Department of Correctional Services predetermined objectives: briefing by AG; Department briefing on gang-related incidents at Groenpunt, Pollsmoor and St. Albans correctional centres

Meeting report

Briefing by Auditor General on preparation and audit of predetermined objectives
Mr Musa Hlongwa, AG Senior Manager, stated that an audit report had to reflect an opinion relating to the performance of the auditee against predetermined objectives. Audit criteria were compliance with regulatory requirements, and usefulness and reliability. The auditor had to report on non-compliance matters, and on the consistency, measurability and presentation of reported performance information. Audit findings focused on the validity, accuracy and completeness of performance information. Key drivers of internal control were leadership in exercising oversight responsibility and the training of performance management staff. Standard operating procedures had to be developed.

Auditor General dashboard report for the Third Quarter, October to December 2012
Mr Solly Jiyana, AG Senior Manager, took the Committee through the Department of Correctional Services movement from the previous assessment. Areas covered were leadership; oversight responsibility; HR management; internal control policies and procedures; record keeping; the preparation of regular and complete financial and performance reports; monitoring of compliance with regulations, and internal auditing. The general impression was that the Department was in progress, in auditing terms, and were avoiding regression, but were not making rapid progress either.

Discussion
Mr L Max (DA) asked what the AG had found regarding adequate skilled resources In the DCS. He noted that the comments about record keeping (page 4) had also appeared the previous year.

Mr Jiyana replied that the DCS needed a human resource management system to develop asset management skills. High level vacancies in asset management had to be filled, as well as other levels.

Mr Max noted that the DCS had made some progress with IT, but the number of consultants was still troubling. He asked about the current situation and if the AG was satisfied that the DCS management were providing value for money.

Mr Jiyana replied that the AG had observed progress with IT. There had been no movement in the previous two years, but recently there had been progress. Most consultants in the DCS were in IT, but the Department had reduced their number, and were trying to capacitate the Department’s internal function. It was not yet possible to answer about DCS management and value adding. Management were trying, but were not yet producing convincing results.

Mr J Selfe (DA) asked what the difference was between a finding and an opinion.    

Mr Hlongwa replied that an audit opinion referred to whether there was a qualification or not. Currently the audit opinion appeared only in the management report. The Department was as yet not ready for an audit opinion. Hence the AG issued only findings about predetermined objectives, without as yet giving an audit opinion.

Mr Selfe said that an organisation would perform according to what it was measured on. He asked if measurements spoke to the DCS’s core business.  In his experience, the Strategic Plan and objectives of the DCS kept changing.  When objectives were not achieved, a new Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan were formulated, and objectives were redefined. He asked about the role of the AG in ensuring that apples were compared to apples.

Mr Hlongwa replied that indicators had to be measurable, and not subject to interpretation.

Mr Selfe asked about the the relation between oversight and planning. Parliament was supposed to have an impact on strategic planning, but the Portfolio Committee was presented with an accomplished fact every year.

Mr Hlongwa replied that the Department reported to the Minister first about their Strategic Plan, for approval. He agreed that the role of the Committee was limited, as there was not enough time granted to them to provide real input.

The Chairperson remarked that if the Strategic Plan had to be approved by the Minister, it would come down to a breach of the separation of powers if Parliament meddled with it. The Committee could not be party to the Strategic Plan and also oversee it later. The AG also had to consider the separation of powers.

Mr M Cele (ANC) referred to fraud cases, and cautioned that if the DCS were to be trained to preside over fraud cases, there was the danger that they could become involved with fraud themselves.

Mr Jiyana replied that the AG was concerned about the high number of fraud cases, and that the Department were slow to resolve them. There were enough people to deal with cases.

Briefing by the Department of Correctional Services on recent gang-related incidents at Groenpunt, Pollsmoor and St Albans correctional centres
The Chairperson introduced the topic by asking about DCS strategies to detect and pre-empt gang-related incidents in centres. It was known that there was a high level of cellphones among inmates at the Groenpunt centre. He asked about preventative measures.

Mr Deletile Klaas, Western Cape Regional Commissioner, reported that inmates had staged a riot at the Groenpunt Maximum Centre on 7 January 2013. There had been injuries to inmates and officials, as well as arson and a loss of information through burnt case files. Key drivers had been inmate frustration because of the perceived indifference of officials, poor conflict resolution mechanisms, and overcrowding versus the staff complement. There had been actions against the Head of Centre and the Area Commissioner.  At Pollsmoor, there had been a confrontation involving 15 remand detainees. Five inmates had been injured, one seriously. The matter was viewed as purely gang-related. At St. Albans, gang violence had erupted on 18 January 2013. Three inmates had died, and several had been injured. The fight was between members of the 26 and 28 prison gangs. Disciplinary action had been taken against various officers for poor management of keys, failure to implement gang management strategy, and poor control over the movement of offenders.

Mr Klaas noted that the DCS was not mandated to conduct intelligence gathering about gangs. Currently a task team was looking at gangs. In the past, the DCS had been alone, with the SAPS having their own information. Currently the National Intelligence Coordinating Committee (NICOC) was assisting.

Discussion
The chairperson asked if the DCS were aware that the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) had reported on the Groenpunt incident, and whether the Department had taken the report into consideration. The JICS had been created by the Department to investigate prison conditions. The question was what value it had if the DCS did not consider their report. The DCS had not touched on the JICS recommendations. The JICS was supposed to add value to the Department. They could not be useful if their reports were not considered. The JICS had mentioned that someone had been killed at the Durban-Westville centre.

Mr Klaas replied that in principle, the DCS looked at JICS reports and responded to the recommendations. It was asked if recommendations were implementable. The Chief Operations Officer gave a monthly update on reports received. When the report stated that matters had been finalised, it meant that there had been a full response. If there was not satisfaction, the report was escalated to Area and Regional level.

The Chairperson asked that the DCS give a broad overview of the gang situation.

Mr Nkosinathi Breakfast, DCS Regional Commissioner (Eastern Cape) stated that gangs were prevalent. A mechanism had been established to focus on key gang centres nationally. It was more realistic to solve the problem at the 20 top sites. An analysis for 2012/13 had indicated that most gangs were in KZN (57%), followed by the Eastern Cape (17,5%) and the Western Cape (16,5%). Gang activity was measured with reference to reported incidents. Many crimes were unreported in centres. Measurement was based on violent incidents. In general it was possible to manage gangs, but after-hours, the DCS had no resources. The gang situation had become more complicated with the influx of gangs from the community. Reports from centres like Potchefstroom indicated that it was no longer just a matter of the well-known 26 and 28 prison gangs - there were new gangs.

The Chairperson said that the presentation was narrow. There had been no mention of the prevalence of cellphones inside the centres. The Committee had asked two years ago why cellphones could not be jammed. He suspected it was because staff still wanted to use cellphones insidethe centres. There had been no mention of collusion by officials, who had to be involved in order for phones and drugs to be smuggled in. The DCS had to make use of technology.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said that a big challenge was the fact that inmates “owned” centres. She asked if the task team was permanent or temporary. The country had a long history of gangsterism. The gangs had branches outside that they communicated with. Since 1994, nothing had been done about the 26 and 28 gangs.   

Ms Ngwenya referred to the master key system, which made cells inaccessible after hours. Killings happened after hours. The Portfolio Committee had proposed closed circuit television (CCTV).

Ms Ngwenya remarked that there were centres where sentenced inmates and remand detainees were not separated, and could communicate. Remand detainees could be used to smuggle. They were not under tight security. They were transported to the courts by the SAPS. Even familily members were smuggling into the centres.

Mr S Abram (ANC) remarked that the briefing was short on detail. The question was not what was happening, but why. It was a matter of idle minds. Root causes had to be addressed. Centres were warehouses where people were being parked. There was a lack of care and rehabilitation. Dedicated plans were needed to reintegrate people into society. If human resources were the problem, the DCS had to make that known.  Gangs could not be stemmed unless conditions improved. He had sympathy with staff. They were dealing with desperate people. The JICS had stated that there had been complaints due to poor maintenance and bad treatment. Centres were not fit for human habitation. The Committee had often pleaded for self-sufficiency at prisons, with inmates providing for their own needs. They were spending 23 hours a day behind bars, only watching TV. There was no rehabilitation.

Mr Abram said that centres were poorly maintained and sometimes not safe. Centres were not at a state of readiness to combat fires. Systems had to be operative.  Staff were responsible for  the safety of inmates. During the incident at Groenpunt, the Head of Centre had remained in the office, and the Chief Operations Officer had had to be called in to take control. He asked why senior people had not been there. The DCS had to come up with other measures to combat gangs than to transfer them to Kokstad. The Department had to devise a war plan. There had to be interventions. No form of repression ever led to positive results. There had been incidents where staff had assaulted inmates. Conditions for skilling had to be created. The crisis was endemic.

Mr Abram referred to an incident where a centre could not be reached because the roads were too bad. Such roads had to be repaired.

Mr Selfe noted that there had been an investigation at Groenpunt, and certain investigations had been made. He asked what they were.  The JICS and the Committee had reported, but the DCS had not entered into the discussion. There were critical staff shortages. The Judicial Inspectorate had said that the situation in centres was a ticking time bomb. The death of an inmate on 16 January was a cause for concern. He asked where that was referred to in the DCS report.

Mr Selfe said that there had been recommendations in a report when 42 prisoners had escaped at Harrismith two years previously. They had not been implemented. He asked if people were taking action about JICS and Portfolio Committee reports.

Mr Max commented that the briefing was like an eggshell. The view that Mr Klaas held of gathering intelligence showed no understanding of intelligence matters. There were Emergency Support Teams (EST), but that was only a reactive tool. It addressed the gang problem only through containment. To be pro-active, two factors had to be taken into account. For crime to occur, there had to be both the desire and the opportunity for crime. There was an intelligence problem. To strive to eradicate gangs completely was to expect a miracle. Gangs were becoming more sophisticated, mainly through the influence of gangs from the outside. The best that could be done was to manage the problem. Gang violence had to be minimised. There had to be officials trained to collect information. They had to be trained to recruit informers, with incentives. This would also help to cope with the fact that officials were being recruited by gangs. Every inmate was a potential source of intelligence. It could be elicited legally as part of a strategy.

Mr Max recalled that he had asked the DCS two years before about a strategy for dealing with gangs, at which point they had answered that there was such a strategy. Later it was said that the strategy had been implemented. The two incidents demonstrated unequivocally that stated policies had not been complied with. Someone had to be charged with non-compliance. Training in gang management had to be part of the curriculum for officials.

Ms J Ngubeni-Maluleka (ANC) remarked that the briefing was too economical. There was no mention of what had caused frustrations. She referred to the fact that the unrest had erupted because officials had not unlocked the cells for inmates to play a soccer match that the Head of Centre had given permission for. There was only a mention of various recommendations. The Head of Centre and the Area Commissioner had been suspended, but there were also other officials involved. The Head of Centre had denied that the incident had been videotaped, but the Judicial Inspectorate had reported that it had in fact been videotaped from the roof. Inmates had been transferred to another centre -- but not the ones involved in the riot.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) asked if officials had been sober. Gangs were a serious problem and the DCS were doing nothing about it. There were not enough officials to manage gangs. Their working conditions were inhumane. The officials had to rehabilitate and educate aggressive inmates. The DCS had not addressed the challenges pointed out by the JICS and the Portfolio Committee. There were prolonged investigations that overlapped. There were people who could interfere with investigations, who had not been transferred.

The Chairperson remarked that there was a need for a workshop on gangs. He asked Mr Klaas to talk to his superiors about an Indaba on gang management. He asked how it was possible for NICOC to operate without information from the JICS and the Portfolio Committee. He asked Mr Klaas to initiate matters. There had to be an Indaba, or bosberaad, with all stakeholders. Civil society had to come on board. He did not agree with Mr Breakfast that a focus on gangs had to be restricted to selected areas.

Mr Abram suggested that the DCS should prepare discussion documents.

The Chairperson returned to the need for jamming cellphones in centres. He was convinced that officials wanted to use cellphones in centres, and hence did not want jamming. There was not a lack of money. Gang members had access to cellphones and were boasting that they were drinking Hennessey brandy.

Mr Breakfast replied that according to an ICASA ruling, no law enforcement agency could jam cellphones. Jamming devices were illegal.

The Chairperson replied that it was Parliament who made the laws. If ICASA could not give an alternative, the matter would be debated with the Minister. That was exactly the kind of thing that had to be debated at a bosberaad.

The Chairperson told the DCS that if the apartheid system could rely on informers, so could they. He asked about the consequences for lack of performance and dereliction of duty by officials.

Mr Klaas replied that he had indicated that action had been taken against officials. There was a hearing in progress.

The Chairperson told Mr Klaas that the incident had occurred on 7 January, and it was unacceptable to say that hearings were still in progress. Hearings had to be concluded within 60 days, by law. The DCS had broken the first rule.

Ms Phaliso asked for an implementation plan from the DCS. The staff complement had to be speedily addressed. Staff rights in terms of the Bill of Rights had to be attended to. A progress report was needed. The difficulties caused by the 2 x 12-hour shift system had to be addressed. Officials were being strained.

Adoption of minutes
Minutes of 17 April and 24 April were adopted.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.