Draft White Paper on Corrections in South Africa: hearings

Correctional Services

04 February 2004
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE


4 February 2004
DRAFT WHITE PAPER ON CORRECTIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA: HEARINGS

Chairperson:
Mr. J N Mashimbye

Documents handed out:

Draft White Paper on Corrections in South Africa
Centre for Conflict Resolution submission
South African Catholic Bishops Conference submission
Kensani Corrections Management submission
Lawyers for Human Rights submission
Prisoner P Khumalo submission

SUMMARY
The Centre for Conflict Resolution outlined research and potential solutions to the dilemmas surrounding the issue of inmate mothers and their children. Also presenting were the South African Catholic Bishops Conference, Kensani Corrections Management, Lawyers for Human Rights, and Prisoner P Khumalo. Concerns about an effective Implementation Plan addressing budgetary concerns was again a focus. Also highlighted were the pressing concerns of Awaiting Trial Prisoners, health, overcrowding, old infrastructure, inmate program development and evaluation, and human resource development. It was submitted by a prisoner currently serving time that the Department needed to create an environment that was conducive to prisoners making the voluntary choice to opt for rehabilitation.

MINUTES
The Chair opened the Meeting by saying that the previous day had ended on a high note. Rather than summarise the previous day's proceedings he preferred to get straight to business, as time was limited.

Centre for Conflict Resolution
Emphasis was placed on issues affecting women prisoners, particularly those with children. It was recommended that the trials of female offenders with children be expedited. Childcare facilities were deemed necessary for the children of those inmates who chose to participate in rehabilitation programs. It was suggested that Mother and Child Units be limited in the number of mothers and children that inhabited them, while Unit staff be appropriately trained in childcare, growth, and development. It was argued that pregnant inmates be allowed to give birth in civilian hospitals and that crèche facilities be built outside the prison walls. With the continued development of Correctional Services, inmates with children would ideally be placed in transitional centres or halfway houses instead of in prisons (See submission for further details)

The Chair thanked Ms. D Alley for suggesting concrete solutions to the problems confronting the Department. He stated that he was proud to be a South African and discuss issues of such importance. He noted that the way in which society treats its prisoners is a reflection of society itself. While he admitted the Department was far from realising Ms. Alley's recommendations, the very fact that such recommendations were being discussed indicated that South Africa was a healthy society headed in the right direction. The Chair conceded that prisons were not the appropriate place for children and, therefore, creative solutions were needed to rectify the problem.

Ms. J Schreiner (Chief Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Correctional Services) noted that the research cited in Ms. Alley's report was invaluable in highlighting the various dilemmas surrounding the issue of inmate mothers and their children. She asserted that the best interest of the child should be of foremost concern. Thus, it was necessary to determine, on an individual case basis, whether it was best for the child to remain in prison with his mother or to live outside of prison in an alternative family environment. Ms. Schreiner admitted that it was ideal for mothers to avoid incarceration, although this was unlikely for anything other than petty crime. She observed that while crèches and Mother/Child Units provided a normalising effect they hardly resolved the problem of ¨at risk children.¨

Mr D Bloem (ANC) expressed his support for Ms. Alley's proposals and pointed out that this was an extremely difficult and sensitive topic.

The Chair was of the opinion that the debate needed to include all South Africans, and not just the Criminal Justice System.

Ms. Alley reiterated that such problems posed enormous challenges for the Department and all others involved in the corrections process. Rather than feeling overwhelmed, she urged the Department to focus on implementing practical ¨baby steps,¨ since even small changes had positive normalising effects.

The Chair questioned whether there was a particularly good international model that South Africa could look to for solutions to such problems.

Ms. Alley felt that her own research, along with that done in England, provided the best solutions.

The Chair urged the Centre for Conflict Resolution to assist the Department in designing implementation strategies.

South African Catholic Bishops Conference
The South African Catholic Bishops' Conference supported the White Paper's statements concerning community service, restorative justice, opportunities for education and productive work, and special category offenders. Concern was expressed with the White Paper's budgetary implications and the issues surrounding sentences imposed by the Courts, Awaiting Trial Prisoners, prison gangs, and building more C-Max facilities. The South African Catholic Bishops' Conference expressed its willingness to aid the Department in the implementation of the ¨pro-active and constructive¨ policies outlined in the White Paper. Father Peter-John Pearson and Adv. Mike Pothier presented the submission. (See attached submission for further details)

The Chair recognised that many of the submissions from the previous day had also raised concerns about the implementation of the recommendations made in the White Paper. He mentioned that he had instructed the Department to produce an Implementation Plan, which would be essential to addressing budgetary concerns. The Chair invited all those in attendance to join the Committee in discussing the Plan once it was drafted.

Mr G Oosthuizen (ANC) asserted that trading skills with the Private Sector should be viewed as an opportunity, rather than a challenge. He addressed the concern that Adv. Pothier had raised regarding the building of additional C-Max facilities. He claimed that it was Government's responsibility to create humane incarceration facilities. Unfortunately, many of the institutions that the Government inherited from the Apartheid era were not up to standards and, therefore, it was of primary concern to bring such facilities up to current standards.

Ms. Schreiner referred to the issue that had been raised concerning Awaiting Trial Prisoners. She said it was extremely important for the Integrated Justice System to determine which Department dealt with Awaiting Trial Prisoners. She felt that Awaiting Trial Prisoners were best dealt with by the Department of Justice, rather than by the police or the Department of Corrections. Addressing the issue of C-Max facilities, Ms. Schreiner said that the Department had no intention to build additional C-Max prisons. She assured the Committee that the new generation of high-security prisons were just as secure as C-Max prisons, but much more humane.

Mr Bloem was glad that Adv. Pothier had raised the issue of restorative justice. He felt that the Church's assistance would be crucial if the Department were to make this goal a reality. He questioned what the Church was doing to aid in the realisation of restorative justice, as it was more constructive to assist than to criticise.

The Chair asked Ms. Schreiner about the appropriateness of placing prisoners who had shown no willingness to reform in C-Max facilities. He was of the opinion that some C-Max prisons were necessary for those ¨monsters¨ occasionally produced by society.

Father Pearson argued that it was necessary to have faith in a person's ability to change for the better. Restorative justice was essential for providing both prisoners and communities with the hope for positive constructive change. He expressed his understanding of the need for high-security prisons, while urging that such facilities also be places for humane rehabilitation. Father Pearson mentioned that the Church had started sending Chaplains into prisons as part of the restorative justice process. The Church had also established a structured support system in which Chaplains worked with the families of inmates and released ex-offenders. He noted that it was now common practise for Chaplains' training to include issues relating to imprisonment. He invited the Committee to meet with the Bishops' Conference in a roundtable to further discuss issues addressed in the White Paper.

The Chair thanked Father Pearson for his invitation. He mentioned that the Commission on Gender Equality had chosen not to make a presentation in front of the Committee, but had submitted a written statement instead.

Kensani Corrections Management
Ms. G Mosheou presented the submission Ways in which the White Paper could be condensed and made more readable were suggested. Repetitions, omissions, and confusing statements were pointed out. It was argued that the most pressing concerns were those of Awaiting Trial Prisoners, health, overcrowding, old infrastructure, inmate program development and evaluation, and human resource development. Since it was impossible for Government to provide all necessary intervention measures, NGOs and the Private Sector needed to be actively involved in addressing the challenges facing the Correctional System. (See submission for further details)
.

Mr Oosthuizen temporarily took over the role of Chairperson. He asked if Members had any comments.

 

Mr Bloem mentioned that the submission was very straightforward and there were no further comments.

Lawyers for Human Rights:
Ms. K Ramjathan presented the submission. Concern was expressed about the way in which illegal immigrants awaiting deportation were dealt with. It was inappropriate to deal with undocumented migrants in the same way as the criminally accused and/or convicted since such persons did not pose a threat to South African society. Of particular concern were prolonged detention periods and detention in police cells and prisons. It was recommended that the Judicial Inspectorate for Prisons be responsible for monitoring places of administrative detention, as the Department of Home Affairs was lacking in the necessary expertise. It was also suggested that foreigners be considered for a parole period after having served their sentences, rather than simply being handed over to Home Affairs for deportation. It was stressed that the rights and values underpinning the White Paper, and the human rights protected by the Constitution, needed to be extended to persons under immigration detention. In terms of South African prisoners, the impact of serving a sentence far from one's community deserved consideration, as did the treatment of Awaiting Trial Prisoners. (See attached submission for further details)

Mr Bloem commented that illegal immigrants were best dealt with by Home Affairs, as they were not the responsibility of Correctional Services. He asked if the transfer of inmates to prisons further from their communities was a problem associated with overcrowding.

Mr L Diale (ANC) mentioned that Awaiting Trial Prisoners should not stay in prison for long periods before going to trial.

Ms. Schreiner thought that the Department's mandate could be expanded to create a facility specifically for illegal immigrants, although correctional facilities as such were not the best place for these individuals. It was necessary to address the gap between the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Correctional Services. Ms. Schreiner also noted that the prison system had not been designed so that inmates could be close to their families.

In reply to Mr Oosthuizen asking for her response, Ms. Ramjathan conceded that it was the responsibility of Home Affairs to deal with illegal immigrants. She reiterated that her concern was that no one oversaw the treatment of detained illegal immigrants and that there was nothing being done to create an Investigation Inspectorate. She agreed with Mr Bloem that the transfer of inmates to prisons further from their home communities was often a result of overcrowding.

Mr Bloem asked if Ms. Ramjathan felt that illegal immigrants were the responsibility of Correctional Services.

Ms. Ramjathan said that illegal immigrants were not the responsibility of Correctional Services. She understood that the Judicial Inspectorate was responsible for monitoring correctional facilities and was thus requesting that the mandate be extended to include places of administrative detention.

Mr Dyani believed that extension of the mandate would fall under the powers of the Presidency since Judge Fagan answered to the President.

Mr Oosthuizen noted that prior to 1994 there were very few illegal immigrants in the country and thus, there was a lack of adequate infrastructure to deal with issues relating to undocumented migrants. He then asked The Chair to resume his position.

The Chair recognized that the Committee had been joined by Commissioner L Mti (Department of Correctional Services). He provided a brief summary of the proceedings of the previous day. He thanked Ms. Ramjathan for her presentation and acknowledged the important role that Lawyers for Human Rights played in society. He noted that the South African Prisoners' Organisation for Human Rights had not come.

Prisoner P Khumalo
Mr G Maseko presented Prisoner P Khumalo's submission who could not speak on his own behalf given that he was incarcerated. Mr Khumalo expressed his desire to highlight problems within the Correctional System that were not necessary obvious to those on the ¨outside.¨ He asserted that correction was a social responsibility and that, unfortunately, most prisons were more a university of crime than they were a correctional facility. While policies were flawless on paper they often left much to be desired in practise, as the lack of concrete measures for implementation left aims unmet or serving unintended and often, unwanted, purposes. Mr Khumalo commended the emphasis on restorative justice but stressed that it was unachievable at present, given the current stigmatization of prisoners. He argued that Unit Management should only be implemented after the problem of overcrowding had been resolved. The corruption of the Parole Board and Institutional Committee was also addressed.

The Chair noted that the Committee had listened to businessmen, lawyers, Members of Parliament, NGOs, religious community leaders, and even prisoners. In his opinion, that was the essence of Democracy. He expressed his desire to create a Correctional Services that was compatible with a democratic society. He commended Mr Maseko and Mr Khumalo on their straightforward presentation and acknowledged the numerous other submissions that he had received from prisoners. The Chair felt it was important that individuals understand their right to participate in the democratic process and was pleased with number of organisations representative of South African society had chosen to exercise this right by attending the Public Hearing.

Mr Bloem commended Mr Maseko on his presentation. He referred to Mr Khumalo's contention that prisoners could not be forced to be rehabilitated. If this was the case, he wanted to know what alternatives existed.

Mr Maseko stated that prisoners should be allowed to make choices concerning their own lives. The Department, therefore, needed to create an environment that was conducive to making good choices. This, however, was not to say that the Department needed to be passive. Mr Maseko reiterated the fact that Mr Khumalo was an intelligent person who was contributing positively to the prison community. He noted that his own transformation (during his incarceration) had also been voluntary. He argued that prison officials ordered prisoners around too often. However, coerced change was never permanent change, as only voluntary change had lasting effects. Therefore, Mr Maseko urged Government to focus on creating an environment favourable to voluntary change.

The Chair asked Mr Maseko to convey his thanks to Mr Khumalo. He then asked those who had attended to make their final remarks.

Mr Venter (Bloemfontein Correctional Contracts) said that the submissions had been very informative and that he had learned a great deal from all of them. He acknowledged the good work that the Department had done over the last ten years.

Professor Luyt (UNISA) urged the Department to consider various low cost measures that could be used to create a positive environment for inmates' children. He conveyed his support for restorative justice and suggested that new ways of referring to prisoners be adopted to decrease stigmatization. He also stressed that there were a number of inmates who were beyond rehabilitation and, therefore, the Department should focus attention on those inmates that could still be rehabilitated.

Mr Korabie said that the course of the Hearings had made him proud to be a South African.

Ms. Moshoeu stated that it was important to educate the public on issues concerning the Corrections System.

Mr M Sekhonyane (Institute for Security Studies) agreed that corrections were not the sole responsibility of Correctional Services.

Mr C Giffard (Centre for Conflict Resolution) was pleased with the dialogue that had occurred between the Department and stakeholders.

Ms. Alley thanked the Chair for his invitation to participate in the implementation of the strategic objectives addressed in the White Paper.

Mr T Parker (Bloemfontein Correctional Contracts) felt that the Hearings had been a good experience for all those involved. He said he had enjoyed the probing questions that had been raised. He looked forward to being involved in the implementation process and to a continued partnership with the Department.

Commissioner Mti thanked the Portfolio Committee and attending members of society. He said that the issues that had been discussed would find their way into the White Paper and/or subordinate policies. He noted the importance of allowing stakeholders to contribute to the implementation process and expressed his appreciation of the partnership that had been formed between the Department and stakeholders. He apologised for not having attended the Hearings in their entirety.

Ms. Schreiner stated that the Department would take into consideration the comments that had been made during the editing of the White Paper. She noted that many of the suggestions would be part of the implementation process and subordinate policies. She agreed with Commissioner Mti on the importance of the continued partnership between the Department and stakeholders.

Professor Luyt thanked the Department for their good work and the Ministry, Portfolio Committee, and stakeholders for their participation in the Hearings.

The Chair hoped that there would be no ¨hurt feelings¨ if all of the recommendations did not find their way into the final draft of the White Paper. He confirmed Commissioner Mti's statement that input from all aspects of society was needed in the implementation process. He recognised that the last ten years had gone by quickly and that what had been done in the past could not be undone ¨overnight.¨ Nevertheless, the White Paper was one step in the right direction. He assured all those attending that their contributions would seriously be taken into consideration and many would be used to enrich the White Paper.

The Meeting was adjourned.
 

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: