Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons Annual Report: briefing

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE

Annual Report 2002/2003: Prisoners & Prisons

SUMMARY
The Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIP) presented their Annual Report on Prisoners and Prisons. The Legal Services Unit expressed concern that the Inspectorate was under-staffed. The Committee queried statistics in the report on prisoners' complaints collected by Independent Prison Visitors (IPVs). It was generally agreed that the report needed to be more specific in terms of the types of complaints received, and that there should be a better mechanism for communication between the Office of the Jali Commission and JIP. The JIP mandate might need to be broadened beyond the monitoring of corruption in prisons. Prison corruption needed to be reported, exposed and dealt with. Rehabilitation services for young offenders were under-utilised and under-resourced. This needed to be raised with the Department of Social Services. The appointment and training of IPVs was discussed at length.

MINUTES
The Chair began the meeting by stating that he had been pleased with the manner in which the budget had been received and impressed by the quality of the debate. Members had been united by a common concern that the serious challenges faced by Correctional Services, particularly the over-crowding of prisons, needed to be addressed. These challenges make it difficult for the Department to carry out its work.

He commented on the situation of children in prisons, which he had witnessed during the Committee's prison visit. While some correctional facilities for youth provided good rehabilitation services, the Department of Social Services did not give them an adequate budget to fill their beds. He believed that children were better off when crowded into these correctional facilities than in they were in the prisons. The Committee had asked the Department of Correctional Services to look into this and to respond within fourteen days.

The Chair then congratulated Judge J Fagan and his delegation on their report. The Committee would not be holding many more meetings like this one. Instead, they wanted to visit Correctional Services facilities to gain first-hand experience of operational challenges faced by the Department.

Judge Fagan, the Inspecting Judge of Prisons in the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIP), began by expressing his appreciation of the hands-on approach the Committee had taken by visiting the prisons. He also commended the Committee's efforts in attempting to solve problems in the Department by involving all stakeholders in cluster discussions, including police, prosecutors, magistrates and other government departments. The presentation sought to address members' concerns regarding the release of prisoners awaiting trial, amnesty, child prisoners and the release of prisoners suffering from terminal illnesses.

Legal Services Mr K Anuruda, Head of Legal Services, stated that prisons were unnatural environments where people were stripped of their individuality. The prison environment often created tensions among prisoners and between prisoners and prison staff. These tensions could erupt into anti-social, unlawful behaviour and the lodging of complaints. The JIP played a pivotal role in addressing this situation. Their mandate came from Section 85 of the Correctional Services Act (CSA), which was to facilitate the inspection of prisons in order that the Inspecting Judge might report on the treatment of prisoners and conditions in prisons. Sections 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 of the CSA had not yet been proclaimed, but when they were the JIP anticipated an increase in the number of complaints.

He also drew the Committee's attention to problems within the JIP itself that needed to be addressed. The Judicial Inspector's mandate combined judicial, inspecting and administrative duties that sometimes created conflicts of interest.

He then referred to figures in the annual report illustrating an increase in the number of complaints during the previous year. Staff capacity had not been increased to accommodate this. The highest number of complaints was from Gauteng.

Legal Services had made new appointments in May and their present staff complement of nine included six case officers and two case managers. The electronic reporting system allowed the rapid communication and access to the information necessary for processing complaints efficiently.

Discussion
Mr D Bloem (ANC) asked how many of the 48 569 complaints in Gauteng had been addressed and resolved. By how many was the Legal Services Unit short-staffed and was there a youth inspector in the office?

Mr G Morris, Director, JIP, replied that they did not possess these statistics but went on to describe the system. All unresolved complaints were taken from the Independent Prison Visitors (IPVs) to the Visitors Committee. From there they went to the Regional Co-ordinator and finally to the Inspecting Judge. The IPVs had work standards for conducting site visits, interviewing prisoners and submitting monthly reports. These reports allowed them to identify problem areas and compile statistics on the complaints received.

The vast majority of complaints were dealt with between the Head of Prison and the IPV concerned. More complex complaints, like assaults, were referred to the Office of the Inspecting Judge. With only nine people to fulfil its entire mandate, the JIP still lacked the capacity to deal with all the complaints received.

The Chair commented that dealing with these complaints should make the JIP aware of key problem areas. He wondered if the Office of the Jali Commission had been notified of these.

Mr Morris replied that they were acting through Section 93 of the CSA. This referred to interactions between IPVs and heads of prison, providing them the opportunity to resolve the complaint first. He added that most complaints were resolved at that level.

The Chair confirmed that there was no mechanism to allow for communication between the Office of the Commissioner and JIP and felt strongly that this was necessary. He expressed the opinion that the IPVs were a beacon of light for prisoners, and needed to act as eyes and ears for people outside prisons in order to improve prison conditions.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) commented that, according to the annual report, the JIP appeared not to have introduced IPVs to the Eastern Cape.

Mr Shaku, National Co-ordinator, assured him that IPVs had been appointed nationally. In March 2002 they had appointed IPVs for the Eastern Cape.

Mr Bloem noted the sixty-nine prison assaults in Limpopo and asked how many of these had been resolved.

Mr Morris replied that this was difficult to determine. Each prisoner was given the opportunity to lodge a criminal case, which was then sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. There was also a mandatory internal investigation. He reiterated that the Office of the Inspecting Judge was under-staffed and assured the Committee that the turnaround time would improve.

Mr F van Deventer (NNP) said that there appeared to be the same communication problem between the Commission and the Department as between the Department and the Judicial Services. Referring to figures on the number and nature of prisoner complaints received by IPVs, he suggested that there must be a reason for the significant differences between provinces.

Mr Morris agreed. The IPV for each area compiled a quarterly profile report in co-operation with the Visitors Committee.

Mr G Oosthuizen (ANC), asked who handled complaints about prison deaths, suggesting that the report should include information on the causes of those deaths.

Mr Anuruda replied that prison deaths were reported by IPVs and dealt with in the same way as other complaints.

Mr Oosthuizen said that figures on the number and nature of prison complaints were misleading. The deaths were not complaints, yet they were included in these figures. Also, the category of 'other' was not useful, as it could include a number of different things.

Judge Fagan referred members to a graph reflecting natural deaths and releases on medical grounds. The reference to deaths in the figures on prison complaints reflected the number of deaths that the IPVs chose to report. Section 15 of the Act made it obligatory for IPVs to report deaths. He agreed that they should expand on 'others', identifying specific complaints under this category.

Mr L Diale (ANC) asked how many of these complaints had been in the process of being addressed for longer than three years.

Mr Morris replied that there were approximately eighty such complaints. This could change as they were awaiting new data.

The Chair said that the Committee had high expectations of JIP, which they hoped would do even more than it had already accomplished. Ten years had passed since the first democratic elections in South Africa and perspectives and outlooks had changed.

He then commended the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG) on their minutes. He read aloud the PMG minutes from the 27 March 2001, which indicated how the Committee had decided to propose that the mandate of the Inspecting Judge be reviewed. As a result, the Office of the Inspecting Judge was only responsible for monitoring corruption in the prison services, but this mandate should include its investigation and removal. The JIP's role should be more like that of a 'whistle blower. Prison corruption need to be reported, exposed and dealt with. With the wisdom of hindsight, the issue of a broader mandate needed to be re-visited.

Mr Diale noted that prisons were dealing with human beings. Skills training needed to form part of the rehabilitation process, as well as some sort of recreational activity for prisoners.

Judge Fagan agreed that the form given to complainants needed to be more detailed and should include an opportunity to report on corruption. He also agreed that corruption should be dealt with more fully by JIP.

Mr R Zondo (ANC) expressed concern that the annual report had been leaked to the newspapers and media before the Committee had been given a chance to review it. Although the JIP's mandate included reporting to the public, he was worried when the general public raised issues of which the Committee was not aware. For example, the media had reported on the issue of prison deaths and members could not comment as they had not yet seen the report.

The Chair deferred this question until the end of the meeting.

Appointment and Training of IPVs
Mr Shaku, National Co-ordinator, explained the process of appointment to the Committee, elaborating on the attributes JIP looked for when hiring. The importance of community involvement and spirit could not be over-emphasised. A regional co-ordinator had been hired to support and manage IPVs on the ground, which helped to address issues of financial accountability and logistics.

Ms Luthuli, Acting Head of Training, outlined the training process which aimed at preparing IPVs for working in the prison environment.

Discussion
Mr Bloem asked what criteria were being used in the IPV recruitment process, whether this involved security screening and, if so, who performed it.

Mr Shaku responded that JIP criteria included academic qualifications, personal attributes and the capacity to handle the electronic information system for which they would then be trained. IPVs needed to be involved in the community and nominated by a non-government or community-based organisation. Although a candidate's criminal record was looked at, prospective IPVs with criminal records were not discriminated against. Currently, several IPVs had criminal records.

The Chair asked how JIP determined the allocation of IPVs.

Mr Shaku replied that IPVs were not allocated to prisons with less than one hundred prisoners. The JIP worked with smaller prisons using other mechanisms. The current allocation ratio was one IPV per one thousand prisoners. There was therefore capacity for 248 IPVs in South Africa's prisons. Currently, JIP had 215 IPVs. Each IPV was hired on a two-year contract, and there was a system of rotation in order to avoid institutionalisation.

Mr Morris added that IPVs were very rarely appointed for more that two years. They worked a maximum of sixty-seven hours per week at rate of R35 per hour.

Mr Bloem asked how many IPVs had been found to be involved in criminal activity.

Mr Morris responded that there had been five cases of misconduct by IPVs, but nothing involving activities such as smuggling. Two female IPVs had been involved with prisoners, and another had been caught with a cheque from a prisoner. As independent contractors, under-performing IPVs could have their contracts cancelled.

Mr Bloem asked why this was not in the report.

Mr Van Deventer asked how the Office of the Inspecting Judge could determine the validity of the IPV reports. How was their performance measured? This concern arose from discussions with prisoners, who were not even aware of the IPV for their prison.

The Chair asked if there were performance incentives for IPVs, as hard work should be rewarded.

Mr Shaku responded that performance audits were conducted by the regional co-ordinators, who verified the validity of the complaints reported. The hours worked by IPVs needed to be monitored to ensure that the JIP was not paying more than it should for IPV services. The visibility of IPVs was reported on from time to time to ensure that prisoners were aware of the IPV service available to them.

Policy guidelines on IPV contracts did not include any incentives. However, it was important that they should feel appreciated and this was being looked at.

A member asked about risks that might hinder IPVs in their work.

Mr Shaku emphasised that prison environments are inherently unsafe and as such there would always be a risk element. However, the JIP took the safety of IPVs very seriously. No injury had ever been sustained by an IPV, but there had been numerous cases of intimidation. Whenever this occurred the Office of the Inspecting Judge intervened in an attempt to solve the problem. He added that IPVs needed to be escorted at all times while on duty in the prisons.

Bishop L Tolo (ANC) asked if IPVs were adequately resourced.

Mr Shaku replied that they were all issued with ID cards to ensure access to the prisons. He asked what was meant by resources.

Mr Morris noted that the IPVs could discuss any problems with the Visitors Committee.

Mr Bloem asked if IPVs were compensated for travelling to the prisons.

Mr Morris replied that, as in the case of most jobs, IPVs were not paid for travelling between their homes and places of work. They were, however, compensated for travel in respect of Visitors Committee meetings.

Inspectors Unit
Mr Mentoor, National Head of Inspectors, described the role of JIP's Inspectors Unit. This had been instrumental in starting the IPV program and provided support to the Legal Services Unit. There were currently four inspectors and there were now plans for expansion.

The Unit was pro-active on human rights abuses and had already completed seven investigations. Co-operation with other government departments, as well as the prisons themselves, was central to the Unit's role. The Unit had made it a point of inspecting all prison facilities for young prisoners.

Discussion
The Chair asked about vacancies in the Inspectors Unit.

Speaking under correction, Mr Mentoor replied that the Unit currently had three vacancies.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) stated that the Committee's recent visits to facilities run by the Department of Justice had raised several important issues that needed to be discussed.

The Chair acknowledged these, suggesting that time constraints prevented any further discussion. Judge Fagan would be invited to address these issues.

The meeting was adjourned.