Remand Detainee Offender Management System, IT Branch progress, Corrections White Paper review; Jan-March 2013 Performance; Regional Commissioners: updates

Correctional Services

05 June 2013
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee was briefed on progress with the Remand Detainee Offender Management System (RDOMS), by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) National Commissioner and the Chairperson of the State Information Technology Agency (SITA). Progress had been made between the two entities in identifying DCS needs, but the position of the service provider remained uncertain, and the possibility of litigation remained. The DCS and SITA technical teams had made a commitment to find solutions.

In discussion, there was concern about delays with the system, and the uncertain position of the service provider. The DCS was advised to consider another, more eager service provider, if necessary. The matter had to be put to rest. It was also obstructing the course of the Police DNA Bill. There was interest in the position of the service provider regarding the rest of the justice cluster. There was a question about the role of consultants in the process.

The update on the status of a suspect in the Heyns murder case was not an agenda item, but provoked substantial discussion. The Committee was told that the suspect had not been on parole, as had been surmised, but had been released on completing his sentence.

In discussion, the Committee was relieved to hear that the suspect was not a parolee, and hence no longer a DCS responsibility. But intensive discussion developed about the responsibilities of the DCS, the community and NGOs towards released offenders. The Committee and the DCS agreed that NGOs had to be more closely involved with social re-integration of released offenders.

The briefing on the state of information technology (IT) in the DCS identified challenges and limitations. There was a complex technology landscape, and paper-intensive business processes. Other challenges were obsolete hardware, storage capacity issues, and limited human resources. The IT branch needed to transform itself into becoming a dynamic and strategic business partner.

In discussion, it was asked if IT services were to be based at Head Office, or at centre level. The relation between the DCS and IT service providers was questioned, with reference to the role of SITA. There was concern about individual IT capacity in the Department.

Expenditure and performance reports were not formally presented. Discussion proceeded immediately with reference to documents on expenditure and performance. Expenditure was reported on in terms of national expenditure, expenditure per programme, and expenditure per economic classification. The performance report matched targets set to actual performance, and set out DCS performance for the year to date.

During the discussion, there was interest in the work shift system, the high percentage of security targets not met, and the absorption of 300 South African National Defense Force (SANDF) officers. There was a question about kitchen readiness, and about interstate transfers. Under spending received attention. Staff vacancies caused concern. The position regarding contractors was interrogated, including the role of the Department of Public Works. The DCS was advised to engage with other departments about agricultural production. Shortage of artisans and lack of workshop production received attention.

The progress report on the review of the Corrections White Paper indicated progress made with establishing a credible review team, and establishing the terms of reference of the review. Time frames were provided.

In discussion, the possibility of amendments to the White Paper and the Correctional Services Act was considered.

The update by Regional Commissioners was not a separate agenda item, but turned into an extensive interrogation of the state of the various regions. It was related to a question by the Chairperson on whether the DCS senior management was in control of correctional centres.

The discussion was led by the Chairperson, who asked pointed and specific questions to individual Regional Commissioners, about known challenges in their regions. The National Commissioner and the Chief Operations Officer agreed with Regional Commissioners that the DCS was indeed in control, yet Regional Commissioners had the opportunity to identify challenges, including the perception that the Department was not cooperating with the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services.
 

Meeting report

Remand Detainee Offender Management System: Briefing by the Department of Correctional Services and the State Information Technology Agency
Mr Tom Moyane, Department of Correctional Services (DCS) National Commissioner, said that the Remand Detainee Offender Management System (RDOMS) matter had been topical for years. The Department had been looking for the preceding six years for a system to identify people coming in or leaving prisons. There had been high-level engagement with the State Information Technology Agency (SITA). He had met with the Chairperson on 27 May. There had been agreement that work performed up to that point had not yet resulted in a functional system. The DCS would provide SITA with the scope of what was needed, and that could be discussed with Dimension Data, the service provider. The DCS had paid R17 million to SITA, and still owed R27 million. The DCS position was that they could not pay for what they did not have.

The General Information Technology Officer (GITO) and her team met with the SITA technical team and the two teams made a commitment. The Department wanted RDOMS configured to their needs, otherwise a different format had to be looked at.

