Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services Quarterly Report for 1 January-31 March 2013; Committee Report on interaction with stakeholders on Department's Strategic and Annual Performance Plans

Correctional Services

22 May 2013
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) provided a very brief executive summary, and discussion proceeded with the report as a reference document. There was no formal presentation of findings.

The Committee was told that the JICS had not received funding from the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) for approved posts, and that there were problems with staff accommodation in offices. During the quarter reported on, complaints from prisoners had increased, and there had been riots and violence. The JICS were currently making their reports available to DCS Area Commissioners, in addition to the National Commissioner and Regional Commissioners. Attendance of Heads of Centre at Visitor Committee meetings of Independent Correctional Services Visitors had increased.

In discussion, the Chairperson expressed disappointment that the JICS had not attended Committee meetings during the budget process. Concern was expressed about the Inspectorate’s accommodation challenges, employment policies, underspending and the inability to fill approved posts. A Member insisted more than once that the DCS and the JICS were not talking to each other because of reasons not brought to the Committee. It was suggested from several quarters that the Department and the Inspectorate had to meet together with the Committee. Some held the view that the Department was sabotaging the JICS through a lack of response to Inspectorate reports. A Member expressed shock and outrage at the housing of 38 mentally ill patients in Ebongweni Maximum Correctional Centre, which was not equipped to house them.
 

Meeting report

Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services Quarterly Report for 1 January to 31 March 2013
Mr Adam Carelse, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS), provided a brief executive summary, and discussions began immediately.

The Judicial Inspectorate Quarterly Report for the period 01 January–31 March 2013 articulated the activities within the three core programmes of the Inspectorate, namely: Administration; Complaints Processing, Monitoring, and Investigations; and Community Oversight and Stakeholder Engagement. 

Programme 1: Administration, introduced the key strategic shifts implemented by the Inspecting Judge and the CEO. The CEO’s office hosted a strategic session with management to reflect on the previous year’s strategic objectives and baseline targets. The session also gave management an opportunity to reflect on measures that could be put in place to ensure an independent and effective Inspectorate.

The Inspecting Judge and the CEO had visited and conducted inspections at eight correctional centres across the country. 

The financial and supply chain management unit dealt with the budget and assets of the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate’s adjusted budget was R31 832 500.00 for the 2012/2013 financial year. The expenditure for the last quarter amounted to R9 452 661.34. In the area of human resources management, the situation of the funded posts on the fixed establishment remained unchanged as per previous reporting and was one hundred per cent filled. Mr Carelse referred to approved posts not being funded by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS).

Programme 2: Complaints monitoring, inspections and investigations, highlighted the activities of the Directorate: Legal Services. The Inspectorate had seen an increase of complaints for the final quarter of the 2012/2013 year.  This quarter had also been characterised by riots and violence at various correctional centres in the country.  The Inspecting judge’s office and the Inspectorate were kept very busy attending to these issues. The Inspectorate conducted 29 inspections for the quarter across six of DCS’s Regions. Major concerns evident from the inspections were once again bad, dilapidated infrastructure and a shortage of professional staff. The Inspectorate conducted investigations of 15 incidences.

The Directorate received a total of 348 complaints. Complaints for the quarter under review almost doubled from previous quarters, with complaints regarding transfers (82), parole (65), member-on-inmate assaults (42), appeals (21), health care and conditions (17) the most prevalent.  With the lack of human capacity, most of these complaints received insufficient consideration as it was impossible to hone into the issues arising from them. 26 deaths from unnatural causes, 122 natural deaths and four vulnerable deaths were reported to the Directorate.

As part of the Inspectorate’s monitoring, and included in this report, are the numbers of mandatory reports received by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) with regard to segregations, mechanical restraints, and the use of force. 1650 segregations, 70 mechanical restraints and 43 uses of force were reported.

Programme 3: Community oversight and stakeholder engagement, provided a reflection on community oversight and stakeholder engagement, which was largely enacted by the Independent Correctional Centres Visitors (ICCVs) and through the Visitors’ Committees, and to a large extent, managed by the Directorate:  Management Regions.  78 ICCV performance audits were conducted during the quarter. During the quarter under review there was an increase in the numbers of unresolved complaints submitted by the Visitors Committees to Legal Services. The ICCVs conducted a total of 66 971 interviews with inmates. A total number of 28 905 complaints deriving from ICCV interviews were recorded in the G 365. During the period, the ICCVs conducted 12 697 private consultations with inmates.  The level of community participation or engagement was documented at the end of the report.

Mr Carelse said that there were problems with accommodation in offices. The Inspecting Judge and the CEO had conducted eight inspections at correctional centres across the country. The Inspectorate had sent their report to Area Commissioners, in addition to the National Commissioner and Regional Commissioners. More Heads of Centres were attending the Visitors Committee meetings of the Independent Correctional Service Visitors.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked the Inspecting Judge for opening remarks.

Judge Vuka Tshabalala, Inspecting Judge, said that reported complaints were not being responded to by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). Letters were written to the DCS, to which full responses were not received. Mr Carelse had gone to Durban, to meet with Regional Commissioners about complaints but responses were not forthcoming from Area Commissioners. They would promise to respond, and then keep silent.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee was adopting a report on the DCS budget. It was disappointing that the JICS had not been part of the budget process. He agreed that the DCS were unresponsive, as there had been no response to JICS and Portfolio Committee reports on the gang related violence and riots at Groenpunt and other centres. Had the JICS participated in the budget process, it could have had an impact on the budget. It would be better to attend such meetings in future.

The Chairperson referred to the fact that the JICS was squatting. What the JICS desired in terms of office accommodation it would not get. It would become a drawn out process.

Mr Carelse replied that the National Commissioner had approved three more offices. Those were regional offices in Durban, Bloemfontein and George. The Judge was in an office loaned by the Department of Public Works (DPW) in Durban. The rest of his staff was with community corrections in Durban. They only occupied part of a floor. There were limited resources, and not enough information technology (IT) points. There was no network printer and no fax machine. In Bloemfontein JICS staff shared offices on the premises at Grootvlei prison. It compromised JICS independence. In George, offices were shared with community corrections. An office designed for four people was used by eight or nine people. There was no network point. George had gone out on tender, but a hold had been put on that. The DCS were saying they were not responsible, and the DPW were saying the same. There were one or two DPW people in Bloemfontein responsible for signing all contracts, who neglected to do so.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had to pronounce on the matter. It would not do for the JICS to have the entity which it had to oversee as a landlord. If one individual of the DPW in Bloemfontein was neglecting to sign contracts, that person had to be located.

Mr Abram remarked that it was not a problem of funding. There was a procurement process in place. The CEO had to have a discussion with his counterpart at Public Works. It was either a case of ineptitude, or they had too much to do.

The Chairperson referred to the budget for vacancies. He asked if it would be the same the following year. The Portfolio Committee would have to knock on doors
and announce a crisis.

Mr Abram noted that the DCS had under spent by R894 million in 2011/12. The question was why funding was not available. The DCS had to be strongly implored to come to the party in the spirit of Ubuntu. The JICS could talk to the DPW Director General, or directly to the DCS.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) remarked that the problem of JICS independence had to be gone into deeply. As things stood, the Inspecting Judge belonged to the DCS. The Department could not be blamed for the problem with offices, except in Durban, where the Judge was divided from the other officials. As long as the DCS funded the Inspectorate, the Judge belonged to them. He could not stand for himself, and he was being unfairly treated.

Mr L Max (DA) asked Mr Carelse if it was so that he was sending people to areas without support or infrastructure. Area managers were actually only appointed in an acting capacity. They had to do the work of lower staff. He asked why there had not been proper planning. The JICS had not been active in the budget process. The JICS were struggling for funds. He asked if they at least had their own budget to plan for offices and staff. He asked if there were costing of offices and plans alternative to those of the DCS.

Mr Carelse replied that the JICS planned and presented their budget to the DCS, who then made allocations. There was also an adjustment budget. There was budgeting for compensation, goods and services, and offices. There was a standard departmental form that was filled in. The JICS were subject to the DCS process, as they were considered a DCS entity. The JICS were caught in a Catch 22 situation. The first option was that the whole of South Africa would be served from Cape Town and Pretoria. In that case, people would have to drive up to 2000 kilometres per month. The JICS had opted for decentralisation, and the National Commissioner approved that in November 2011. The DCS undertook to provide temporary accommodation, but that was still the current situation. The JICS could not foresee that the temporary situation would persist for so long. The challenge would be waited out. The JICS had decided that decentralisation would result in better service.

Mr Max asked when appointments would be normalised and permanent. There was currently just a skeleton staff. There had to be a time frame.

Mr Carelse apologised that the Inspectorate did not participate in the budget process. There were 34 people on contract. Posts had been approved in the new structure. There had been under spending of R4 million on compensation, funds were there. The JICS had tried to compromise with the DCS but they said that the Treasury would not let them create new posts on Persal. The JICS became victims of the DCS inability to fill their own posts. The JICS had filled 95 – 100% of their own posts over the preceding five years. The JICS had suggested that posts be created on Persal, of which 50% could go to them.

Mr Max remarked that the situation had him worried. The DCS were keeping the JICS hostage. There had to be a follow up on DCS actions. JICS success depended on DCS performance. It impacted on the JICS role as oversight body.

The Chairperson told the DCS members present that he wanted their version of the story. They had to come back to the Committee about it. He told Mr Carelse that the JICS had to look at the implications of what they wanted to do. If the JICS wanted to open regional offices, information from George had to be reliable enough to satisfy the Auditor General. What the JICS intended to do was not as simple as procuring offices. Employment policies had to be beyond reproach. It was advisable to have quite a few contractors. The integrity of JICS process was not always clear. People were not doing what they had been appointed to do. The JICS had to fight for posts.

Judge Tshabalala added that the DPW had said that it would advertise for office space for the JICS. Once the advertisements had gone through, there would be offers from the City. The process began during the previous year, but as yet nothing had happened.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked about employment policy, and why there were contract employments.

Mr Carelse responded that there was a policy on appointment. There had been an independent audit on the HR unit. The focus had been on policy, and the appointment process. Files of all staff members were examined. The Auditor General examined personnel files on Persal, in terms of the audit by the internal auditor.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said she was worried about the Departmental response. The DCS were not answering investigations.

Mr M Cele (ANC) agreed with Ms Ngwenya that the JICS were not being taken seriously.

Mr Ndlovu asked if there were challenges in the JICS that the Committee did not know about. He asked what the real problem with the DCS was. The way the two entities treated each other was questionable. If there was a report and no response to it, the question was what that meant.

The Chairperson suggested to the Inspecting Judge that the JICS come out with their most pressing concerns. Inmates were killed and the DCS ignored the Inspectorate. There had to be a clear sense of concern. The Committee was concerned about the number of assaults on inmates, at Durban and Bloemfontein centres. Assaults had been committed in November 2012, without response. Visible proof of assault could possibly not be there anymore. The JICS had to speak out if they got the sense that the DCS were sabotaging them. It was a structural problem, but there were also deliberate attempts to make the Judicial Inspectorate fail. The matter had to be discussed together with the DCS. The Department praised the Inspectorate in theory, but did not support them.

Ms Ngwenya referred to a failure of the DCS to provide a post mortem report, cited in the JICS report.

Mr Abram remarked that the more he looked at the situation, the more bizarre it seemed. He referred to 38 mentally ill inmates housed at Ebongweni Maximum Correctional Centre (page 12 of the report). The centre was not suitable to house the mentally ill, due to its infrastructure. Mentally ill inmates were the most challenged of all. The DCS were told by the Inspectorate that they were housed under subhuman conditions at Ebongweni, and did not bother to respond. The situation made one emotional. The DCS attitude seemed to be one of “they can go to hell, who cares”. The DCS did not have the human heart to do something. He demanded that the DCS be held accountable. The challenge was that the DCS simply did not care. They had 40 000 people but could not respond to an emergency. The mentally ill inmates were all someone’s children, brothers, or spouses. The DCS had to provide a report before the budget vote debate.

