on the budget. Further, in previous years, the annual report had specified only JCIS’s final expenditure, so one did not know whether the Inspectorate had overspent or underspent on its budget. The researcher recommended that the mandate and powers of the Inspectorate be reconsidered to make the entity more effective. Its current mandate was primarily to report, but what had happened after reporting? Who was to take action? The Committee should call on the DCS to respond to the issues emerging from the annual report.

The Chairperson reminded the JICS delegation of queries raised by the Committee the day before. These had included the lack of consequences for unnatural deaths, the limitations of JICS’s reporting-only mandate, the indications that inhumane detention was being used in South African prisons, and the allegations that parolees were being employed as ICCVs. He then gave the delegation the opportunity to respond.

Mr Vuka Eliakim Maswazi Tshabalala, Inspecting Judge: JICS, responded that all complaints were in fact attended to. However, inmates tended to share complaints with certain officials, but not with others, which created difficulties. The ultimate question was how legislation could empower this Commission to do more.

Mr Adam Carelse, Chief Executive Officer, JICS, explained that the annual report under review had a different format to the past reports. It had been aligned into specific programmes rather than into chapters, and the results of JICS’s recent health survey had also been included. As of 30 June 2011, the core business of the Inspectorate had been conducted by only three staff members. It was only after June of this year that a restructuring had occurred, with core business being subdivided into three units with supporting teams. The importance of this restructuring to the performance of the Commission could not be overemphasised. The Minister’s approval of the new structure was still pending, and the continued uncertainty of the situation was having a demoralising effect on staff. He humbly requested the support of the Committee in having this matter finalised soon.

Section 90 of the Correctional Services Act made clear that JICS could only inspect, investigate, monitor and report.

JICS had indeed appointed parolees to serve as ICCVs, according to its policy of rehabilitation and reintegration. The screening process for appointment was extremely meticulous and ICCVs could not be appointed to centres in which they had been incarcerated. None of the 13 ICCVs whose contracts were revoked had been parolees. It had in fact been proven that the most effective ICCVs were ex-offenders. The Committee was pleased to use caution if and when it reviewed this appointment policy.

JICS had decided to include details of its overspending in this year’s annual report in order to be more transparent. However, one additional detail that should have been included was that the budget amount originally requested from Treasury had been R23 million. The “overspending” had thus not been reckless, but rather in line with JICS’s original anticipated costs. JICS’s budget was reviewed three times per annum, with the DCS allocating more or less to JICS, according to its needs. This was in line with the Correctional Services Act, which stated DCS’s responsibilities for the funding of JICS. The Department had essentially granted JICS every cent that it had requested, even though it had given JICS less initially.

The Chairperson said that Mr Carelse was referencing section 90 of the Correctional Services Act but forgetting that the Act was ultimately in the service of the Bill of Rights, which called for humane detention of South African citizens. If JICS’s mandate was restricting it from adhering to the Bill of Rights, the Committee wanted to know, so that it could make the legislative changes needed. The Committee and JICS had been stuck on questions of independence, but even if JICS were made independent financially, nothing would change and the purpose would be defeated if JICS was still restricted by legislation.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked about the resignations and transfers that had occurred in 2011/12. Had these positions been filled? What was the expected timeline for finalisation of the Inspectorate’s restructuring? Could JICS submit the full criteria for ICCV appointments to the Committee?

Mr V Magagula (ANC) asked for an explanation of the near-doubling of stationery and printing costs this year. The report revealed that there was no internal audit post in JICS. Had this been catered for in the restructuring process? Did the Inspectorate feel it did not have enough “teeth” to be effective?

An ANC member asked about cases where parole processes were being delayed because of staff shortages. What could be done to speed up these processes? What were the reasons for the suspension of three staff members mentioned in the report? Why was there a disparity between the figures reported by JICS and DCS?

The Chairperson reminded the Committee and the delegation that meetings had been planned for 24 and 31 October 2012 to discuss ICCV and financial independence. Questions related to these matters should be shelved until then.

Mr Carelse responded that JICS had a policy that all vacancies had to be filled within three months. The two transfers had both been horizontal, from the Western Cape to other provinces, and both local positions had been filled immediately. On 21 August 2012, JICS had been told by DCS that approval for the restructuring was on track. The inspecting judge had approved it, and it was now in the hands of the Minister and the Deputy Minister.

The Chairman asked when, ideally, JICS would like to see it approved and implemented.

Mr Carelse replied that in terms of strengthening the Inspectorate, receiving approval by the end of the month would be very helpful.

The increase in stationery and printing costs in 2011/12 had been caused, firstly, by the intensification of ICCV training and the accompanying need for more training material and, secondly, by the expansion of JICS offices.

The new structure did make provisions for an internal audit post. However, JICS was not simply waiting passively for this post to be filled. It had been working proactively with the internal auditor at DCS on an in-depth audit into various aspects of JICS, details of which would be released soon.

One official had been suspended for 30 days following an abuse of travel policy. Mr Carelse apologised for not being able to recall the causes of suspension of the other two officials.

He felt JICS did not have enough teeth, and that it was not efficient to simply report. Legislation needed to be changed to allow JICS also to make recommendations. Further, these recommendations should be enforced, or strong reasons for their not being enforced should be provided.

Mr Umesh Raga, National Director of Legal Services: JICS, said that the staff shortages interrupting parole procedures needed to be fixed by DCS. The unfilled vacancies were specialist positions like medical practitioners, psychologist and psychiatrists. The Department tended to be unresponsive to these and other requests from JICS.

The Chairman said that it sounded like JICS was not being taken seriously on some of these matters. The Committee would raise this with the Department.

An ANC member asked why only one of the 71 complaints of assault on inmates had led to disciplinary action. What recommendations did JICS have about the problem of overcrowding in prisons? Why had only 67% of inmates that had needed Anti-Retroviral Treatment (ART) in 2011/12 received it, as reported in JICS’ health survey?

Mr L Max (DA) asked JICS if it thought prisoners’ rights were being contravened by the Department, since the Department’s failure to appoint the necessary officials had denied parole to prisoners with valid grounds for it. Did JICS apply national or regional demographics when making its appointments? Specifically, were groups with high regional but low national presence discriminated against? Had JICS investigated why there was no prosecution for so many of the unnatural deaths? If there was no prosecution, there was no deterrent. What did JICS regard as a “gross” violation of human rights, as mentioned in its annual report? A transgression was a transgression. Why were some of the causes of unnatural deaths still unknown, if every prisoner had the right to a post-mortem?

Mr Carelse replied that the 71 complaints of assault were only allegations. JICS investigated complaints and, if it found the grounds to do so, it referred the complaints to the Department, which held responsibility for the disciplinary process.

The Chairman interjected that the Committee’s frustration was that the Department might be using excessive force in its prisons, but it was also given the sole responsibility for disciplining itself for this. Ignoring how few of the 71 allegations had actually been dealt with by the Department, how many of the allegations did JICS think were legitimate cases of brutality, based on its own observations? What was Mr Carelse’s gut feeling about the matter? South Africans came from a brutalised society. If that brutality was continuing even in today’s new democracy, the Committee wanted to know, and JICS should reveal it. If Mr Carelse and his team could not tell the Committee this, they should be fired and replaced by people who could.

Mr Carelse replied that there was enough evidence to suggest that brutal assaults were indeed occurring in isolated cases. JICS would continue to provide details of this evidence to the Committee in its quarterly reports.

Regarding the low ART figures, the health survey results published in the annual report were only the first step. JICS had since analysed the findings and was in the process of deciding what to do about them.

JICS used national rather than regional demographics when making appointments, but no ethnic group was discriminated against in this process.

Regarding the supposedly drastic drop in the number of complaints year-on-year, the researcher had made an error in his calculations. He had compared the number of internal complaints from inmates to ICCVs in 2010/11 to the number of external complaints received by JICS in 2011/12. If he had compared the number of internal complaints in 2010/11 to that of 2011/12, the figures would have balanced.

Mr Raga explained that the causes of certain deaths had been reported as unknown because JICS had not received the post-mortem results for those deaths in time.

The grossness of a violation was a question of degree. A gross violation could refer to something like torture.

JICS did not tend to interrogate the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), but it did follow up with DCS in some cases. This approach would be reviewed.

His sense was that prisoners’ rights were thwarted when their consideration for parole was delayed.

In terms of overcrowding, the President’s recent amnesty provision had offered some relief. Possible groups that DCS could target in its overcrowding relief efforts were prisoners with bail amounts of R99 or less and prisoners serving sentences in place of fines.

He said that JICS had taken note of all the issues raised by the Committee. It would expand on its responses in the follow-up sessions in the coming weeks.

The meeting was adjourned.