Mr Jerry Vilakazi, SITA Chairperson, said that was clear that legacy issues had to be dealt with, which had led to certain actions. He was engaging the Chairperson of Dimension Data. He endorsed what Mr Moyane had said, that there was consensus on a way forward. Dimension Data had to come to the party. Reports would be forwarded about progress made.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that he understood that SITA and the DCS were agreed that Dimension Data had to be informed about exactly what the DCS wanted. If Dimension Data could not provide that, someone else had to. There had to be a system. R17 million had been paid. There was the dispute about R27 million paid to SITA, and the DCS would not budge. They were asking for invoices. Dimension Data were threatening to go to court. He asked if Dimension Data were saying that a certain amount had to be paid to them, or they would go to court. He was not happy about timeframes. Whatever the DCS and SITA did, the system had to work before the end of the term of the Portfolio Committee. There was a legacy problem, and those responsible for the problem were gone.

Mr Vilakazi replied that the Committee would be advised as soon as there was agreement on a solution to avoid litigation.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that it was an urgent and critical matter, which the SITA Chairperson had undertaken to sort out by the middle of May. The question was how urgent and critical it was being taken to be. The issue had already dragged on too long. The two parties could find themselves taken to court by Dimension Data, and having to start from scratch with a new service provider. He asked if that factor had been entered into their deliberations.

Mr Vilakazi responded that they were conscious of the urgency. Time frames could be given for progress between the DCS and SITA. It had been factored in that the third party, Dimension Data, might not come to the party. The resolution of the dispute might only become possible if other potential systems were looked at.

Mr Selfe asked to what extent there had been discussion with the Justice cluster. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development had developed a similar system for criminal records. They had invested R450 million. The DCS had to know about customers in their system. There had to be information about return customers and previous convictions that might affect release dates. A man had recently been caught for suspicion of murder, and it had turned out that he had 18 previous convictions.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) said that she was worried. Time frames were not being taken in earnest. It might be a legacy problem, but the point was that it was currently nowhere near solution. Negotiation delays were keeping the process from going forward. She suspected that people who had contributed to the problem were still in the DCS and in SITA. She asked where they were in the system, and what their portfolios were.

Mr Moyane responded that the people responsible for the problem were no longer in the system. Legal opinion had been obtained and there was a forensic investigation by the Treasury. The IT consultants who were involved were gone.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) also expressed concern about time frames. If promises had not been fulfilled before, how could there be trust? Information on the justice cluster had to be coordinated. If the DCS could not be ready with information, they could not assist the South African Police Services (SAPS) with the passing of their Bill. The DCS were the custodians of people processed by other departments. It seemed that negotiations had come to a stage where it could not continue. Negotiations could not carry on forever. It might be time to start looking for a new service provider. The justice cluster would pressurise the DCS.

Mr Moyane replied that the DCS had appointed a General Information Technology Officer (GITO) to deal with the problem. The matter was not being taken lightly. It was recognised as being sensitive and urgent. There was even more urgency than was required to solve the problem before the end of the Committee term. There would be engagement with the justice cluster. The DCS also needed a fingerprint system. It would not pay to be hasty. The Police were putting the DNA section into the matter. It was a cluster process. It had to be possible for the DCS to tap into the Home Affairs fingerprints. A robust system was needed. Dimension Data and SITA would look into the matter.

The Chairperson told Mr Vilakazi that SITA was central to the cluster-wide solution. He asked if a cluster wide solution was still a concept, at a specification stage, or ready to roll out. Dimension Data could not hold the RDOMS system back and still benefit from the rest of the cluster system. Had he been dealing with Dimension Data, he would have told them that they could not get a piece of the cake on the other side. It had to be said to suppliers that they could not hold one department to ransom and still benefit from the others, as if there was no unitary government. That could make them think faster. SITA had to know the implications of what was going on in the entire justice cluster.

Ms Phaliso remarked that there were no time frames because the Department was being held at ransom. The legacy problem was a thorny one. Dimension Data were not really coming to the party. Their tone was one that said “if”, and that made their commitment doubtful. She urged that the matter be put to rest. If it had to go the legal route, that had to be so. Or a new service provider had to be found. She was not buying into the negotiations going on. The National Commissioner had noted that legal advice had been sought. That was good. But people were benefiting from government. A new system was needed. It was a lost case. It was drawing energy from other service providers. Corrections worked with warm bodies. The situation had remained unchanged for four years. An eager service provider had to be introduced.

Mr L Max (DA) remarked that delay was detrimental to the situation. He suggested that the Committee set the time frames. Left to the DCS and SITA, the matter would go into another election time, without being solved. Dimension Data had obligations to the SAPS and to Justice, which kept the DCS hostage. He asked about the role of consultants in negotiations. He asked if the system was a one fit for all, for the Police, Justice and the DCS, or whether they paid separate amounts.

Mr Ndlovu agreed that the Committee had to set time frames. The Police DNA Bill could not be passed if information was not linked. Home affairs had a system, and the DCS did not. The Department was being dragged backwards.

The Chairperson told Mr Vilakazi that the Police DNA Bill required that all parties get their act together. Correctional Services had to consider its aspect of the DNA Bill. The Department could not be the poor cousins. They had to get their ducks in a row. The matter would be raised when the SAPS appeared before the Committee. Mr Ndlovu could tell the Police Portfolio Committee what had been done about the matter.

Heyns Murder Case: Update by DCS
The Chairperson asked Mr Smalberger to comment on whether an arrested suspect had been out on parole when the murder occurred.

Mr James Smalberger, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Incarceration and Corrections, noted that Marthinus Van der Walt had been incarcerated on 28 July 2009 to serve a five-year sentence for theft. He had benefited from an 18-month special remission of sentence the previous year. His sentence had thereby been reduced to three and a half years. His new release date had been 27 January 2013, but he had been released on 26 January 2013. He was released, and not on parole. The DCS did not have a responsibility for monitoring him.

The Chairperson remarked that it was at least good to know that he was not a parolee. Yet it could be asked how effective rehabilitation was, if someone committed murder a week after his release. DCS custodianship was over, but re-offending after three days, required that the system be looked at again. The fact that he was no longer an inmate, did not absolve the DCS from their rehabilitation responsibility. He himself had urged in a radio talk that Judge Desai of the National Correctional Services Council get together with the DCS to talk about the effectiveness of rehabilitation. It had to be asked if parole boards were doing what they had to do.

Mr Selfe agreed that it illustrated the rehabilitation problem. The arrested suspect had been in the custody of the DCS four times. Even for people not on parole, there was still a responsibility to re-integrate them into society. If the DCS could not do that, partnerships with civil society had to be established. The DCS had to build partnerships for somebody to take the case. It appeared that the release address for Van der Walt had been that of a known drug lord in Malmesbury.

Ms Ngwenya agreed that it remained a DCS responsibility to see that the community outside accepted people. She had been with the Gauteng Premier the previous Saturday, and there was the case of a man who had killed his grandmother for her pension. The SAPS had said that the man had been out on parole, and had violated the requirements. He had been arrested for fraud, released, and had then killed his grandmother. Programmes for offenders were not effective on their release. It appeared that the man had been using a drug that takes away feelings for others. Strong programmes were needed on the outside. The DCS had to answer the question of why offenders progressed to worse crimes.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) told Mr Smalberger that the Committee understood that good was being done, but that some people appeared to be beyond help. A man serving a 20-year sentence had told the Committee that he actually did not want to be released. Blame for what happened had to be shouldered across a broad front. Offenders were being released with no work awaiting them.

Ms Phaliso thanked Mr Smalberger for bringing clarity. The role of the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) and others, who could offer programmes outside, had to be debated. She agreed with Mr Magagula that there were also people who wanted to be corrected. The effectiveness of outside agencies also had to be questioned, not just the parole system. She herself had benefited from NICRO when she was at the local level.

Mr Moyane thanked Mr Magagula for what he had said. The DCS released 23 000 people per month. 95% of those released went back to society. Rehabilitation was an emotional issue. Van der Walt had committed a different crime, and the question was what to learn from that. The number of those who re-offended had to be studied. The United Nations (UN) indicated how to measure recidivism, but benchmarks had to be looked at. Rehabilitation was societal. The community had to play a part. Released offenders needed jobs. The NGOs had to play their role effectively. The DCS had to release, even if the offender did not want it. The Department was creating centres, pockets of excellence and halfway houses. Visits from families were needed for re-integration, and some offenders were denounced by their families.

The Chairperson remarked that there was a new emphasis. It was unfair to say that rehabilitation was only a DCS responsibility. In the case of alcohol abuse problems, the recovering alcoholic needed continuing support. Rehabilitation was a life long process. If the South African National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (SANCA) could not be taken as the only solution to drugs and alcohol, the same had to apply to the DCS. It was good to know that Van der Walt had not been on parole when Dr Heyns was murdered. Others had to take the issue forward.

Mr S Abram (ANC) agreed that it was a societal issue. NGOs also depended for their sustenance on public funding. Budgets had to be looked at to assist them. There had to be some form of state aid.

Briefing by the General Information Technology Officer Branch
Ms Nthabiseng Mosopye, General Information Technology Officer (GITO), identified Information Technology (IT) challenges in the DCS. There was a complex technology landscape, and disconnected paper-intensive business processes. There was obsolete hardware, incompatibility issues and limited human resources. Each correctional centre had its own system. There were 382 databases. Work had to be done at the interface to the Integrated Justice System (IJS). Data storage capacity was limited. There were low levels of project management, and a lack of technical personnel. People had to be trained from scratch.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked how many people in the GITO team was Head Office based. He assumed that there were six or seven. The question was whether IT knowledge was to be at Head Office or at centres. Cape Town could not get through to Mr Nkosinathi Breakfast, Eastern Cape Regional Commissioner, DCS in time. The DCS had budgeted R164 million. He asked if that would be sufficient in the long term. It would not help if the Department could not afford IT. If people were doing right at the bottom, Head Office just had to push the button. The Auditor General had pointed to an asset management verification problem. The Logistical Information System (LOGIS) had to be correct. Correctional centres were hospitals, schools, hotels and production houses all rolled into one. The DCS had to have IT capability. It was also necessary to make the Police DNA Bill work.

Ms Mosupye replied that application development was centralised only in the Head Office. There was no need for duplication of resources. For infrastructure management there was a team at Head Office and one for each region. Issues were in the management area. The IT budget was for the whole Department. There was a need to prioritise sites annually. Regions had to prioritise sites. LOGIS was hosted and controlled by SITA.

The Chairperson asked about the capacity of individuals. If people could not log on, there would be error. When he was with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA), it was known that it was possible to get into the DCS system without passwords. Anyone could go in and change information. SCOPA was monitoring the DCS. He asked the National Commissioner to lend the GITO full support.

Mr Max remarked that since the appointment of the GITO, he had hope. The plans were romantic, but the question was whether they were going to be implemented. He asked if the Dimension Data contract was individual to entities in the Justice cluster, and whether there were direct consultants between Dimension Data and the DCS.

Ms Mosupye replied that SITA was called in when there was a challenge. If the National Treasury saw a total government problem they corrected it. For the preceding five to seven years there had been an integrated financial management system. With IT, the more one changed, the more the scope of work increased. Resources and structure had to be approved and funded. There was a team of consultants to augment internally. The challenge was to identify the resources needed for leading capabilities, and to align those resources to what one wanted to do. Off the shelf solutions were easy. But to develop lasting solutions one needed guidance. A team of business analysts was needed as permanent DCS members. If Department needs were known, the DCS could attain world-class capability within five years. A governance process had to be implemented. Dimension Data only worked for the DCS. There was a value chain in which the Police took fingerprints to Home Affairs. Dimension Data started when a person came to the DCS site. It had to be certain that information was correctly received.

The Chairperson remarked that there had to be communication between service providers for Home Affairs, the SAPS and the DCS. Fingerprints had to be taken to Home affairs, and names of remandees had to be recorded accurately. Data had to be clean.

The Chairperson asked that roles be clarified. He asked what the role of SITA was when the DCS talked to Dimension Data, and what the DCS role was. He asked if SITA was the middle man in the arrangement. The question was why SITA had to be used if the service provider could be approached directly.

Ms Mosupye replied that there was a tripartite agreement. The SITA Act required procurement through SITA, but not by them. If the DCS did not agree about a recommendation, they could make changes. SITA could be cut out. They usually took seven percent. GITOs were saying that SITA only delayed the process. The SITA Act referred to the hosting of transversal systems.

The Chairperson asked if that meant that if it was not transversal, the DCS could go directly to the service provider.

Ms Mosupye answered that if SITA did not deliver in time, the Department could go directly to the service provider.

The Chairperson remarked that that was exactly what the Committee needed to know.

Review of the implementation of the White Paper on Corrections
Ms Nontsikelelo Jolingana, Chief Operations Officer, DCS, said that the DCS would establish a credible review team of external and internal researchers. Three or four external researchers had been recommended for appointment. Terms of reference had been drafted. Time frames were provided for the proposed review, to be finalised in consultation with external stakeholders. Areas for improvement in implementing the White Paper would be identified.

Discussion
The Chairperson remarked that the White Paper had to be looked at in totality, for relevance, and if there were gaps. It was possible that it might have to be amended.

Ms Jolingana responded that the report would show up both successes and gaps. There would be recommendations for the DCS to implement the White Paper.

The Chairperson said that if there was anything in the White Paper that was irrelevant, it could be debated after September.

Mr Ndlovu asked how the Correctional Services Act would be affected.

Mr Moyane responded that if the White Paper had to change, the DCS would go through Parliament. An amended and revised White Paper was possible.

The Chairperson said that it might prove necessary to amend the Correctional Services Act.

Expenditure and performance: Briefing by the DCS
There was no formal presentation, instead An expenditure and a performance report were used as reference documents, and discussion proceeded immediately. The expenditure report provided a summary of the national state of expenditure; the national state of expenditure per programme, and the national state of expenditure per programme. The performance report (Q4 Report) matched fourth quarter targets to actual performance. It set out progress made during 2013.

Discussion
Mr Selfe referred to the Q4 Report. He asked about the meaning of trio crime (page one).

Mr Terence Raseroka, Acting Chief Deputy Commissioner, Strategic Management, DCS, replied that it referred to violent organised crimes like housebreaking and hi-jacking.

Mr Selfe enquired about blank columns under the headings of reasons for over/under-achievement of targets, and corrective steps taken if target not achieved (page two).

Mr Selfe asked if the rollout of a work shift model (page six) was related to the seven-day establishment.

Mr Teboho Mokoena, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Human resources, DCS, replied that DCS had adopted the seven-day establishment and had to have a shift model based on the staff establishment to roll out.

Mr Selfe noted that 90% of security operations targets had not been met (pages nine and ten).

Ms Jolingana replied that a business case for body scanning equipment was being finalised.

Mr Moyane added that there was a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Home Affairs about the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) system, which had to be signed. A business case had been drafted. The DCS would not say that something had been achieved before it was finalised.

Mr Selfe said that he had never before heard about the absorption of 300 South African National Defence Force (SANDF) officers, and asked that it be explained.

Mr Mokoena replied that it was a decision to deal with staff shortages. The DCS tried to limit indicators that depended on another party.

Mr Moyane added that experience was shared with the Department of Home Affairs. Soldiers had to retire early as active soldiers, and they still had experience the DCS could make use of. The immigration came from the SANDF to complement staff shortages.

Mr Magagula asked about kitchen readiness. The Department had been given a period of six months to look at kitchen equipment, and it was already June.

Ms Jolingana responded that Pollsmoor was on track. There were serious problems at Port Elizabeth. The Department of Public Works (DPW) contractor had been liquidated. Pollsmoor was 95% ready, and could be turned over and managed internally on 31 July. There were problems at Johannesburg, no date could as yet be given. There was a commitment with the DPW to jointly go to the handover, to see whether contractors had done what they were supposed to do. The tender had been advertised.

The Chairperson said that he had spoken to the Minister of Public Works. A task team consisting of three delegates each from the DCS and the DPW, was proposed. He asked if the Department were aware of that, and whether a task team was in place.

Ms Jolingana replied that the Department was aware, and that she would lead the task team. It would be a team of specialists from both Departments.

Mr Selfe asked for a prisoner transfer agreement update.

The Chairperson asked if it was a SADC agreement with neighbouring states, or worldwide.

Mr Moyane replied that there was a constant need for interstate transfer in SADC. Mozambique had signed an interstate agreement with Zimbabwe. The DCS analysed whether it was appropriate to transfer inmates. SADC included Botswana, where the death penalty was in force. There were few from Europe and South America. The Department of International relations played a pivotal role.

Mr Ndlovu referred to under spending on programmes, mentioned in the Q4 Report (page three). He asked what was really going on. On oversight visits the Committee heard that staff were not equipped. He asked what the core problem was.

Ms Nandi Mareka, Acting Chief Financial Officer (CFO), DCS, replied that there had been under spending of R386 million meant for compensation of employees, due to vacant posts. There had not been under spending on the capital works programme. The DCS wanted to limit under spending, in terms of the Annual Performance Plan. There had to be an aligned recruitment process.



Mr Max remarked that Regional Commissioners were in the frontline. To do their job they had to be well resourced. At Ncome, the Regional Commissioner (RC) had said that the position of deputy was still vacant. It was a huge and problematic area, and the RC could not delegate. There was personnel unrest in centres.

Mr Abram referred to the renovation of poultry houses at Zonderwater (Q4 Report, page 19). He asked why there was an effort by the contractor to speed up the renovation. It looked like contractors had to be begged to do the work. There was no action to check on delivery. The contractor procured by the DPW had been liquidated. The DPW were giving jobs to dubious characters. Track records had to be checked. Once a company was in liquidation, it was gone.

Mr Moyane replied that there had been a meeting with the DPW about the liquidated contractor. The DPW had a contractor database, and would be held to account. The self-sufficiency challenge was that offenders could not be left unattended. Chicken houses were producing more eggs. Excess meat went to offenders.

Mr Abram commended efforts made with agriculture. He asked about plans to extend the scope of farming. The Minister had stated that the DCS controlled 40 000 hectares of farmland. The DCS could liaise with Rural Development and Land reform, and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF). He asked if the Department had liaised with Rural Development about placing trained people on their farms.

Mr Abram referred to the 3% improvement of offender involvement in agriculture (page 18). 10% improvement would have been a conservative target. The mind, body and spirit of the offender had to be kept active. The DCS had to turn out useful people.

Mr Abram referred to the shortage of artisans (page 18). There were many artisans looking for work, and yet the Department stated that they had to go head hunting for them. There had to be increased involvement of inmates in work, or the prisons would be made a devil’s playground. The DAFF had millions of Rands of agricultural equipment that was not being used.

Mr Moyane replied that 10% more inmates were involved in workshops. Workshops were taking place at that very moment. For the establishment of the Trading Entity, capability of workshops had to be accessed. 80% of workshops were 40 to 50 years old. There had to be recapitalisation, aligned to a policy of offender labour. Not all facilities had workshops. An audit had to be done. Farming was only for offenders who had not committed major crimes. The artisan challenge was a big problem. There was liaison with other departments like the DAFF, for requisite skills.

Updates from DCS Regional Commissioners
The Chairperson proceeded to put questions to the Regional Commissioners present. The question addressed to all regional Commissioners was whether management was in control of correctional services. The question was who was running corrections, and whether senior management was really in charge.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked Mr Tsetsane to report about his area, which included Rustenburg. There had been a plea from a young man at Barberton that nothing was being done about his case. Inmates had been sent to Kokstad for being part of a gang, without being informed about the reasons.

Mr Alfred Tsetsane, Regional Commissioner, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and North-West (LMN), DCS, stated that the DCS senior management was in control. The Kokstad head of centre had been suspended based on evidence about a riot. The Area Commissioner was removed. An external mediator had been brought in to assist with relations between management and organised labour. At Rustenburg the DPW contractor had stopped functioning. There were temporary structures for education. There was a problem with cellphones at Rooigrond. There was liaison with National Intelligence about a list of numbers. If the number was not linked to crime, nothing could be done. Farm production had suffered because of water shortages at Mafikeng.

The Chairperson asked Mr Breakfast to tell the Committee about generators not working at Umtata, and about the situation at St Albans.

Mr Breakfast replied that the improvement challenge at St Albans centre was overcrowding. The Port Elizabeth centre had been closed for two years preceding. Releases were often. Remand detainees were transferred to Patensie. At Umtata centre there was work done on the generator and the water problem. There was also a squatter problem that was being dealt with by the municipality. Gangs and high assault rates were challenges.  Assaults had become a business. Cellphones were a problem, especially at St Albans. There had been 15 escapes in the region, of which 11 had happened in one day. An official had abetted the escape. There were charges against two officials for smuggling. Buildings could not be improved, there was only minor maintenance.

The Chairperson told Mr Nxele that word would have it that Ncome centre was running on auto pilot. There were obstructionist officials. There had been a surprise visit to Waterval centre. One Wikus Pretorius had complained that he was sent to Kokstad under false pretences.

Mr Mikelwa Nxele, KwaZulu Natal Regional Commissioner, DCS, replied that the Area Commissioner position had not been filled at Ncome. A Head of Centre had to be assigned from Durban centre. Two directors had been transferred from the Eastern Cape to stabilise the situation and relations with labour. Lawlessness had come to an end. The National Office gave support. He said that the Waterval report was sensational. The head of Centre had worked in the framework of law. Necessary force had been used to command respect. There were schisms in some centres. Officers had been provoked into overstepping the line. Wikus Pretorius was transferred because information pointed out that he was planning to escape. The Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services (JICS) was free to investigate the allegations he had leveled. Mr Nxele was wrongly quoted in the Mail and Guardian about the transfer of the Head of Centre. Mr Nxele noted that his name had been linked to JICS complaints. It was said that his Area Commissioners were not cooperating. Such statements were not based on facts. He himself had been part of the conceptualisation of the JICS office. He had helped to set up the first JICS office, and to interview the first Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The current CEO of JICS did not understand healthy work relations. Challenges at Durban centre were at Medium A and Medium B, and consisted of drug and cellphone smuggling, and ill discipline. 

The Chairperson asked Ms Moodley about Public/Private Partnership (PPP) prisons in her area. There were electricity and IT problems at Kimberley centre. At Kroonstad centre there was a male warder looking after female warders.

Ms Subashini Moodley, Free State and Northern Cape Regional Commissioner, DCS, replied that challenges at the PPP centre at Mangaung were related to the 25-year contract. The Department was in control of systems. Chief Deputy Commissioners met with the PPP management. She herself engaged with the Managing Director, Mr Theron. Hot water and IT at Kimberley centre had been sorted out. There was no longer male involvement at Kroonstad centre. Male members were dismissed.

The Chairperson asked Ms Rotman about the state of remand detention, and whether it remained theories and not actual improvements. Remand detainees were smuggling food and other items in to sentenced offenders.

Ms Britta Rotman, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Remand and Detention, DCS, replied that there was currently a Remand Detention Head Office. Remandees had previously been under Corrections. The DCS were looking at where the remand detention system was working for the detainee, and where not. The challenge was that many people in the remand facilities had bail. The courts had to decide what the person could afford, when bail was granted. The DCS worked with Legal Aid South Africa to see who could not afford bail.

The Chairperson asked Mr Modise about laptops and cellphones in prisons.

Mr Zach Modise, Gauteng Regional Commissioner, DCS, replied that cellphones and laptops were proliferating. The allocation of laptops would be reviewed. It was a huge problem at Pretoria centre. At Johannesburg centre, there was a problem with cellphones. Offenders and civilians were being caught smuggling cellphones in. There was a drug problem. At Johannesburg and Boksburg centres there was smuggling by officials and the public.

The Chairperson asked about the state of the DCS Head Office building.

Mr Moyane replied that there had been a meeting with the DPW on 31 May. The matter of the Head Office building had also been discussed with the Minister of Public Works. The DPW had been told that the building was not appropriate. The Director General (DG) and the Minister had to unblock the situation. Mr Moyane stated that there was transformation, and that senior management was in charge.

The Chairperson asked Ms Jolingana about JICS complaint that they were squatting in DCS facilities.

Ms Jolingana replied that office accommodation for JICS had been done by the DPW. JICS needs had been submitted to the DPW. While waiting for the DPW to deliver, the DCS had accommodated them in community corrections offices. It was not to bully them. The DCS housed the Auditor General in their offices in Pretoria. It was not about where an entity was housed, it was about the role it played. The issue had been raised with the DPW. At George, a DG signature was needed. At Bloemfontein, tender documents were prepared. A tender had gone out in Durban. The Department had a good relationship with the JICS. There were meetings with the CEO, and the CEO had direct contact with Regional Commissioners. The JICS were saying that the Department did not answer to complaints. Doubts could be dispelled in the presence of the JICS. The Department would meet with them again. Ms Jolingana stated emphatically that the DCS was in control.

Mr Max asked about the lack of a suitable candidate for the position of Deputy Regional Commissioner at KwaZula Natal.

Mr Mokoena replied that the Department had to await applications. Everything depended on how a person fared on that day in front of a panel.

The Chairperson told the Chief Operations Officer that she and the JICS had to face each other across a table. He warned the Department that they could expect unannounced visits as from 21 June.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.
 

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: