Impact of Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCV)

Meeting report

In an introductory comment, the Inspecting Judge of the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) responded to the Portfolio Committee statement that they were receiving many complaints from inmates that were not being attended to. The Judge told the Committee that it did not imply that Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs) were not effective. Inmates wanted quick fixes, and they believed that only persons with authority could help them. There were inmates who complained personally to him, because he was a Judge. The same had happened when he was Judge President. Inmates complained to the Portfolio Committee because they were perceived to have authority.

The SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threats) analysis of the ICCV system identified strength in the recruitment process and working relationships with Heads of Correctional Centres (HCCs); weakness in lack of understanding of the ICCV system by HCCs and inmates; opportunities in paralegal training for ICCVs; and threats in the filling of ICCV posts and legal support for ICCVs.

ICCVs from various regions reported on their work experience and challenges.

In discussion, there were questions about the extent of gang activity and possible collusion between gangs and officials. It was asked why the filling of ICCV posts were identified as a ‘threat’. Members commended the ICCVs for good work done, but were concerned about their training and the legal assistance available to them. There was general concern that ICCVs were not taken seriously, because they had no powers to enforce. It was advised that ICCVs submit written memos to the Portfolio Committee. ICCVs were asked to comment on their view of how circumstances contributed to crime. The Chairperson questioned the effectiveness of having parolees as ICCVs, because they would be reluctant to report about the DCS, who could put them back in prison. He also felt that young people might not be able to interview hardened gangsters. He also expressed concern over an effective management and monitoring system to ensure that ICCVs were adhering to visiting hours. There were centres where inmates claimed to have never seen an ICCV. A member felt that it was unfair that ICCVs only received a stipend. There was agreement that especially the employment of parolees posed a risk, but the ground had to be tested, and the ICCV system had to be given a chance. There was general concern about lack of legal support and legal training for ICCVs. The Chairperson concluded that the ratio of one ICCV per 1000 inmates made their work physically impossible, and made the system impractical. The JICS were advised to come up with a ratio that the Committee could defend. He appealed to the JICS to come up with suggestions as to how Parliament could assist them, and to put their lack of independence on the table. The Inspecting Judge admitted that the ICCV system needed an overhaul, and that he would consult with his colleagues about that.