Use of consultants by Correctional Services; Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services performance and budget

Meeting report

Auditor General on use of consultants by Department of Correctional Services
Mr George Lourens, Business Executive: Auditor General South Africa, pointed out key challenges across departments, with regard to the use of consultants. Consultants were appointed where permanent capacity should have been created. Skills transfer was ineffective. Lack of proper project management and monitoring led to the extension of contracts. Effective oversight and internal controls were not executed prior to payments. Proper contract procedures and tenders were not followed. Consultants were overseeing other consultants, especially in IT, and created dependency on themselves.

Ms Gratitude Ramphaka, AGSA Senior Manager, took the Committee through outsourcing and the use of consultants and contractors in the DCS, and pointed out contract specific challenges. Payments were sometimes made before Service Level Agreements had been signed. There was payment for uncompleted projects. The DCS had to be more vigilant against wasteful expenditure. Consultants were appointed because of high vacancy rates. Prescribed procurement processes were not followed, and in some projects there was no competitive bidding process. Cost benefit analysis had not been done in some cases.

The AG recommended that government develop a strategy governing the use of consultants, to ensure value for money. The private sector had to refrain from taking advantage of weaknesses in government systems. There had to be strong governance support by the broader private sector.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) asked why the three big outsourced agencies Bosasa, Sondolo and Pezulu had not been investigated.

Mr Lourens responded that no information was available on them. Most of the information was with the Special Investigating Unit.

Mr Selfe asked about the extension of contracts. The Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) stipulated requirements for extension of contracts, when contracts were not submitted to competitive bidding.

Mr Lourens replied that a contract could be extended if it did not exceed 15% of the contract.

Mr Selfe asked what the consequences were when procurement processes were not followed, and who enforced them.

Mr Lourens replied that the DCS had to be asked about consequences. Consequences for individuals had to be monitored.

Mr L Max (DA) asked who allowed irregular contracts where there were no bidding agencies. He asked who the officials had been who had signed them off.

Mr Max asked about consequences for the National Commissioner, who was also the Chief Accounting Officer.

Mr Lourens responded that people who authorised went all the way through to the Chief Accounting Officer. It was not so much that the Commissioner as Accounting Officer had not issued directives, as that they had not been implemented. The Treasury had been called in about the IT contract.

Mr Max asked why severe irregularities were not investigated by agencies like the Public Protector.

Mr Max remarked that he had a high regard for the Auditor General (AG). But if AG findings were not responded to by the DCS, it was a waste of time.

The Chairperson remarked that the AG did not have the teeth to compel the DCS to respond.

Mr Lourens agreed that the AG did not have that role, but noted that the DCS had indeed responded that they would investigate.

The Chairperson referred to the distinction between core and non-core business. The Department of Health would say that it was not their core business to serve food, and then outsource food provision. The State Information Technology Agency (SITA) did procurement for the DCS, which had to be distinguished from their other work. There could not be central buying. The DCS sometimes ignored SITA. The performance audit was done at three-year intervals. There had never been a DCS Accounting Officer who had survived a full five-year term. The DCS did not have stable leadership. An Accounting Officer could only be pursued for what happened during his own term. The Commissioner had said that he had inherited certain challenges. It had to be possible to hold the one who went before him accountable.

Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services 3^rd 2012 quarter report
The Chairperson informed the Inspecting Judge about the unanounced visit to the JICS. He asked him to provide general comments.

Judge Vuka Tshabalala, Inspecting Judge, said that the CEO and himself had been on a visit to Pollsmoor when the Committee visited. The Office of the Judicial Inspectorate had expanded into new areas and new people.

The Judge commented that the JICS budget was inadequate. The DCS awarded the same budget to JICS as the year before. They said that there had been instructions from the Ministry to cut down on the budget. The JICS had pointed out that the DCS was talking ‘stringency’, and yet the Department was handing a surplus back to the fiscus. The JICS did not accept that excuse.

The Judge referred to recent strikes at Groenpunt, St Albans and Pollsmoor. When the JICS visited the Groenpunt Centre, the Deputy Regional Commissioner gave an account which blamed the inmates. She said that they had thrown stones at officials, and refused to go back to their cells. The JICS saw her account as a superficial one. Inmates had complained for a year that when they took grievances to management, matters were not attended to. Officials likewise paid no attention. The unrest was triggered because on that day the Head of Centre had given permission that inmates could go and play soccer. Inmates were to be released from cells at 9h00 that morning, but cells were not opened until 11h00. Officials said that they had been in a meeting. That was not a valid excuse, seeing that there had been an instruction from the Head of Centre that had to be carried out as part of the day’s duties, to unlock the inmates.

The Judge noted that at St Albans, the violence that took place was between inmates, and gang related. The same was true for Pollsmoor. Officials became involved when they tried to quell the fighting.

The Judge referred to financial challenges. With regard to the posts that the DCS could not fill for the JICS, he noted that the Minister approved of the fixed establishment, and had been aware that the JICS had advertised posts. He was convinced that the DCS could not help fill the posts because their financial management was suspect. In the Free State and in Durban, the JICS did not have their own offices. They were in effect squatting. In the Free State the offices were situated at a prison, which was not good for independence. In Durban there were two offices on the premises of the Department of Public Works. The Regional Coordinator was housed in a different building. Space had to be shared with Community Corrections at Durban Westville, and in George also. The situation was uncomfortable, and did not inspire trust.

The Judge assured the Committee that JICS investigators gave factual accounts. Nothing was hidden. In the report, it was indicated when the DCS did not respond to issues reported on. Some matters had been dragging on for a year. The DCS promised to act but did not. The JICS lacked the authority to take action. They could not refer cases for prosecution. It could be possible for the Human Rights Commission or the Public Protector to do so.

Mr Adam Carelse, CEO of JICS, said that the JICS were in the dilemma of not only having an inadequate budget, but also underspending. They had funds that they could not use to create posts. The Minister had confirmed approval for a new post establishment. In December the JICS wanted to appoint 55 people on Persal. The DCS had said that they could not create jobs on Persal. The JICS was part of the DCS budget vote, and could not appoint 55 people on contract. Money had to be returned to the fiscus.

Mr Carelse said that the JICS were investigating a very serious incident at Durban Westville, where an inmate had died after being assaulted by eight officials. Two inmates were involved in a stabbing incident, and the officials assaulted one to death. There were conflicting statements from the medical testimony. The JICS were taking the matter seriously.

The Chairperson commented that inmates were entitled to dignity. Abuse of any kind was to be condemned, and that included assaults by inmates on officials. If eight officials killed an inmate, the Committee had to act. Especially after what had happened three days before at Daveyton. It might be necessary for the Committee to visit the centre. It would not do to pretend they had not heard. A delegation could be sent. The culprits had to be suspended and made to face criminal charges. They had to feel the might of the law. That was not a financial matter. The Committee was dealing with human beings. The DCS had a good quarterly finance report, but it did not look the same as regarded people. The financial and the human had to be married.

Mr Magagula remarked that he felt for the JICS, who had to work in someone else’s yard. He referred to inmate on inmate assault. Members of Parliament had to protect people. Denial of rights could not be allowed. But at Groenpunt the Committee had to be taken from the hall, because they were told that an inmate wanted to stab an official to obtain rank. A police officer was stabbed in public. It was not possible to respect the rights of an inmate who had stabbed two people in a centre. That right could not be granted to him.

Ms Phaliso remarked that it was frustrating. The same things were repeated. The DCS delayed, and did not take action. There was no appetite to respond. She agreed with Mr Magagula that there was a moral breakdown. Inmates were angry because there was no rehabilitation for them. There had to be a shift of focus. Society was angry. There was no change.

Ms Phaliso commented on the position of the JICS. They were being held to ransom. It would be better if they were a parastatal.

The Chairperson asked if she meant independent.

Ms Phaliso said that the JICS was intertwined with the DCS. The debate had to be shifted. There was much anger. There was no tool to prepare officials to work with angry people. There was anger on the side of both officials and inmates. The JICS had to be shifted to a parastatal with its own budget.

Mr Carelse replied that the JICS was a Budget Vote 21. Even if they had the money, they could not create posts.

Ms Ngwenya said that the complaints register was not being consulted. Inmates had the right to raise complaints every morning. The Committee rightly had to ask to look at the register during oversight visits.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that Groenpunt Centre was not suitable for keeping people with two life sentences. Everything was rotten, the fencing was in bad repair.

Mr Carelse replied that there were criteria for maximum centres, and the Groenpunt centre did not meet those criteria. There were staff vacancies and vulnerability.

Ms Ngwenya said that the DCS did not say that they had charged members. They were only suspended. They did not say how they treated cases. They would send an inmate to another centre, and information was lost.

Mr Max asked the CEO about his earlier statements that the JICS had a good relationship with the DCS. He asked what was being done about outstanding feedback from the DCS Head Office that stretched to 30, 60, or 90 days.

Mr Carelse replied that the relationship with the DCS was on various levels of budget structure and operational support. Operational support could improve. In the past there had been no support for Persal and Logis systems. On that level there had been great progress. It would not be necessary for the JICS to get a qualified audit, if they became independent. On the executive level, challenges were known. There was an improvement in the DCS response, if one looked over a period of 6 Quarterly Reports. Autopsy reports were still slow and delayed.

Mr Max asked if a criminal case had been laid against those responsible for the assault at Durban Westville.

Mr Max remarked that the JICS were suffering because of the DCS. A solution had to be found. The moment people were in tune with a job, they had to exit again. He had heard allegations that JICS top management were abusing sick leave. There were claims that the Head of Legal Services was rude.

Mr Carelse replied that there had been no abuse of sick leave.

Mr Carelse replied that there had not been abuse of sick leave. There had been one Independent Visitor suspended for irregular conduct. There were written warnings about the abuse of telephones and the abuse of a car.

Mr Abram quoted the Dalai Lama, who had said that one had to help other people, and if that was not possible, at least not to hurt them. The fact that an inmate had wronged society, did not justify revenge. There was something gravely wrong in the society. Only the symptoms of violence were looked at, and not the causes. The Ubuntu principles were being cast aside. There had to be people who had the sense of Ubuntu, to whom Corrections could be a duty and a calling. There had to be passion.

Mr Abram objected to the classification of employment equity according to black African; Colored; White and Indian, on page7. He hated that kind of race talk. He was not an Indian, but a South African. A spirit had to be created that did not care about colour. As an Indian, he was not allowed to reside in the Free State, under Apartheid. South Africans had to be imbued with the spirit of service, and look first of all at the quality of the individual.

Mr Abram referred to page 13, about the situation at Uniondale. He asked if officials were up to their task, and were able to carry out basic prescriptions. There were clear standards. He asked if it was necessary for the JICS to have to take complaints about no shoes, clothing or uniforms. People did not respect their terms of work.

Mr Abram referred to page 70, where it was stated that attendance of Heads of Centres at  Independent Visitors Committees had improved. He asked about the level of improvement, and whether they only attended to comply, and were only interested in signing the attendance register.

Mr Carelse replied that visits had improved. In the past Heads of Centre had not attended meetings at all. Attendance was monitored on a monthly basis.

Mr Abram remarked that the findings of the Jali Commission had been out for a decade. There was a White Paper on Corrections. Yet only minor issues were being attended to. There was a vast bureaucracy, and many people in the DCS employ. The question was what they were doing. The DCS had to execute its full mission. One day those involved with Corrections might be held Constitutionally liable for death. There were only minor repairs and much talk. The Department could not provide in-house capacity for a stipend to do maintenance like painting. Persons who were incapable had to be weeded out. People failed in the DCS and got a better job.

Mr Abram opined that the problem was that there were not horses for courses. There were a host of problems. Inmates were being killed by their protectors. It could not be expected of the JICS to bring all the facts to light unaided. The DCS had to also bring things to light themselves. The DCS had a R17 billion budget. They had HR resources. The Department and the JICS had to meet. Inmates spent their time idly. 16 knives had been found at Groenpunt. The question was how the knives got in, in the first place. The DCS had to be accountable to say what was being done about problems. If heads had to roll, that had to be just so. The JICS had problems because the Public Service bureaucracy was not doing what it had to. The JICS had to have teeth. Reports were being sent to people who were part of the problem. The DCS had to be run like a business. The DCS never produced evidence of what had been achieved. One heard talk about establishing a trading entity, and it remained there.

Ms Ngubeni (ANC) asked about gender equity, and women in top positions, and employment of the disabled.

Mr Carelse replied that of the top 10 people who reported to him, 4 were female, and one was disabled.

Ms Ngubeni remarked that oversight had pointed to the need to retain Independent Visitors, who received a very low salary. People on the parole boards received high stipends.

Mr Carelse replied that employment of Independent Visitors was still not what the JICS had hoped for . Vacancies were being filled, but there were problems with processing of interviews, and fulfilling of appointment functions.

Ms Ngubeni suggested a look at the root causes of violence, which could include overcrowding and salaries. Buildings were not suitable and officials were frustrated. They had to deal with too many inmates.

The Chairperson concluded that the Committee would ask who was going to judge the Judge. The JICS could not afford a blot on their name. Oversight had brought up allegations of sexual abuse by senior managers. The JICS could not talk to the DCS if they were also in the wrong.

Adoption of minutes
Mr Selfe remarked with reference to the minutes of 19 February, that sight had not to be lost of commitments made by the DCS.

The Chairperson agreed that Mr Smallberger had undertaken to brief the Committee on sentence plans for those serving less than two years. There would be an opportunity on 27 March.

Mr Max added that the DCS had promised the year before to brief the Committee on gang management. They had to comment on strategic links with the SAPS.

Minutes for 19 and 20 February were adopted.

Overseas visit
The Chairperson referred to the planned overseas visit that had not yet occurred. He had written to Mr Frolick, the National Assembly Chairperson, who had replied that he could not come to the Committee.

Ms Ngwenya objected to that. The Chairperson’s office could send a delegation. It had to be explained why the planned overseas trip had not materialised. The Committee had been undermined.  She had put pressure on him, and asked why he hated the Committee. He had replied that it was not so, and that he would explain to the Committee Chair. He said that it would not be possible for the whole Committee to go. She knew that he did not approve of a visit to a certain country.

Mr S Abram (ANC) also objected strongly. Every Member of Parliament had been elected to serve. Whoever had attained high office, had to be at the disposal of the people, to govern them well. Even the President would not refuse to see the Committee. The Committee had to put their foot down. Every Member of Parliament had to be accessible.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) said that it was a matter of Muhammed having to go to the mountain, if it would not come to him. He agreed that the Committee had submitted the wrong country. He advised that a Committee delegation be sent to see how serious things were. The Police were going on an overseas visit, yet Corrections were being held back.

The Chairperson commented that the powers that be were saying that there was oversight fatigue, Committees were tourists. There was indeed objection to the fact that the Committee wanted to visit a country like Brazil, rather than one elsewhere in Africa. The whole Committee could not be included in a delegation. He suggested three or four people.

Mr Selfe commented that the notion of oversight fatigue was valid. The killer point was that the Corrections Committee had not been on an overseas visit since 1995. He agreed with the sending of a delegation to the House Chair.

The Chairperson suggested Ms Ngwenya, Mr Selfe and himself.

Mr Abram remarked that he was speaking of the principle that Members of Parliament be accessible.

Mr Magagula suggested that Mr Abram be included in the delegation.

Mr Abram declined, saying that he would just get angry.

The Chairperson said that he would write for a meeting date. He would then smuggle in Ms Ngwenya and Mr Selfe.

Groenpunt Centre visit: Committee Report
The Committee went through the Groenpunt Centre report.

Ms Ngwenya noted that when they had left after an oversight visit, she heard on the radio that the same inmate who had assaulted a DCS member, had died. It had to be established who had killed the inmate.

The Chairperson noted that Mr De Souza of the Judicial Inspectorate would report on the matter.

The Chairperson turned to the unanounced visit to the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS). The Committee had split into 2 teams. Mr Ndlovu and himself spoke to the Head of Finance. They complained that the budget was insufficient. They did not even have their own bank account, and had to requisition through the DCS. They were also understaffed. Even if the organogram by Mr Carelse were to be adopted, it would not be adequate. The JICS were in a state of flux. There were allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour. He had issued an invitation that anyone affected by that, could meet discreetly with the Committee about intimidation and sexual harassment.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.