Mr Ndlovu reiterated that there was an underlying problem, and that it had to emerge why the JICS and the DCS were not speaking to each other.

Mr Cele referred to expired medicine kept at a centre (page 21). There had been no response. He asked if the medicine had been bought expired. The DCS and JICS had to appear together before the Committee.

The Chairperson asked how the process could be taken forward. He asked a DCS member present for comment.

Mr Phiko Mbambo, Deputy Commissioner: Intergovernmental Relations, DCS, replied that note was taken of comments, and issues would be attended to. The DCS would report within seven days on the 38 mentally ill inmates Mr Abram had referred to. The matter of the expired medicine, and the failure to submit a post mortem, would be looked into.

The Chairperson commented that government was running the risk of being hauled before the courts for failing to fulfill human rights obligations. There had to be information about torture and beatings in prisons. The real state of affairs had to be presented.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that the DCS had to respond, so that the Committee could tell people outside what was going on. Parliament represented the people out there. There had to be clear reports from the JICS, and responses from the DCS. It would not do to keep saying that things were under investigation. A thorough response was called for.

The Chairperson urged that there had to be interaction between the Committee, the Inspectorate and the Department. He told the JICS that the integrity of their information would make or break them. The Committee had to respond to the public. The JICS had to be satisfied that their initial complaints had substance. The Chairperson noted that some members of Legal Aid SA were present. He was surprised that the Judge and Mr Carelse had not complained that there was no legal assistance for offenders.
Mr Carelse responded that the most frustrating thing about the DCS was the lack of time frames. They took forever to respond. The JICS took 14 days to respond, the Department took six weeks. The quarterly report was a summary, and the JICS could not report on everything it had done. There was a file for each inspection. Full details were furnished to the DCS. He was well aware that a JICS report was a public document and that the integrity of the Inspecting Judge had to be protected. The JICS would prove that their reports were authentic. There was a shortage of professionals in the DCS, especially health care workers and social workers. It was a crisis.

Judge Tshabalala noted that the Inspectorate was invited to a meeting by the National Commissioner in March. The DCS management reported on funding and budget issues. Ms Nandi Mareka, Acting Chief Financial Officer (CFO), DCS, reported on cuts. She had reported that there was no money for the funding that the JICS had requested.

The Chairperson said that the sentiment had been conveyed by Ms Mareka. A slot had to be found to look at the co-existence of the DCS and the JICS, and the same challenge they had to address. But if staff could not be appointed, challenges would persist.

Mr Abram said that the DCS had to come up with responses before a meeting with the Committee and the JICS.

Mr Ndlovu said that he wanted to differ. Everything in the report referred to the DCS. The Committee just wanted to know what the problem was between the JICS and the DCS. If the DCS were to write responses, there would be no need for a meeting. There had to be no loophole left for either of the two entities to respond on their own.

The Chairperson concluded that the next quarterly report would have to be a joint discussion.

Committee Business
Committee Minutes
The Chairperson tabled the minutes dated 8 May for consideration. He noted that it dealt with a briefing by the Office of the Auditor-General on predetermined objectives and audit criteria in general as well as a briefing by the DCS on gang-related violence and riots at Groenpunt, Pollsmoor and St. Albans correctional centres.
 
The Chairperson referred to the DCS statement that ICASA had forbidden the jamming of cellphones in prisons. He said that he and the Secretary, Ms Cindy Balie, differed about what the legislation was saying. His interpretation was that the DCS had some leeway. If the hands of the DCS was tied, it would do to get legal opinion and go to another level. There was a lack of legal clarity.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) remarked that the smuggling of cellphones could not be stopped. Exception had to be made for the DCS in the Correctional Services Act. Inmates were offenders and could not have freedoms like cellphones.

The minutes were approved.

Committee Report on Interaction with stakeholders on Department of Correctional Services Strategic & Annual Performance Plans 2013
The Chairperson tabled the report for consideration.

Members made minor changes to the document and then adopted it.
 

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: