Report on Escape from 3 Prisons

The Chairperson, Mr D Mokoena, presented the report-back to the committee on the findings of the committee visits to the four prisons from which there have been escapes. (See appendix 1). After the report-back, there was a brief discussion.

Discussion
Adv H Schmidt (DP): Of all these visit we only knew about one. We should have been part and parcel of all that has been done including the writing up of the reports. We should be informed of what is happening in the committee.
Response: There are two ways of informing members about committee activities. The first one is by means of writing letters to them. The second way is by means of an order paper. There is a procedure in this Parliament. At one stage you called for me to resign and, I am going to direct you to your Chief Whip to advise you on how you should deal with that matter procedurally and advise you on the general procedure in Parliament.

Advocate H Schmidt (DP): Chair, since you are so much aware of procedure I think you must lead by example and inform us about what is going on in this committee including the visits.
Response: I explained at length how the visits came about.

Adv H Schmidt (DP): Chair the explanation was very unsatisfactory.
Response: I went out of my way to accommodate your party. I asked that someone must be sent to come with us.

Ms S Seaton (IFP): I support you Chair. Your visits were perfectly in order. If there is an emergency we do not expect you to run around informing the committee members but you must just act. You are the chairperson here!
Response: Thank you very much Ms Seaton; it is a very good point that you are making.

Mr Pretorius (NNP): It is alarming that the security measures in our prisons are so weak. This is very alarming; we should hold a meeting to discuss this issue

Mr N Fihla (ANC): The problem of overcrowding in our prisons has been mentioned. There will always be escapes when there is overcrowding. It is a problem we need to solve. As justice is tightening up and clamping down on crime, this means prisons will always be full. I think a system has to be developed by which those prisoners who have committed lighter offences should be made eligible for correctional supervision. We are saying, therefore, that since there is co-ordination between justice and correctional services and so on, the question of correctional supervision needs to be addressed.

Ms N Sigabi (DP): I am confining myself to the Pietermaritzburg Prison report which concisely reports what happened. We need to discuss how we tighten security. It was proven beyond doubt that the escape was an inside job. A warder on duty should have been aware of the drilling noise.

Ms J Sosibo (ANC): What I wish to know is what happened to the prisoner referred to in the Rooigrond Prison
Response: The prisoner is back in jail. He was re-arrested.

Ms S Rajbally (Minority Front): Thank you for the report. I think an in-depth investigation needs to be done. If it was not for your report we would not have known what had happened in those prisons.

Mr K Moeketse (ANC): I think there is a collaboration between prisoners and officials. How did the prisoners at Matetema Police Station know that the ideal night for escape was when one policeman was on duty?

The Chairperson concluded that the issues surrounding these escapes are not far from being resolved. Aiding and abetting prison escapes must be stamped out.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix 1
PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES


DATE: The visit took place on Wednesday the 22nd of September 1999.

VENUE: New Pietermaritzburg Prison, Pietermaritzburg, Kwazulu-Natal

TIME: Departed from Cape Town on the 9:15 flight to Durban and hired a car to drive to Pietermaritzburg. Arrived in Pietermaritzburg at 1p.m. Due to extended interviews at the prison, the delegation missed their return flight home and booked into a hotel overnight. Returned to Cape Town on the morning of the 23 September 1999.

CONTACT: T 0331 8455500; F 0331 940420

NOTICE:
A radio news bulletin alerted members of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services about the escape of twenty-one (21) dangerous awaiting-trial prisoners from the New Pietermaritzburg Prison. Authorization was acquired by the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee from the Chief Whip to send a delegation to Pietermaritzburg to investigate the escape. This is part of the oversight function of Members of Parliament.

DELEGATION:
Mr. Aubrey Mokoena (Chairperson)
Mr. Dennis Bloem (ANC)
Ms. Bathabele Dlamini (ANC)
Mr. Meshack Moeketse (ANC)
Ms. Segabi (DP)
MT. Johan Durand (NP)

MET WITH:
Mr Ndlovu: Head of the New Pietermaritzburg Prison, Mr. Jaques Jordaan: Provincial Commissioner; Kwazulu -Natal.

COST: Overnight Accommodation R750
Authorisation is required for Ms. Segabi from the Chief Whip due to late notice of inclusion in the delegation.

A. MEANS OF ESCAPE
1. The delegation was received at the office of the Head of the Prison and taken to the site of the crime. The details of the crime were as follows:
1.1. The cell was situated in F Section. Construction work was taking place next to the cell.
1.2. The cell accommodates forty-three (43) people. Twenty-one (21) of these prisoners escaped and twenty-two (22) remained behind.
1.3. These were all awaiting-trial prisoners.
2. The delegation interviewed most of the twenty-two (22) remaining prisoners. The following information was received:
2.1. On the Friday of the 17th September 1999, the prisoners were locked into the cell at 2:30 p.m. as usual.
2.2. At 10 p.m. one of the prisoners announced that they should all go to bed and the bulb was loosened above to ensure darkness,
2.3. Soon afterwards prisoners state that they heard the sound of an electric drill. The sound appeared to come from inside the cell.
2.4. These noises were followed by the sound of footsteps of prisoners jumping from the cell to the outside.
2.5. Those who remained behind, state that they decided to remain for a
number of reasons including:
- that they were innocent and thus did not want to jeopardize their
chances of freedom by escaping.
- They were charged with only a few offences and did not want to
exacerbate these charges.
2.6. The hole from which the 21 prisoners escaped was approximately 1 foot by 18 inches.
2.7. A plug in the cell surrounded by live wires was used to connect the angle grinder to a power source.

B. OBSERVATIONS
1. The delegation also held discussions with a number of warders. They received the following information.
1.1 The prison is overcrowded. The prison is designed to hold 680 prisoners but at present holds 1 600 prisoners.
1.2. The warders feel that they are understaffed to deal with the large amount of prisoners. Warders do not report on duty when they should do so. There is low morale amongst the warders at the prison. A media interview was held at the prison.
3. The delegation planned to meet with representatives of the construction company concerned, but due to time constraints was unable to do so
4. The construction work at the prison had compromised security. In terms of the nature of the prison establishment stricter controls should have been put in place during construction.
5. There is an inevitable perception that this was an inside job as there is prima facie evidence that the escape was planned and conducted from inside the prison.
6. The delegation is unable to speculate about who collaborated on the aiding and abetting of the escapes.
7 Security is lax and discipline amongst warders is lacking. For example, prisoners were seen to be walking freely around the prison without the accompany of a warder.
8. The prison is visibly dirty and unhygienic.
9. No proper records are kept at the prison. It took two (2) days for the prison administration to identify the names of the prisoners who had escaped.

C. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW UP
1. It would be preferable in future to meet with prisoners individually, rather than in group as it is possible that they would be more with Members in the absence of other prisoners.
2.The delegation requested that warders write a memo outlining their grievances and fax this to the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services. This should be done with the approval of the Provincial Commissioner for Kwazulu-Natal.
3.The delegation requested that the Department of Correctional Services forward a report to a Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services on the incident and the internal investigation thereof.
4. The delegation requested that the South African Police Services (SAPS) forward a report to Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services on the incident and the external investigation thereof.
5 The delegation undertook to revisit this prison as a matter of urgency, with the
objective of following up on a number of grievances which were highlighted by
warders and prisoners during this initial visit.
6.It was brought to the attention of the delegation by Mr. Zulu (Head of Security in
the Provincial Office) that there were similar problems in Westville Prison which is in
the same area. A list of these grievances will be sent to the Portfolio Committee on
Correctional Services. The Portfolio Committee will visit Westville Prison when the
Pietermaritzburg Prison is revisited.

Note: It is public knowledge that three (3) of the escaped Prisoners have been arrested.

REPORT 2. VISIT TO ROOIGROND PRISON: ESCAPE
DATE: The visit took place on Wednesday the 29th of September 1999.

VENUE: Rooigrond Prison, near Mafikeng

TIME: The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services arrived at 3 p.m. at the prison and remained overnight in order to meet with the Provincial Commissioner of North West Province on the 30 3eptember1999.

CONTACT: T: 0186450658
F: 0186450763

NOTICE: A Sunday newspaper report on the 26th of September 1999,
alerted the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services to the fact that the head of Rooigrond Prison and a junior warder had aided and abetted in the escape of a prisoner from
Rooigrond Prison. A trip was organized to investigate this incident in more detail.

DELEGATION: Mr. Aubrey Mokoena (Chairperson)

MET WITH: Mr. David Mkhonazi: Acting Head of Rooigrond Prison; Mr. Barry Eksteen: Area Head; Ms. Lunga Tseane: Provincial Commissioner for North West Province

COST: Overnight Accommodation for one person: R350; Car allowance

A. MEANS OF ESCAPE
1. The warder, Mr. Motsomi, allegedly drove with the prisoner to the security guard at the gate of the prison and stated that he was taking the prisoner, Mr. Ramorafe, to the Autobank in order to withdraw money. He would return the prisoner back to the prison after this task had been completed.
2. The prisoner did not return to the prison.
3. One week later the prisoner phoned the prison to state that he would be back in a few days time.
4. Both the Head of the Prison and the warder, have been suspended.

B. OBSERVATIONS
1. The Provincial Commissioner confirmed this report. She highlighted a number of other problems in the prison including (1) overcrowding and (2) staff shortages.
2. It was felt by the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services that the prisoner needed to locate himself outside the prison for a period of time in order to organize gang activities. In order to ensure that his return was peaceful it was necessary for the prisoner to corrupt a warder who would thus ensure that it was possible for the prisoner both to leave and return to the prison without being harmed.
3. It was recognised that the role of the Head of the Prison in abetting this escape is merely the tip of the iceberg. It has been found in subsequent investigations that the Head of the Prison has been involved in numerous other misdemeanors including aiding in other escapes. The Head of the Prison is now subject to a thorough investigation.
4. The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services visited the major sections of the prisons including the maximum security section. They also met with the district surgeon, Dr. Scott. It was noted with concern, that because the district surgeons fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health, they are not accountable to anyone within the prison. There is no reporting mechanism whereby the district surgeon channels information on his cases to the prison authorities.

C. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOVJ UP
Mr. Mokoena requested that a report on the incident be forwarded to the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services.

REPORT 3. VISIT TO LEEUHOF PRISON: VEREENIGING
DATE: The visit took place on Thursday, the 7th October 1999.

VENUE: Leeuhof Prison, Vereeniging.

TIME: Arrived at the prison at 12:30 p.m. and left at approximately 3 p.m.

CONTACT: T: 061 4511051; F: 061 4511055

NOTICE: Part of routine constituency work.

DELEGATION:
Mr. Aubrey Mokoena (Chairperson: Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services), MPs from other Committees and members of community structures in the Vaal.
MET WITH: Mr. Mahlathi: Head of Leeuhof Prison; Mr. John Verster: Head of Logistics; Mr. Dlamini: Head of Resource Management

COST: None

A. OBSERVATIONS
A number of problems were identified in the prison. These include:
1. Overcrowding. The approved population for this prison is seven hundred (700) prisoners, yet the prison holds at present one thousand nine hundred (1 900) prisoners.
2. There is an extremely high prisoner: warder ratio of 136:1. The national average is 4:1
3. The visitors cubicle is inadequate as it only holds ten (10) people at a time.
4. However, it was noted that despite this high prisoner: warder ratio, only two escapes have occurred in this prison over the last three (3) years.
5. The prison is clean.
6. The fact that the prison manages to run effectively with this high prisoner:
warder ratio may be ascribed to the good relationship between warders and prisoners. There seems to be little evidence of antagonism between the two groups.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW UP
The prison will be revisited by a contingent from the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services.

REPORT 4: VISIT TO MOTETEMA POLICE STATION: OUTSIDE GROBELAARSDAL
DATE: The visit took place on Friday, the 8th October 1999.

VENUE: Motetema PoliceStation, outside Grobelaarsdal.

TIME: Arrived at the police station at 11a.m

CONTACT: T 013 2690028/9

NOTICE: On Monday, the 4th October 1999, a press alert was made stating that thirteen (13) awaiting-trial prisoners had tunneled their way out of a police station cell and were still at large.

DELEGATION:
Mr. Aubrey Mokoena ( Chairperson: Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services)
MET WITH: Sergeant Malaka: Officer on duty at time of the escape. Inspector Nkgadima

COST: Car allowance

A. MEANS OF ESCAPE
1. Thirteen (13) dangerous awaiting trial prisoners used a stay of a wire fence (a sharp pointed piece of steel about 30 cm long), to chisel their way through a wall in the police station cell and escaped.
2. This occurred during the night of Saturday, the 2nd October 1999.
3. All of the escapees are still at large.

B. OBSERVATIONS
1. Only one police officer was on duty instead of the usual complement of four (4). The other three (3) officers did riot arrive on duty.
2. The jail break was camouflaged by loud singing by the prisoners. This gave the impression that the prisoners were happy and not up to any mischief, but was obviously done as a decoy.
3. Security is lacking at the police station. The distance between the outer wall and the fence is only about eight (8) meters to the street.
4. A hole of about 35cm by 20cm was drilled in the wall in the form of a half moon directly under the lintel.

C. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW LIP
1. An investigation by the South African Police Service (SAPS) is in progress. Mr. Mokoena requested them to furnish a report to the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services.
2. It is clear that this issue falls under the jurisdiction of Safety and Security and not Correctional Services but this was only ascertained once Mr. Mokoena had already reached the police station.
REPORT 1. VISIT TO THE NEW PIETERMARITZBURG PRISON: ESCAPE