Department of Correctional Services Quarterly Reports; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Briefing by the Department of Correctional Services on Quarterly Reports

Nkosi Patekile Holomisa, Deputy Minister of Correctional Services, presented the performance report of quarter four of the 2019/2020 financial year and the performance report for quarter one of the 2020/2021 financial year.

The Deputy Minister noted that the outbreak of Covid-19 reduced outputs in the first quarter of the 2020/21 annual performance plan. The disruptions have continued through the year as the Department adjusts itself to the new normal. In response to the 2020/21 adjustment budget process the Department revised and re-tabled 2020/25 strategic plan and the 2020/21 annual performance plan on 9 July 2020. Taking into consideration the 2020/21 adjusted budget allocation letter from National Treasury, dated 22 June 2020, as well as Covid-19 on the delivery of planned outputs the Department continues to maximise service delivery through the reprioritisation of the limited resources at its disposal. There had been intense coordinated action to respond to the challenges of Covid-19 in correctional facilities. To mitigate the risk of Covid-19 spreading in correctional facilities the President authorised a special parole dispensation for selected low-risk qualifying offenders. The release of 19000 offenders was important from a clinical perspective as overcrowding affected oxygen circulation within cells and thus contributed to the spread of the virus. In total 12057 offenders have been released in terms of the special dispensation. The Department has thus avoided mass outbreaks within correctional facilities since April 2020 through prevention and protection measures. The presentation detailed the changes to the strategic plan and annual performance. Reasons for underperformance were also given. Finally, an overview of the budget expenditure was presented. The Department spent 96% of its budget in the 2019/20 financial year.

Performance Overview 2019/20

The Department achieved 57 of the 112 planned targets in 2019/20. The performance translated to 51% of targets being achieved. The progress on the implementation of the APP was monitored on a monthly and quarterly basis. The overall performance in Q1 was 61%, Q2 was 61%, Q3 was 56% and Q4 was 51%. In programme one, two out of 11 targets were achieved. In programme two, ten out of 25 targets were achieved. In programme three, 27 out of 45 targets were achieved. In programme five, two out of three targets were achieved.

Overall Quarter One Performance 2020/21

During the quarter under review, the Department achieved 17 targets against a total of 31 planned targets for the quarter. This performance translated to 55% of the targets achieved. In this period, the Department spent 21.47% of its allocated budget.

Adv Johannes Weapond, Representative of the Audit Committee, said that the Audit Committee asked the Department to focus on what will be the actual targets that are realisable in an online Covid environment and what will be those targets that require a physical intervention. The targets that require a physical intervention could be at risk due to the context of Covid. If there was a spike in infections, then alternative ways will be needed to deal with the physical targets. Those targets that can be achieved in an online context will be the ones that can be reasonably secured. That was the approach of the Audit Committee to the Department’s targets during the period of Covid-19. The Audit Committee also noted that there were certain weaknesses in the internal control environment. The Department was devising an internal control framework. That internal control framework will focus on those areas where there are inadequate or ineffective controls. That process was currently underway. From a financial perspective it was important to understand that the Department’s Covid context has provided for some delays in finalising the respective financial reports. The Audit Committee noted that the Department has over the past two years provided some reasonable control mechanisms and a quality assurance process despite the fact that there were still some material misstatements that occur. There were some interventions that the Department was implementing to improve its financial report framework.

The Chairperson said it needed to be communicated to the Chair of all Audit Committees that the Committee needed a written report from the Audit Committee when they appeared before the Committee with the Department. What was the Audit Committee’s preliminary view of the procurement of PPEs?

Adv Weapond said that the Audit Committee would have to look at what the Auditor General said with regards to procurement that relates to Covid-19 items. A meeting was scheduled for 28 October. The Audit Committee wanted to rely on the independent assurance as provided by the internal auditors or by the external auditors. The only information the Audit Committee had was what the Department provided to them. The Audit Committee would only have a confirmed view once they were addressed by the Auditor General. He apologised that the Audit Committee did not have a written report.

Discussion

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) said that in the presentation most of the targets, despite Covid, were not met. That was a concern that needed to be noted going forward. The Department did provide explanations. The Covid outbreak could not be the only reason for the Department not meeting its targets. She wanted more information on overspending. She spoke specifically of the target of transport equipment and the payment of vehicles for the 2019/2020 financial year. She noted that there had been some delays in the processing of invoices received from the municipalities. What was the turnaround time for processing these invoices when received? The delays cause a serious impact on the municipalities. She then raised concerns over the corruption activities reported of officials charged and found guilty. Where were these officials located? At regional level or at headquarters? From which provinces were these officials located? What level were these officials? The Department needed to know what area the officials were located so that area and those officials are dealt with. The issues of corruption within the Department cannot be tolerated. She wanted the Department to explain the difference in expenditures. It was reported that the expenditure for the head office was R56,38 million. The expenditure of the regional offices was just under R17 million. She wanted the Department to explain the difference in expenditure. She raised a point on the matter of rehabilitation. In that programme only four targets were achieved. What was the Department going to do to ensure those offenders that missed rehabilitation during Covid were also covered? During Covid there were offenders that were released. It was reported that there were two categories. Those that are dangerous and those that are not dangerous to the community. Have there been any incidences after the release of those offenders who received parole because of Covid? Lastly, she spoke about Covid generally. Did the Department have new cases of Covid during lockdown level one?

Mr X Nqola (ANC) said that he had a concern about underspending in quarter one of the 2020/21 financial year. The Department was only able to execute 17 out of the total 31 targets. Was the Covid-19 lockdown the only reason for underperformance? What will be the recovery plan on the work that was supposed to have been done?

He then had a question on revenue generation. There were a lot of ways in the report that the Department was able to collect revenue. There was a particular form of revenue collection called offender labour. What was offender labour? The Committee needed to make sure that there was no slavery happening within the DCS. What did the Department mean by saying it collected revenue from offender labour? Was the Department hiring out offenders for work so that the Department could be paid? The Department should take the Committee through what offender labour meant.

He then raised the issue of Covid-19 expenditure. Has there been cases of procurement transgressions and PPE overpricing reported during the quarter under review? If the answer was yes, then what progress have been done to ensure that the Department attended to those problems?

He then moved onto administration programme for quarter one of 2020/21. The Department achieved four out of eight targets which the Deputy Minister said was 50%. He did not agree with the actual reasoning because the blame is always shifted towards the lockdown. The lockdown has got levels and in some of the levels operations were changing right through. He wanted the Department to explain how it only achieved 50% on programme administration because he did not understand the reasons provided. He then discussed the invoices received by the DCS for municipal services. When an invoice is sent the only thing that was left was for the Department to process it and pay it. Since lockdown alert level five all procurement and finance offices have been open. He did not understand why the Department could not pay the municipal services in the first quarter of the 2020/2021 financial year. The Department should provide proper reasons and not say it was because of lockdown because all procurement-related and finance offices were allowed to operate.

He then discussed Covid-19 expenditure. The expenditure of the regional offices was not coherent. The KwaZulu-Natal region has more than R11 million worth of expenditure for Covid-19 but the Free State and Northern Cape had only above R3 million. The Department needed to take the Committee through how it has spent Covid-19 funds and allocating it to various regions. Were the funds allocated in terms of need? Were the funds allocated in terms of the vastness of the region? Were the funds allocated in terms of the number of correctional centres that were present in the region?

He then disused the issue of bed spaces in the fourth quarter of 2019/2020. It needed to be noted that lockdown was only declared at the end of the fourth quarter. The Department was supposed to have opened 435 bed spaces in the Tzaneen Correction Centre but currently zero bed spaces have been made. The Department needed to inform the Committee about that matter.

Mr J Selfe (DA) also raised concern about the municipal invoices. The delays had consequences on many struggling municipalities. He then raised the matter of escapes. He made a comparison between the fourth quarter and the first quarter. The escapes seem to have increased a significant amount because of non-adherence to policies. Could the Department provide the Committee with details about what that actually involves? What does non-adherence to policies mean? What were the consequences for that non-adherence? The Department reported a high rate of monitoring parolees during the lockdown period. There was a target of 97% but the Department actually achieved 99%. The Department referred to monitoring of parolees during lockdown within protocols. What do those protocols actually involve? How was it possible to achieve a 99% monitoring rate within the parameters of a severe lockdown?

Mr W Horn (DA) said that the Committee needed to breathe a collective sigh of relief if the Tzaneen facility has been handed over. He reminded the Committee that this was first announced in 2007 as a two-year project. If it has been handed over, as the Deputy Minister claims, has it come into operation? If not, why not and when will it become operational? How much did this project ultimately cost? It was announced to be a R120 million project in 2007. If the Committee received the figures of how much it ultimately cost then the Committee could better understand what impact the poor management of capital built projects, over the years, have had on finances of the Department and by extension the State. Given the depressed economic outlook for South Africa the State needed to learn from this.

He highlighted the comment made by the Department that the underperformance of capital-built projects is still to be ascribed by the poor performance by the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI). When then will the Department do things differently and not depend on the DPWI? The Minister, more than a year ago, announced that Burgersdorp, Parys and Lichtenburg were in the final planning stage and that there would be a handover to contractors. He wanted information on how those three projects were progressing, if at all, because he did not want a repeat of the Tzaneen issue.

On the monitoring of parolees, he noted the report says that the target achieved has to do with physical monitoring and that does not correspond with the information given to this Committee during the oversight performed during the stricter stages of lockdown. The Committee was informed by the Department and the Minister that monitoring was only being done telephonically. Yet, it was reported that the Department achieved the target in terms of physical monitoring. A concern in the report of the first quarter was that previously the Committee was informed that the number of parolees identified as part of the special dispensation related to Covid, which could be released, was not the full number. Then the Committee was informed that that was because the restorative justice conversations was not proceeding as envisaged. Yet, the two targets of social integration that was reported as having been met were those dealing with the percentage of victims and offenders involved in restorative justice. Have those conversations taken place? Of the approximately 19000 parolees identified how many have now been released?

He then highlighted the report on the Integrated Inmate Management System. It was only being rolled out at nine out of the target of 50 facilities. The Deputy Minister admitted that the system was not able to do what it was envisaged to do. The Department said it was because of resource limitations and insufficient IT capacity but this was ultimately still the product of an ill-advised, at best, and corrupt, at worst, exercise in which National Treasury advised against the finalisation of the award to Integritron. The then Minister and officials in DCS against that advice proceeded to enter into that agreement. The Committee would recall that previously they were informed by the Department that there would be outside assistance to make the system work. The original advice against the award was that the manner in which the tender was crafted and because the IT potential at many of the sites of DCS made this a project that would never work. The Committee always talks about consequence management. What consequences, if any, have there been for those senior officials who ultimately proceeded with this contract? When will DCS shelve this project so that money was not thrown at an insolvable problem? When will the Department start looking at a solution to integrated inmate management systems which this project clearly could not bring? The Committee was informed that the Department were still waiting for the audit outcome. Why, at this stage, nearly in the middle of October was the audit outcome not yet available? Even on the extended timeline given to the various Departments of 31 October the Committee in all likelihood would not be able to see the annual report of DCS. The Committee deserved an explanation as to why even those extended deadlines will not be met?

Ms J Mofokeng (ANC) raised a question on the interdepartmental Child Justice Report. It was indicated that out of 65 sentenced children in correctional facilities across the country only 17 were involved in formal education. What were the reasons for that? That should be very worrying as the rights of children were important.

The target of inspection of correctional facilities was not achieved during the quarter. Has the Department formulated a catch-up plan? How does the Department deal with different categories of inmates in the facilities especially the state patients? What are the challenges? The Inspector General reported an increase in incidents of violence in correctional facilities. Can the Department confirm that information and explain to the Committee what it would do to address that issue? She wanted clarity on the national death category. There was something called ‘unknown others’. What was unknown others?

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) said that she also had a question relating to children in correctional facilities. What was the Department doing to ensure that all children in correctional facilities receive formal education? Currently, how many people were writing matric because the matric final exams were starting soon? In quarter one it says that no target was noted. In quarter one it stated that there were no spiritual care services. During lockdown many churches went online and gave online services. Did the inmates have no access to these online church services? In both quarter four and quarter one it says no inmates escaped but in July there were reports of many people escaping there. What did the Department learn from that because there were many inmates that escaped to prevent it from happening again? She then discussed the parole during lockdown. Did it make any difference in the overcrowding of prisons or correctional facilities? 

Mr R Dyantyi (ANC) said that the Department asked the Deputy Minister to give the presentation because he was giving the Committee bad news. When it was not good news then it was up to the Deputy Minister to deliver the presentation. In both quarter four and quarter one there was so much underperformance. He looked forward to the Department responding to some of these issues. He looked forward to this Department coming back and presenting its annual report.

The integrated management system remains a key problem. To achieve nine out of 50 targets and call it poor performance was an understatement. This was a programme that was connected to so many other areas. It has been a chronic poor performance programme. He hoped the Department would share with the Committee how it planned on overhauling the system. The Committee cannot continue coming into these meetings and being presented with poor performance of that programme because it speaks to the modernisation of corrections which was not happening.

In quarter four there was R484 million under-expenditure because of vacancies. He linked that to the comment by the Deputy Minister saying that there were savings made by the Department. The Department made savings out of delayed recruitment. He did not regard it as savings. The Department has underachieved because of capacity issues. What exactly was the delayed recruitment? The Department was underspending on vacancies and capacity. Because of Covid the Department found a very good excuse to virement funds. What exact positions were forfeited because of delayed recruitment? It reflected poor planning on the side of the Department. The Covid ‘offramp’ has become a normal excuse for poor planning and poor performance. The Department needed to provide the Committee with a list of what it was forsaking in terms of capacity.

He then raised a point on quarter four. One of the reasons that explained underperformance was because of Covid-19. Quarter four was January, February and March. Lockdown started on 26 March. That quarter was almost done and yet the lockdown has been given as a reason for underachievement. At the time the President introduced alert level five on 26 March the work done in that quarter should have been finished. That five days of lockdown level five could not be the reason that the Department underachieved. This once again reflected the poor planning of the Department. Such excuses that have been made were unacceptable. The same excuses were given for the construction for new facilities. These construction projects should have been finished in mid-March and the excuse is given that nothing could be done because of Covid-19. He appealed to the Department to not abuse the Committee and use the excuse of Covid-19. The Committee was over the excuse of Covid-19.

He then discussed the progress on the Correctional Services Bill. The Deputy Minister said that on 23 September Cabinet approved the Bill. The Committee believed that should have been done earlier. The Department was getting into a ‘red zone’. The Department was giving the Committee a ‘hospital pass in rugby terms’. The time the Committee had was very limited to perform its oversight duties and hold public hearings on Bills. The Correctional Services Act was approved on 23 September but the Committee has still not received the document. It was apparently somewhere in the Ministry and not with the Committee. He expected to receive it in November because of the Department’s slow pace. The Department was only giving the Committee January, February and March to deal with the Bill. The Department needed to remember that the Committee also had three other Bills that needed to be worked on. There were public hearings and discussions on those Bills that still needed to be held. This would be the fourth Bill that the Committee needed to work through. He was disappointed because there was still no direction on the Bill. He was troubled about an issue with one of the Department’s regional commissioners. Mr Nxele was either the current or former regional commissioner of KwaZulu-Natal. There was an issue about him coming in and out of the office and there were also legal disputes. Can the Department explain to the Committee what was happening with the ‘Nxele saga’? When the Committee met with the Department in August it raised the serious issue of R4 billion worth of irregular expenditure. He had hoped that in quarter one there would be an action plan as to how the Department would be progressing on the issue. The Department did not address that issue in the presentation.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Dyantyi for the issue he raised of Bills being dumped with the Committee late. The nation needed to know that it was very unfair to Parliament that the Executive keeps Bills that have constitutional deadlines and late in the day they are dumped in Parliament. An impression is created that Parliament is not meeting Constitutional Court deadlines. That was creating a potential problem between Parliament and the Constitutional Court and it was extremely unfair. This was not the only Bill that Parliament might not be able to meet the deadline. The Cannabis Bill came a week before the deadline. Even the gender-based violence Bills have been late. Parliament has cleared its diaries since March and have been waiting for these Bills and then suddenly the Bills are dumped on the Committee. Now the Correctional Services Bill was also coming. This Bill will create a gap in the law because the Constitutional Court ruling gives a read-in provision which expires in May next year. There are processes in the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. That the National Assembly might meet a deadline does not mean that Parliament has met the deadline. The NCOP also must meet the deadline. Those deadlines also included public hearings. There are Constitutional Court rulings on the issue of public hearings and public involvement. That the Committee was continually receiving Bills late was unacceptable. The Committee has tried to push the Bills that were outstanding in the last term as they were late. There was no improvement this term and not because of Parliament’s own doing but because the Executive was dumping Bills on the last hour. The Executive then tells the nation that it had completed the Bills on time and that the fault was with Parliament. The Executive does not tell the nation that it has given Parliament Bills on the last minute. It was extremely unacceptable. When there is a gap in the law next year the problem will be attributed to Parliament. In all fairness there were only 11 members of the Committee with a handful of support staff, researchers and committee secretary. The Executive had whole Departments behind it. Ministers also had support from drafting units. The Executive must not transfer its lack of planning onto Parliament so that Parliament appeared to be incompetent. 

Mr KJ Katenga, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Strategic Management, DCS, responded to the concerns of performance indicators. Many of the performance indicators were predicated on human interventions with the offenders. During lockdown level five the need for social distancing came into effect so for example programme three and programme five, which were highly dependent on interventions in groups, could not proceed. That was the context for the underperformance for quarter one. Under lockdown level five no interprovincial travel was allowed and many interventions required the Department going to correctional centres and moving across provinces. That was another challenge for the Department. The Department also restricted visitations to the correctional centres. This meant those independent service providers who would provide rehabilitation interventions could not access correctional facilities. These were all the factors that impacted on the performance indicators.

He responded to Ms Masek-Jele’s question about officials charged with corruption. The Department would collate all the relevant information and send it to the Committee in writing. He then responded to the questions on the progress of Tzaneen. Mr Nqola said that Covid only came towards the end of quarter four and Tzaneen was not completed within that financial year. At the end of March, the contractor indicated that they had completed the work, however, when the Department’s project manager went on site there were various problems that were identified. This occurred just before the onset of the lockdown. Those issues could not be addressed immediately until Government announced lockdown level three. The site was completed at the end of June. The commissioning of the facility will be addressed by the National Commissioner.

He then responded to the questions on the monitoring of parolees during lockdown. The Department indicated that the low-risk offenders were the ones that were monitored telephonically. The high-risk offenders were the only ones to be monitored physically. There were two categories of parolees and probationers that were monitored. The one physically and the other telephonically. In quarter one the Department indicated that the restorative justice processes did not take place. That was because the restorative justice processes required group participation and due to the requirements of social distancing it could not be conducted.

He then responded to Ms Mofokeng’s question on how the Department assisted JICS. Although JICS was part of the budget allocation of the Department under programme one it operated as a standalone entity and therefore had its own staff and recruitment processes. JICS had indicated that it had challenges in the last financial year with regards to human capacity and they were in the process of addressing that. During quarter one they were also affected by the start of lockdown level five.

He responded to Ms Newhoudt-Druchen’s question about how many students were enrolled and why there were not any targets. There were no targets in quarter one because it is only measured once the examinations have been written. Therefore, the target would only be available in quarter three of the financial year. For this academic year the Department had a total of 406 students who were registered to write their matric exams. The Department expected a high pass rate as per normal. He then responded to the concerns on religious interventions. In the current environment with resource constraints it was not possible for the Department to provide online religious services. the Department was heavily dependent on people visiting the facilities and physically interacting with the offenders. 

Ms Nthabiseng Mosupye, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Government Information Technical Officer (GITO), responded to the concerns of the Integrated Inmate Management Systems (IIMS). The Department did not achieve the targets that were set. When the Department was on a site for deployment there were several processes that needed to be undertaken. The deployment for solutions was a DCS responsibility and not the service provider’s responsibility. The issues of change management and transformation of each centre to adopt the system was key. During that period the users were still adopting to the new way of doing things. That was why the Department started at the big centres so that the smaller centres can learn how to adopt the system. Just before the lockdown the Department had 10 resources which was in the Eastern Cape, Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal to deploy the system. Due to the limitation of the lockdown notices were given to vacate before 23 March. It was before the Department had time to close the old system. The Department had to vacate the sites and come back to Gauteng. During level three when some restrictions were lifted resources did go back to finalise some of the sites. The Eastern Cape was finalised. The Western Cape and Gauteng centres were being worked on. Internal capacity was key. The Department needed to reduce its dependency on external capacity. The Department needed permanent structures to be able to maintain and support the systems that were deployed. This was key for the transformation of the Department.

Ms Cynthia Ramulifho, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Remand Detention, DCS, responded to the questions concerning children in correctional services. The total number of children were 88. There were 51 remandees and 37 sentenced. She then listed the programmes offered to sentenced children that were run through the social work services. These included sexual offender treatment, life skills, anger management, trauma support services and many others. She highlighted that the Department had not developed programmes for the remandees.

Dr Minette Plaatjies, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Personal Development, DCS, responded to the questions relating to rehabilitation. The Department has 406 people who will sit for the matric examinations. There are 164 full-time students. These are students that are registered for 7 subjects. There are 242 students who have completed two or three subjects before and have been allowed to complete the rest of their outstanding subjects to complete their grade 12. The Department shared the concern of the Committee that there were only 17 children in formal education. There were several reasons why not all of the children were at school at any given time. When people are sentenced it can happen at any time of the year. If the Department received children in their facilities late in the academic year it was then difficult to involve them in formal education. DCS worked according to the systems of the Department of Basic Education. There was a requirement for the children to be assessed and then be allowed to enter a certain grade. When children come after June it would be difficult for the Department to allow them into the current academic year. There was also the fact that some children have been out of school for several years before they come to the correctional facilities. Those children might say that they have been in grade five but when they are tested in line with the Department of Basic Education they were not at a grade five level. The Department would then need to contact the school and receive proof of the grade they were in. If the children did not pass the initial assessment test they were not allowed into that grade. There were also remand detainee children. It was difficult to involve them in formal education because the academic year was a full year. The Department does not know how long they would stay in the correctional facilities. Some of them stay for a few weeks or a few months. Those children were involved in life skills, sport and arts and culture programmes that were offered. The children therefore do not just sit idle but it was difficult to involve them in the formal academic year. The children would be motivated to start the new academic year in January because the Department would be concerned if they were not in school.

She then discussed the issue of spiritual care. The Department made use of external service providers. The Department did not have the facilities for online services except for some churches that have an MoU with correctional facilities. For example, there was a church in Bloemfontein that provided DCS with connectivity for their church services. In some big centres online services continued but it was difficult for other services. The one-on-one sessions with the spiritual care workers in DCS continued a limited scale because of the lockdown level requirements. The Department was not yet geared to go into online church services.

She then responded to the question on offender labour. The Correctional Services Act indicates that the Department must initially assess all the sentenced offenders. The Act makes provisions for offenders to perform any labour which was related to development programmes. The offenders were not working as slaves but rather the work was used to develop the offenders. There were two categories of offender labour. The one category was when offenders would clean correctional facilities. The offenders were given a gratuity which was determined by the guidelines from National Treasury and approved by the National Commissioner on an annual basis. The other offenders who work were also in line with the Act and regulations that states that sufficient work must be provided to keep sentence offenders active for a normal working day. The offenders may be compelled to do such work if it was related to their development. The Department wanted to provide such offenders with skills so that they can eventually be employed in society. The Case Management Committee selects offenders and assign them to work opportunities. That happens in production workshop and agriculture. Offenders also work on farms. On average there were 3000 per day working on farms. There were more offenders working on farms before Covid. In the other work areas there were on average 1500 working per day. The idea is for that work to be linked to formal skills development programmes. Eventually the Department wanted all offenders that were working sot be linked to a formal skill so that when offenders leave the facilities they have a qualification to either work in the formal sector or to start their own employment. Children were excluded from formal work unless it was something they needed to do if there was a development opportunity. The Department did not achieve targets for long skills and TVET colleges. These formal training skills are facilitated by external trainers. The external providers from 1 April were not allowed to enter correctional facilities. From 31 August the external providers have been allowed into correctional facilities under strict conditions. Before there may have been 20 offenders in one classroom and now only ten were allowed per classroom. In facilities where it was possible the Department has agreed to stagger the training so that a group of ten do practicals in the morning and then theory in the afternoon and vice versa. Arrangements have been made with individual correctional centres. That was part of the Department’s recovery plan. The Department of Higher Education and CETA was assisting with the training. There were certain requirements one of which was online training. The Department was making funding available so that some offenders can attend online classes.

Ms Anna Molepo, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Community Corrections, DCS, responded to the questions of monitoring of parolees and probationers during lockdown. The Covid-19 protocols were the main ones that assisted the Department to ensure that there was compliance with conditions. The parolees and probationers stayed at home and these were also limited movements between magisterial districts and across provinces. There was limited office visitations and limited physical monitoring. Those were the Covid-19 regulations that helped the Department achieve compliance with conditions. During lockdown the high-risk parolees and probationers were prioritised in collaboration with SAPS. The physical monitoring was only conducted with those high-risk offenders and permits were provided to the Department officials to conduct those visits. For medium and low risk offends monitoring was conducted through online and telephonic means. SMSs and emails were used where possible. 

Adv Patrick Mashibini, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Human Resources, DCS, responded to the question on the number of Covid cases in the Department during lockdown level one. He reported that the Department had about 4382 reported cases. There were 4210 recoveries and 69 deaths. There were currently 103 active cases. The recovery rate was 96.7%. and the death rate was 1.57%.

Adv Mashibini said that if the organisation was unable to deliver on the strategic objectives it would exacerbate the current challenges facing the Department. It would be appreciated if the Portfolio Committee could meet with the National Treasury to review their decision to implement this new system.

On vacancies, he said that the greatest challenge the Department faces, especially in terms of vacancies, was the ‘leaking bucket conundrum’. The total number of appointments during the previous financial year was around 1720 and the number of officials who left the organisation was 2765. That was a difference of above 1000. The presentation made mention of the ‘leaking bucket conundrum’. The Department was filling most of its post from the top down. Whenever an organisation filled higher posts first the people who are next in seniority are applying for the posts above. This happened all the way down until the lowest level. The Department had a strategic plan to mainly fill all the entry level posts. He gave the Committee an assurance that even though the it appeared that the vacancy rate was high the Department was still within the standards set by the Department of Public Service and Administration which was about a 10% vacancy rate. The Department had a vacancy rate at the end of the previous year of 9.4%.

A member of the DCS delegation spoke about mentally challenged inmates and the statistics of inmates with Covid. The Department had doctors within the facilities that worked together with nurses to administer anti-psychotic treatment or any mental health treatments that are necessary. Inmates are also offered support through psychologists and social workers. Inmates can also be referred to psychiatrists for another level of care after exhausting the standard treatment guidelines within the primary healthcare setting. If the inmate is still not controlled despite optimum treatment of a psychiatrist, then section 50 of the Mental Healthcare Act will be applied where the Department applies through the courts for the inmate to be placed in a mental healthcare institution. There were also those patients that have been declared as mentally ill within correctional facilities. DCS was working closely with the Department of Health to transfer those patients back to designated mental health institutions. Inmates that had been declared mentally ill were also kept in contact with a hospital. This allowed psychiatrists to monitor and treat the inmates. There were also those inmates who because of anxiety and environmental stressors developed mental illnesses. Those inmates were treated according to the standard treatment guidelines. She then responded to the question of Covid infections. The correctional facilities had been stable for some time but in the Western Cape the Department was seeing some cases going up. There were standard operating procedures that all facilities were aware of on how to manage those infections. About 80% of the patients were asymptomatic and were being treated within correctional services by isolated for ten days. The people the patients encountered were also monitored. The severe cases were moved to the Department of Health.

Mr Lucky Mthethwa, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Incarceration and Corrections, DCS, responded to the questions relating to the release of offenders under the special Covid-19 parole dispensation. To date the Department has released 12078. About 11361 females were released and 717 were males. He then provided the breakdown of offenders released per region. In the Eastern Cape 1190 offenders were released. In Gauteng 2568 offenders were released. In KwaZulu-Natal 1947 offenders were released. In the North West, Limpopo and Mpumalanga 2322 offenders were released. In the Free State and Northern Cape 1839 offenders were released. In the Western Cape 2212 offenders were released. There have been 75 rearrests. The rearrests were crimes comprised of mostly housebreaking and theft. There were challenges during this process that resulted in some delays. This included the reality of Covid-19 in the country. This resulted in some cases being placed on further profiles. The initial number announced by the Minister was 19000 but that number was reduced to 18066 after a purification exercise. There were 1500 offenders that have been placed on a further profile. There was also the suspension of some programmes due to Covid. This delayed the processes of the Department qualifying those inmates who would have qualified for the special parole dispensation. There was also the challenge of the taking of DNA tests by SAPS due to the shortage of testing kits. These challenges were addressed with SAPS and there has been an improvement in this regard. Some of the staff of the Department were also infected with Covid-19. This staff included the parole board and case management committees and this resulted in the Department having to delay the processes. There was also Home Affairs issues. The Department had to remove those inmates who qualified for the parole dispensation but were undocumented foreign nationals. That also delayed the process of release.

He then responded to the question relating to the high number of escapes during the first quarter. The Department confirmed that during the fourth quarter there were 12 escapes and during the first quarter there were 23 escapes. Covid-19 had contributed to the high number of escapes. There was a clear frustration observed among the inmates within correctional facilities and specifically among the remand detainees. This was due to the courts not functioning and being suspended. Visits, the selling of tobacco and offender labour programmes were suspended. This made the inmates unhappy. There was also the fear and reluctance among officials of being contaminated and hence searches among the inmate population could not be done appropriately. These all contributed to the number of escapes.

He then responded to the question relating to the increase of violence within correctional facilities. To deal with the issue the Department was reviewing its security operating procedures. The Department had an approach were once violent incident and escape was one incident too many. It was the Department’s responsibility to review all security operating procedures. This included the preparation for the festive period which would be started very soon.

In response to the question of unknown deaths, he said that in the Department’s report, which was audited, there were no unknown deaths.

He responded the question on the impact to date of the special parole dispensation. As of 20 May 2020, prior to the implementation of the special parole dispensation, the figure of total inmates was at 155069. As of 7 October 2020 the total figure of inmates was 138132 with a bed capacity of 12567. The Department has managed to reduce overcrowding by 16.21%. While the Department appreciated the reduction it needed to be noted that it was a temporary achievement. When SAPS emphasised on its projects of arresting this number will pick up quickly.

He then responded to the stabbing that happened in a Durban correctional facility. The investigation was immediately started and was still in the process of being finalised. A stress and risk assessment has been started to investigate what it is that resulted in the incident. The investigation will be finalised and submitted to the Department leadership on 15 October.

Mr Nicodemus Ligege, Chief Financial Officer, DCS, responded to the question on overspending on vehicles in the current financial year. The Department placed an order for vehicles in Mpumalanga and North West during the previous financial year but a portion of those vehicles were delivered towards the end of March. Some of the vehicles were received at the beginning of this financial year. That was why the payment fell into this financial year. When there was a delay from suppliers it created challenges for payments. He highlighted that the delay of payments at the beginning of the financial year was due to the financial system the Department used.

He then responded to the questions on delays in payment for municipal services. The Department had two methods to pay for municipal services. The DPWI was responsible for the payment to municipal services for most Departments. DPWI was in a transition of handing over the payment of municipal services to the respective Departments. The Department had already started taking over some of the payments and paid directly to the municipalities. Most payments were still made by DPWI. The Department received the main invoices from DPWI on 5 June and it was paid on 2 July which was within the 30-day period. The Department gave itself a 30-day verification period so that there were no errors. In most instances the delays were because of DPWI having to consolidate for the entire Department and then hand it over to the Department. The Department does pay the invoices within 30 days but it was received late in the quarter and was moved over to the next quarter.

He then discussed Covid-19 expenditure. The Covid expenditure of head office and the various regions were presented. At the beginning of the pandemic when the Department was preparing itself for the procurement of PPEs there was the challenge of deliveries. The Department would place orders and supplies indicated that they would deliver within two to three weeks. There was an intervention by head office to procure PPEs centrally and deliver them to the various management areas. The R26 million in expenditure was not only for items bought for head office. The items were bought centrally and redistributed nationally to assist where there were shortages at the various centres. This includes the procurement of isolation sites and equipment used in isolation sites.

He then responded to Mr Horn’s question about the cost of the Tzaneen correctional centre. The Tzaneen correctional centre has been completed and it is in operation. The cost of the facility was R334.5 million. The audit outcome was not yet ready – All the Departments had to submit financial by 31 July. The Department met the deadline, however, there was a delay in the finalisation of the audit due to the pandemic. The closure of offices due to Covid outbreaks delayed the handing over of financials to the auditors. The fact that there was only 50% of staff at officers and social distancing delayed the handing over of relevant information to the auditors. As a result of all this the date for sign off was extended to 30 October.

He then responded to Mr Dyantyi’s question on virements. The Department did make virements because of the need to support Covid-19 relief efforts. The Department could not do recruitment between lockdown level five and three. This meant that any budget that was set aside for certain positions would not be exhausted in that financial year. Virements were made within programmes. Because the 2020/2021 financial year was special because of Covid those virements were only once off. Going into the next financial year the Department would restore the baseline for the purpose of supporting operations and programmes of the Department.

He then discussed the investigations on irregular expenditure. Management has committed the conclude investigations and post-investigation processes of where disciplinary action needed to happen. The Department allocated teams to investigate irregular expenditure. 88% of the cases investigating irregular expenditure have been concluded. Wasteful expenditure has also been investigated. The Department was making sure that post-investigation processes like disciplinary action and liaisons with National Treasury were concluded soon. In an effort to combat irregular expenditure the Department has decentralised the process of investigations at the source of occurrence. The relevant managers now swiftly do the investigations and conclude consequence management.

Mr Arthur Fraser, National Commissioner, DCS, discussed the Tzaneen facility. The Department had established a task team to review the entire Tzaneen project so that the Department could learn from some of the faults that had been experienced. He indicated that the facility was functioning and that there were offenders within the facility. The facility was still in a period of testing before it was officially launched. By 15 November the facility would be ready to be launched. Tzaneen would also be used as a case study since it was a new generation facility. The Department wanted to maximise the capabilities of the facility.

He then discussed the matter of IIMS. It was a matter that challenged the Department. IIMS a system critical for the speedy digitisation of DCS and the Integrated Justice System process. He remarked that the service provider had challenged National Treasury in court on National Treasury’s recommendation to set aside the award of the contract. National Treasury then withdrew the instruction that it had given the Department to not award the contract.

He then discussed the consequence management for senior staff. The former National Commissioner had sanctioned all staff that were involved in that procurement process. All the senior staff have been given written warnings. It was clear that IIMS needed to roll out speedily and all aspects of the installation of the system needed to be concluded. A plan was in place to ensure the accelerated completion of the IIMS system. It was important to note that the quarter one performance report was based on the annual performance plan that was tabled on 5 May 2020. The performance report for quarter two to quarter four will be based on the revised annual performance plan that was re-tabled to the Committee on 9 July. This has been under the direction of the Committee leadership. He indicated that the Department remained challenged by the need to manage the balance of performance and reduce infections. The Department’s revised performance plan was there to accelerate and catch up based on their strategic framework.

He discussed the issue of JICS. The Department developed a draft document that was intended to create an assurance framework. The Department was in a process of engaging with JICS to get it to assist and be a part of the combined assurance model. The Department believed that if both institutions were part of that assurance model that there would be more consistency in reporting and how the institutions measure incidents. He noted that since the appointment of the new Justice the relationships between the two institutions had significantly improved.

He then discussed escapes. The Department was in the process of having a security workshop where all security-related incidents were assessed. The current operating procedures and strategies would be evaluated to see how and where the Department needed to amend. He agreed with the members that the Department needed to see how it would respond to security incidents.

He then responded to the question of corrupt officials. For the year 2020/2021 there have been 103 officials charged. Officials were charged at two levels. The one category was officials charged in relation to procurement and the other was related to smuggling of contraband. The Department was in the process of reviewing its vetting policy. The Department would engage the State Security Agency after reviewing the vetting policy. The Department believed that based on the nature of its work there was a requirement of the Department to look at an alternate measure or mechanism for integrity tests. These tests need to be more frequent, more random and adhoc to ensure that the Department was able to avert people falling through the cracks.

He discussed the matter of the procurement of PPEs. Around mid-June the Auditor General was asked to cast an eye on the procurement of PPEs during this Covid period. After that the Department received a whistleblowing report on the matter of procurement. The Department immediately corresponded with the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to investigate the whistleblowing report. The Department made all documents relating to supply chain management available to the SIU. The SIU was currently busy with their investigations. The Department appointed an independent chairperson for the risk-management committee. The Department thought that if it had this in conjunction with the audit committee it would be risk preventative. He then responded to the concerns relating to Mr Nxele in KwaZulu-Natal. There was a disciplinary hearing which was then converted into a pre-dismissal arbitration in terms of section 188(a) of the Labour Relations Act. The arbitration has been set down for 26 to 30 October and this was at the request of Mr Nxele. The disciplinary hearing was because of referrals that had come from the SIU. The outstanding matters would be answered in writing to the Committee.

Deputy Minister Holomisa requested the assistance of the Committee secretariat to indicate any questions that may have not been answered or properly answered so that the Department can provide the Committee with adequate answers. He noted that Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked a question on the virtual platform how many undocumented foreign nationals were in the correctional centres. The impact of their numbers, which seemed to be on the increase, on the resources was information that would be provided by the Department. Ms Newhoudt-Druchen also asked a question relating to the nurses that have been hired to deal with the onset of Covid-19. She wanted to know what would happen to the nurses once Covid-19 has passed? The Department would answer those questions. The Committee has justly reprimanded the Department for the failure to present Bills to Parliament on time. He noted that within the Executive there was a to-and-fro with submission relating to the Bill. Members did not understand the import of the Constitutional Court judgements until clarity was given and this resulted in the delay of the finalisation of that Bill. He had received the documentation related to the tabling of the Bill the previous day. The Bill should have by now reached the office of the Minister. The Department apologised for the delay because Parliament’s work must not be hampered. The Department took seriously the concern expressed by the Chairperson and other Committee members. The Ministry would do its best to meet the Parliamentary deadlines. It was hoped that the Department would continue learning lessons from its interaction with the Committee and improve on its performance

Mr Dyantyi said there were a few areas of homework for the Department to deal with. The next time the Committee met with the Department it will be as part of the annual report. The Committee wanted the Department to be very ready to present its annual report. In the next meeting the Committee would wanted to see whether there have been any improvements in the Department or if things have deteriorated. The Committee also wanted to see a proper audit committee report. The Committee would not entertain Adv Weapond representing a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the audit committee. He wanted the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson to be present in the meeting. That audit report would be compared to the Auditor General’s report as well as the management report of the Commissioner. Those three reports needed to be read in unison. The Committee also needed to see a recovery plan from the Department. After looking at quarter one and how the performance has been it was clear that a catch up was needed. The recovery plan needed to be workable and ready to be implemented at the beginning of the third quarter. The Committee looked forward to a detailed progress on the issues of irregularity. It was a serious matter.

He then highlighted the Department’s revenue collection. The Department under collected R14 million of revenue in quarter one. The Committee would pay particular attention to that matter. The Committee wanted to see an aggressive approach to revenue collection. A revenue recovery plan was going to be important.

He then commented on the DPWI. The work done with DPWI affects the infrastructure underperformance. The Department needed to indicate if it was able to improve its collaboration with the DPWI on the issue of infrastructure. The Committee has seen other Departments scaled down their reliance on DPWI because it has become this big challenge.

The Commissioner has highlighted the issue of the SIU progress report. The Committee was paying close attention to that investigative report on PPE procurement. He then raised the point of Covid expenditure. It was good to get the responses but the Committee might need even more detailed responses on that issue. The breakdowns must be able to correspond with the challenges of Covid-19 in the various regions. The Committee was also eager to get the Bill from the Department. The Committee was looking forward to the next meeting with the Department to follow up on all the issues discussed. After that meeting the Committee would know whether the Department was in a healthy or sick state.

The Chairperson said that if the Department was sick it would be dealt with decisively. The Committee will meet on Friday to receive a report from the South African Human Rights Commission and to deal with the letter from the President on the salary of the Deputy Public Protector.

The meeting was adjourned.