Bail policy & minimum sentencing legislation on inmate population; Suspension of magistrates

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

08 March 2017
Chairperson: Dr M Motshekga (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Inmate population in South African prisons has over the last fifty years increased by 114.06%.

The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services heard this during a joint presentation by the Department of Correctional Services, Judiciary, SAPS, NPA, and Legal Aid SA.

It was reported that factors that play a role in overcrowding of remand detainees are the limited alternatives to remand detention, warning, bail, supervision by probation officer/correctional official, tagging (pilot), limited capacity for supervision by community corrections, and delays in the criminal justice process.

Other factors that play a role in the length of detention include the presence of the co-accused, a number of bail applications after the initial application has been unsuccessful, withdrawal and changing of legal representatives leading to administrative delays associated with sharing of case related documents between legal representatives, lack of funds to pay private legal representatives, different plea positions taken by the remand detainees and co-accused leading to separation of trials, failure of witnesses and accused to appear in court; and non-availability of parties due to illness, work, etc.

With regard to initiatives to address challenges, it was reported that the Integrated CJS Strategy would address overcrowding in correctional facilities and would incorporate holistic approach to community safety and security beyond crime prevention and crime combating but also takes into account causal factors such as inequality, poverty and drug abuse.

The Committee was enlightened about the 63A Bail Protocol which makes provisions for the Head of the Centre to lodge an application with the clerk of the court for review of bail of certain categories of remand detainees when the head is satisfied that the population of a particular prison has reached proportions that it constitutes a material and imminent threat to the human dignity, physical health or safety of an accused. The protocol only applies to remand detainees with bail granted by the lower courts and who have been charged for schedule 7 crimes.

Members remarked that the presentation shows that law could be used to solve our social problems which are a result of socio-economic conditions; wanted to know if consolidation of cases is possible to be done in one court because you find that there are many charges against one person who has to go to many different courts; asked how many people in prison are sitting with bails under R200 and R1000, respectively; enquired what is being done to transform our criminal justice system, especially correctional services in order to make it better for offenders to be re-integrated into our communities instead of being re-offenders; and commented that the presentation has convinced them that a multi-pronged approach should be adopted to resolve the problems we are facing.

The Committee further discussed the report from the Magistrates Commission about a certain black female magistrate who had serious allegations levelled against her. The Committee agreed there was juniorisation in the decision-making regarding her suspension and found comfort in the assurances from the Chairman of the Ethics Committee and Member of the Magistrates Commission that the decision to suspend her was not taken lightly because it was taken into consideration she is a member of the Ethics Committee and the certificate of good standing submitted about her was found to have been obtained illegally. The Committee then agreed to suspend the adoption of the report until it has engaged further with the Magistrates Commission.

The Committee also approved the report on the Determination of the Remuneration of Constitutional Court Judges and Judges.

Meeting report

Joint Presentation by DCS, NPA Legal Aid SA, SAPS and Judiciary

Mr Bradley Smith, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions: NPA, took the Committee through the factors that determine inmate population and long term trends in inmate population, factors that impact remand detainee population, minimum sentencing legislation and impact on inmate population, bail protocol, and initiatives to address challenges.

He said population numbers are affected by the total number of persons referred for detention, the duration of the court cases, the duration of the sentences imposed, and the non-custodial measures applied, including the parole system or the early release system (conditional release, probation periods and alternatives to prison sentences implemented).

The criminal justice legislation and policy that play a role in inmate population are bail provisions, case flow management (speedy finalisation), mandatory minimum sentencing laws, an increase in the number of long sentences and life sentences, and changes in eligibility for early release.

The daily average population increased over the period of 50 years from 74,435 in 1965/66 to 159,333 in 2015/16 financial year. This is an increase of 114.06%. Accommodation increased from 53 074 to 119 134. The national overcrowding of facilities has been reduced from 40.25% to 33.74%. The highest level of overcrowding was experienced between 1999 and 2004.

The majority of prisoners worldwide come from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Many come from poverty stricken environment. Some are illiterate or have limited education and would have experienced unemployment and lack of housing. These factors contribute to the breaking up of their families including drug and alcohol abuse.

Such circumstances and dependencies can contribute to individuals’ confrontation with the criminal justice system unless sufficient support systems are in place. Support may include social welfare assistance, support for housing, employment and treatment for substance dependencies and mental healthcare needs to help people to overcome such challenges and live positive, self-supporting lives.

Factors that play a role in overcrowding of remand detainees are the limited alternatives to remand detention, warning, bail, supervision by probation officer/correctional official, tagging (pilot), limited capacity for supervision by community corrections, and delays in the criminal justice process (case flow management). Factors that play a role in the length of detention include the presence of the co-accused, a number of bail applications after the initial application has been unsuccessful, withdrawal and changing of legal representatives leading to administrative delays associated with sharing of case related documents between legal representatives, lack of funds to pay private legal representatives, different plea positions taken by the remand detainees and co-accused leading to separation of trials, failure of witnesses and accused to appear in court; and non-availability of parties due to illness, work, etc.

Factors that impact sentenced population are a result of lack of suitable non-custodial measures for very serious offences, and inadequate capacity to monitor and enforce non-custodial sentences. Alternatives may not be used due to lack of confidence in the effectiveness of non custodial measures, lack of the necessary infrastructure and organisational mechanisms for cooperation between criminal justice system agencies, requirement for the supervision of the offender by a special administrative body such as a probation system, the lack of funding, staff and training, and the lack of public support.

With regard to initiatives to address challenges, it was reported that the Integrated CJS Strategy would address overcrowding in correctional facilities and would incorporate holistic approach to community safety and security beyond crime prevention and crime combating but also takes into account causal factors such as inequality, poverty and drug abuse. The ICJS Strategy would also place the victims of crime, witnesses and communities at the centre of the system; promote effective leadership and coordination across the criminal justice value chain encompassing JCPS departments, law enforcement agencies, local government and civil society; and put in place effective measures to build a resilient anti-corruption system in the public and private sector. The strategy would further see the overhaul of policies, legislation and processes that permeate the criminal justice system such as the Criminal Procedure Act as well as the alignment of department-specific policies and legislation in line with the common vision.

Integrated national initiatives include the following:

-Protocols

-Integrated meeting with OCJ on inefficiencies in the CJS resulting in backlogs and overcrowding at DCS

-Integrated Remand Detainee Bail Task Team (to find solutions where persons are granted bail, but are unable to pay)

-Establishment of inter-departmental task team for community based sentences (to find solutions to further reduce the number of persons sentenced to imprisonment of 2 years or less)

=Communication regarding the need to ensure that the 7 day remand provisions are not abused

Integrated provincial initiatives include the following:

-review of bail of persons unable to pay bail within 30 days

-drive for 62(f) releases (supervision by correctional official)

-awaiting Trial Detainees Project – all options

-multi-pronged strategy (review bail, prioritise matters, etc)

-reporting and tracking of cases; review bail

-focus on trial readiness; prioritise cases with RDs

-bail not fixed below R500 – other options considered

-focus on RD cases

-reduce Pollsmoor overcrowding by 50% within 6 months

Mr Smith also touched on the 63A Bail Protocol. The protocol makes provision for the Head of the Centre to lodge an application with the clerk of the court for review of bail of certain categories of remand detainees when the head is satisfied that the population of a particular prison has reached proportions that it constitutes a material and imminent threat to the human dignity, physical health or safety of an accused. The protocol only applies to remand detainees with bail granted by the lower courts and who have been charged for schedule 7 crimes. The Bail Protocol is implemented in conjunction with section 63(1) which provides for the application for bail review to be done by either the prosecutor or a remand detainee. Bail applications are submitted during the third month of detention as per agreement with the judiciary (First 2 months is utilized by DCS to link up with family members).

On the role of Legal Aid regarding remand detainee population, he stated that Legal Aid SA ensures that all incarcerated accused persons are afforded an opportunity to make a bail application, including a further application based on new facts or a bail appeal, depending on the merits. The bail status of all Legal Aid SA clients in custody is continuously monitored so that appropriate steps can be taken e.g. an application for the reduction of the bail amount.

The presence of legal practitioners at every court makes it possible for bail applications to be brought at the earliest opportunity, usually, at the accused’s first appearance. Legal Aid SA practitioners are obliged to make use of the 2 stage approach to bail applications especially in view of the fact that they act for indigent accused for whom the question of affordability of bail is crucial.

Legal Aid SA practitioners are also required as part of their representation of their clients to bring applications for a review of the bail amounts whenever this remains unpaid for a period of time. Legal Aid SA practitioners also monitor that the provisions of section 49G are implemented by the DCS so that representations could be made for the court to review the custody status of their clients. Legal Aid SA currently, plays a lead role in ensuring that greater focus is given by court stakeholders to all remand detainees in custody for periods greater than 2 years. This includes working with DCS to provide detailed reports to all PEECs so that obstacles delaying matters are better identified so that the relevant stakeholders can address this. Legal Aid SA has also funded an impact litigation case to address the plight of inmates who are housed in overcrowded facilities.

About the impact of 63A Bail Protocol on inmate population, Mr Smith reported that of the population of remand detainees detained in DCS less than 20% do not have bail. Of the remand detainees with bail, some do not qualify for the bail review because their charges fall outside of the schedule 7 crimes. Remand detainees with multiple charges and conflicting bail decisions also do not qualify for bail review (e.g. 1 case with bail and the other without bail). Reporting on the protocols was put on hold for the greater part of 2014/15 financial year in order to focus on re-training of personnel on operational processes to be followed including reporting requirements. 360 officials were trained in all 6 regions of DCS from July to October 2015.

Following a meeting between the DCS and the NPA it was agreed that a task team be established to look at the issue for provision of recommendations which could be implemented to address challenges with regard to remand detainees who are unable to pay bail. A task team was established as a subcommittee of the Criminal Justice System Reform Committee with the following scope:

-Phase 1: to obtain the facts and analyse the information with a view to identifying the challenges that exist

-Phase 2: to explore and consider possible solutions to address the challenges identified during the understand phase, as well as to recommend implementation plans

-Phase 3: to implement the agreed upon solutions where these do not require policy or legislative changes and this phase would include taking the policy or legislative changes forward through the necessary processes, as well as the implementation of those that are approved

The Bail Task Team conducted an audit at Pollsmoor Remand, Pollsmoor Female and Mthatha Remand detention Facilities. 341 remand detainees detained with an option of bail were audited over a period of three weeks in August 2016 (121 from Mthatha; 56 from Pollsmoor female and 164 from Pollsmoor RDF). The factors that appeared to play a role in DCS detaining remand detainees with an option of bail were:

-Bail affordability (90.32% could not afford bail)

-Unemployment (64.22% reported that they had no employed family members)

-Lack of family support (87.68% did not receive any family visit)

The impact of the Bail Protocol on DCS population would always be minimal because applications are submitted on the 3rd month while more than 50% of remand detainees with bail are detained for a period of 2 months and below. Remand detainees that would pay bail are able to pay on the third month, and the lack of family support reflected in the lack of visit in the audit conducted.

With regard minimum sentencing legislation and its impact on inmate population and sentenced population, it was stated that prior to the introduction of minimum sentences, there had been numerous calls from civil society for more severe punishment for violent crimes. The driving force behind this call was the increase in violent crimes through the 1990’s. Although the average number of sentenced offenders increased from 100 393 during 1997/98 (when the legislation was introduced) to 116 951 during 2015/16, it can not be confirmed that the increase is a direct result of the legislation. Long terms of imprisonment are imposed apart from these provisions. It can also be confirmed that the legislation also had no direct impact on the number of individual sentenced offenders as a percentage of the total inmate population. In fact, this percentage decreased from 77% during 1995/96 to 73% during 2015/16.

The minimum sentencing legislation and the increase in the length of sentences appear to have mainly impacted negatively on the turnover rate and not the number of offenders. Offenders with longer sentences have to be incarcerated for longer periods. This leads to overcrowding.

In his conclusion, Mr Smith said although South Africa is battling with overcrowding in DCS facilities, the country has managed to maintain the percentage of Remand Detainees to below 50% of its inmate population. The option of building more facilities should be considered in order to create a balance for catering for the court decisions that require imprisonment and creating a conducive detention environment which takes cognisance of human rights culture. There should be marketing of the Bail and other non-custodial systems so that communities understand the functioning of the CJS, and provision of additional resources for the ensuring an effective and efficient Community Corrections system so that it could be considered by the Judiciary as an alternative system.

Report on the remuneration of constitutional court judges and judges.

Adv Jacob Skosana, Deputy Director-General: Court Services, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, informed Members that judges have waived their salary increases for 2017. The salaries of judges for this year would remain the same and this includes their benefits. He asked the Committee to consider the 0% increase for the judges and to consider the report in terms of the Judges' Remuneration Act. The Chief Justice had expressed his concerns about the state of the SA economy and indicated the judges' views were that they would sacrifice an increase in their own remuneration. The Chief Justice further requested that consideration be given to increasing the remuneration of the lower court judiciary by at least 5% or in line with inflation.

The Chairperson said the judiciary should be commended for being sensitive to the economic climate of the country and has shown the way by tightening their belts in support of the poor, but it remains to be seen if the executive and other spheres of the government would follow in the footsteps of the judiciary.

Mr L Mpumlwana (ANC) proposed that the report be approved.

Prof C Msimang (IFP) supported the move.

The report was adopted with no amendments.

Deliberations on the suspension of the black female magistrate

Mr W Horn (DA) charged that the ANC members, during the previous meeting, did not fulfil the role of oversight. ANC members questioned the decision of the Magistrates Committee and overstepped their boundaries. Further, it was not procedurally correct that the Chairperson took it upon himself to engage with the Minister of Justice without the mandate and approval of the Committee.

The Chairperson said he has done nothing wrong because in parliament there are parliamentary officials they communicate with who represent ministers. He reminded Mr Horn that he (Horn) represents Parliament in the Magistrates Commission but he does not report to the Committee about the work he is doing there.

Ms M Mothapo (ANC) stated it must be remembered that the Committee does not rubberstamp what the Magistrates Commission brings before the Committee. The Committee needs to discuss things first. The last time they had an engagement with the Magistrates Commission there was one representative from the commission. Many issues were raised and deliberated. Members were not disrespecting anything regarding the letter of good standing and disciplinary committee report regarding a certain magistrate.

Mr B Bongo (ANC) indicated that when the Committee met last time, it asked for more information on what the Magistrates Commission was presenting regarding the suspension of a particular magistrate. Then later, the Commission told the Committee the magistrate was doing well and the Committee asked what went wrong in the first place.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) said the Committee never requested a seconder for the Commission's representative, Mr Meijer. The members should only give feedback to the presentation Mr Meijer made.

Ms C Majake (ANC) remarked that if asking questions creates problems, then as Members they are not doing their work. When the matter was raised about the suspension of a female magistrate, she indicated it is worrying that that is affecting a female yet we want to increase their numbers in the profession. The Committee also questioned why junior staff members were investigating a senior staff member and alternatives were suggested because the Committee felt that was unfair. The Committee could not rely on newspaper reports that stated that some Committee Members were defending a magistrate who misappropriated millions of rands. This is putting the members of the ANC in a bad light by saying they disrespected the Ethics Committee and Magistrates Commission.

The Chairperson pointed out the Magistrates Commission should not be blamed about what said in the media. The media should be given their space to interpret issues the way they see them. The Committee has got access to the Magistrates Commission for clarification of issues. The Committee is not there to rubberstamp the work of the Commission. There is no bad blood between the Magistrates Commission and the Committee because everything was discussed in the Committee. The Magistrates Commission has got nothing to answer. The Committee would just consider the report for approval or rejection.

Mr Horn stated the Commission has to report to the Parliament. It is not fair for MPs serving on the Magistrates Commission to report to the Committee. It is the Commission that has to do that. He said the Chairperson should do some kind of an introspection because he belongs to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Horn that it is not only the ANC and DA represented in the Magistrates Commission who failed to report. Even those who are in the JSC have not reported anything. There is a need to know the reporting lines regarding those representing Parliament in those two bodies. When serious allegations have been levelled against a person, the Magistrates Commission's actions and Minister's recommendations should be followed so that the image of the judiciary is not tarnished.

Advocate Moosa, Chairperson of the Ethics Committee and Member of the Magistrates Commission, informed the Committee that the Magistrates Commission and the Ethics Committee do not rubberstamp decisions. The decision for a suspension was not taken lightly. The magistrate under discussion obtained a certificate of good standing yet there are serious allegations against her, and it has been found that the certificate of good standing was obtained illegally. He said they are not singling out a female. Those decisions were not made up by the Ethics Committee and Magistrates Commission. The decisions were brought to them for attention. As the Chairperson of the Ethics Committee he decided that the magistrate in question be suspended because she is a member of the Ethics Committee. It is unfortunate that the magistrate is a female and that females should be promoted. Members of Parliament who are members of the Magistrates Commission and Ethics Committee are requested to leave during deliberations and it would be unfair for them to report on the Ethics Committee matters. The Ethics Committee is prepared to appear before the Committee and answer questions on any matter.

A member of the Ethics Committee said the preliminary report has got affidavits. There is prima facie evidence. The Magistrates Commission reported the conduct of the magistrate to the police. The suspension of the magistrate tarnishes the image of the judiciary.

The Chairperson said sexism and racism are two demons that exist in our lives. Ms Majake is looking at this matter from a gender point of view, but justice has to be done. These demons still exist and we have to deal with them and take into account the demographics of this country. The Ethics Committee and the Minister have not done anything untoward. He proposed that the report be accepted.

Mr L Mpumlwana (ANC) said the report before the Committee is suspicious because the investigation was done by junior magistrates against a senior magistrate. It is important to hear the other side because it could happen that the juniors are colluding against her because they do not like her. It is suspicious if the person implicated has not been given a hearing and the matter be handled by an independent body.

Ms Majake indicated that Members should accept the decision of the Magistrates Commission and adopt the report. She pointed out she is not saying black female magistrates are singled out and victimised. But it must not be the case of black females coming in and getting out. There must be structures that support them so that they could rise up the ladder and be respected magistrates.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Mpumlwana's assertion that there was juniorisation in the decision-making. He said what makes him comfortable is the response from Adv Moosa that the decision was not taken lightly. At the same time, he agreed with Ms Majake when she said there must be some kind of affirmative action for the promotion of black female magistrates, but that does not mean the Committee should not consider the report.

Mr N Matiase (EFF) said Members have been casting doubts about what was presented before them. But now they agree with the facts that have been brought before them. The media might have detected some intentions of cover-ups, but that is not the case. Non-action would not bode well. Let the process run its course.

The Chairperson indicated that though the Committee did not receive reports from Members who are in the Magistrates Commission, it did not hear a report that the Members had no confidence in the work of the Magistrates Commission. The perceptions that were created were not right, and he proposed for the suspension of the adoption of the report until the Committee engages further with the Magistrates Commission.

Messrs Matiase, Bongo and Selfe (DA) seconded the move.

The report was not adopted.

Discussion of Joint Presentation by DCS, NPA Legal Aid SA, SAPS and Judiciary

The Chairperson remarked that the presentation shows that law could be used to solve our social problems which are a result of socio-economic conditions. The manner in which we address crime dictates we take into account of the prevailing social conditions. The country has many types of courts that could handle many petty crimes without burdening big courts with unnecessary petty crime. More resources need to be pumped into the police to do work in the community courts. The country is using eurocentric methods of doing things which do not deliver services on the ground. For example, traditional courts could deal with traditional issues in communities where people would start solving their own problems. Money is directed in the wrong places, not where it is needed the most. Regarding community service, he said many farmers are looking for labour. The criminals should be sent to work in those farms where they would also learn farming and how to produce food so that they do not go back to prisons or to their former deeds. The presentation is a sign that an integrated justice system has a potential to succeed.

Mr Brian Nair, National Operations Executive: Legal Aid SA, concerning offenders in productive activities, said that does not mean we are going back to hard labour. He stated the task team has to come back to the Committee about productive activities the offenders are doing.

Mr Selfe commented it is encouraging to see short and long term trends in imprisonment. If criminals spend more time in jail, that means we would never run away from over-crowding. He suggested the efficacy of the minimum sentence should be reviewed. He also proposed that people with mental health problems in prisons should be found a better place because they get abused. He further noted there are many appeals regarding the re-integration of prisoners into our communities but that needs more resources so that the public could see alternative forms of correction. One of the ways of solving the problem is through tagging which for now seems to be the ideal situation. Lastly, he wanted to know if consolidation of cases is possible to be done in one court because you find that there are many charges against one person who has to go to many different courts.

Mr Brian Nair, on offenders serving longer sentences, said the trend is clear. If the sentence is long, then one is going to have a longer parole time. When the community correction was introduced, the parole had many conditions, especially after having served 50% of your sentence, not 33% just like before. The stricter measures are there to show we are hard on crime. The impact of longer sentences is going to be felt in the future. Pertaining to tagging, he indicated they have not achieved what they had hoped to achieve. A lot of education still needs to be done around tagging. We need to remind ourselves that the current electronic process is under investigation.

Mr Horn stated there seems to be a perception that suspected criminals are easily released on bail. The communities say suspected criminals should not be given bail. The communities and police complain they arrest criminals but they get released on bail. It appears it is going to be difficult to balance the interest of the society and those of justice.

Mr Matiase remarked we live in a democratic state and have not forgotten the nostalgia of less crime under the apartheid regime. But that nostalgia is not going to run away if crime is still rising and there is over-crowding in prisons, especially if you look at the way the bails get granted for alleged crime. The presentation gave a broad protocol on bail conditions. He wanted to know what constitutes the conditions for bail and asked if bail is granted to avoid overcrowding or not. He further commented that conditions in our correctional services have been found not to enable offenders to be re-integrated into our society. As a result, they re-offend. He enquired what is being done to transform our criminal justice system, especially correctional services in order to make it better for offenders to be re-integrated into our communities instead of being re-offenders.

Brigadier Matshene, Director in Visible Policing: SAPS, concerning bail conditions, explained that when a bail is granted, they look at the type of crime committed and determine whether the person would come to the court. Overcrowding is another factor that is considered. Another thing they consider is the type of arrest made in order to avoid unlawful arrest where the state would be sued.

Ms G Breytenbach (DA) asked how many people in prison are sitting with bails under R200 and R1000, respectively.

Mr Rodney de Kock, DPP-Western Cape: NPA, stated that the numbers are fluctuating and that they do not have the exact figures, but the majority of people have got bails of R1000.

Mr Nair added that the Legal Aid practitioners do intervene on the amounts of bail to be paid. He also said he supports the idea to review the minimum sentence.

Mr Bongo remarked that releases on bail are used for unintended consequences. It is no longer used the way it was used before the new government took over in 1994. There is a need for a system that is not a one size fits all approach. The system has to distinguish between two types of offenders: those who go straight to jail and those who need to be re-integrated to the communities. The ICJS must be able to track cases for postponement because it is known that all cases on Mondays get postponed. The new system must assist the smooth running of the integrated justice system.

Brigadier van Graan, SAPS Legal Services, stated it is not true that postponements are abused and caused by police. It is the court that grants or allows a postponement, not the police service. The bail checklist is shown when the police arrest a person and it goes to court together with the docket when the case is considered.

Major General Ramatswele, SAPS Detective Services, added that there is an indicator that does not allow detectives to delay the investigation to avoid keeping the arrested in detention for long unnecessarily.

Prof. Msimang commented that the presentation has convinced him that a multi-pronged approach should be adopted to resolve the problems we are facing. For traditional courts, for example, we need to use our counsellors, social workers, etc. Regarding bail, he said the courts should make a determination. Friends and family members of the offender want the offender outside jail while the victims want the offender inside. If people who are out on bail commit more crime, then there should be no bail for them. He also stressed that correctional services are not hotels. People should earn their living. We need to make sure they do not re-offend so that they go back to jail where life is seen to be easy. The offenders should render a service, not hard labour, instead of idling in prisons and wasting state resources. Concerning transformation from prison to correctional services, he stated that year after year the budget of rehabilitation is getting smaller and smaller while that of incarceration is getting bigger and bigger. The rehabilitation budget should be bigger so that the offenders could be re-integrated into our communities.

Mr de Kock, with regard to the rehabilitation budget, stated the appointed task team would go to see how it is going to effect the issue of a budget allocation that is not proportional.

An official, pertaining to re-offending, elaborated that re-offending is a socio-economic factor caused by the unavailability of jobs and money, and presence of crime in the community of the offender. Sometimes the lack of support by family members and friends encourages the offender to go back to crime and jail.

Adv Skosana stated there is a review happening on the legislative framework in the justice system. It was agreed to establish an integrated criminal justice task team to look at the gaps in the legislation. We are currently using legislation enacted in 1976. For instance, we have not looked at the position where police could issue summons without having made an arrest so that the person could appear in court. The Home Affairs Department has been included in this system because that is the department that knows who is in the country or out of the country and where each and every one of us stays.

The Chairperson indicated we need to ensure that Social Development and Home Affairs Departments are part of the integrated task team. Our freedom has allowed people to come to the country and leave freely. If they are allowed to come in freely, then we should make space for them to leave. And when we want them to leave, the courts tell you to find them alternative accommodation. We have some kind of a law of the jungle, something that does not happen in other countries.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: