Repeal of the Transkeian Panel Code Bill: Committee Report; Bail Fund Feasibility Report; Roll-out and Implementation of e-corrections system

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Constitutional Development

17 February 2023
Chairperson: Mr G Magwanishe (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Table Committee Reports

The Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) briefed the Committee on the bail fund feasibility report. The aim of the fund was to tackle overcrowded prisons and assist financially disadvantaged detainees who can't afford bail. JICS argued that it is wrong to free those who have the money to pay bail, whereas those who simply from poverty cannot pay bail remain in what we all know sadly are very adverse conditions. The entity informed Members that they and other stakeholders will be consulted as part of the feasibility study. Members welcomed the initiative particularly considering the fact that the target audience is remand detainees that are not a danger to society but are prisoners of poverty that are costing the state more money to keep them in remand. The Committee would get an update on the study in June.

The Department of Correctional Services provided the Committee with an update on the automation of the JICS Mandatory Reporting by Heads of Correctional centres, the system utilisation reports since inception of the system, the rollout and number of correctional centres actively utilising the system, and the number of officials receiving automated notifications for every incident reporting. Members asked about the inner workings of this system, when this system will be rolled out to all correctional services facilities, who will have access to this system, and whether the Department has people who are able to work on these systems daily and have technical know-how on how these systems work. Given that the Department is a highly securitised environment, it was suggested that the Committee conducts a closed meeting at one of the facilities to learn about the system operated by the Department.

The Committee also considered and adopted its report on the Repeal of the Transkeian Panel Code Bill. The Bill was adopted in the previous meeting.

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the meeting and turned to the first agenda item.

Committee Report on the Repeal of the Transkeian Panel Code Bill

The Chairperson went page to page to consider whether there were any corrections that should be made to the report. There were no corrections.

The Chairperson requested a mover for the adoption of the report. Mr J Engelbrecht (DA) moved for the adoption of the report.

This was seconded by Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC).

The report was adopted.

Read Report: ATC230217: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services on the Repeal of Transkeian Penal Code Bill [B 34 - 2022] (National Assembly – section 75), dated 17 February 2023

The Committee agreed to have a declaration on the Bill as there was unanimous agreement to it.

The Chairperson indicated that the Bill would be debated in the House next week or the week thereafter. He thanked Members for working together to repeal this bill that was an anomaly.so that there was one law governing the whole republic.

Briefing by the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) on the Bail Fund Feasibility Report

The Chairperson recalled that there been had a workshop where Judge Cameron had presented this matter. That workshop was not a “talkshow” and the Committee thought it should keep tabs on the progress that is being made to ensure something is being done. That is why the Committee asked for this short briefing to check what is being idea about the idea that was mooted at the workshop is being worked on.

Judge Edwin Cameron, Inspecting Judge, JICS, began by stating that Deputy Minister Patekile Holomisa has taken great interest in the idea of a bail fund. He called for all the documents and they had a long conversation where he raised salient points. At this point, they were busy with a feasibility study.

He stated that the bail fund operates from the premise that persons judged eligible for release on bail should not be deprived of their liberty purely because they cannot afford bail. He emphasised that people who are doing the feasibility study are going to all the members of the Committee and other stakeholders for submissions.

He highlighted that South Africa has the highest number of incarcerated persons on the continent. 50 000 of the 150 000 detainees are awaiting trial.

JICS’s interest in the Fund stems from concerns about the: high numbers of remand detainees; long awaiting trial periods and significant number of remand detainees in detention unable to pay small bail amounts.

The Fund would provide money for accused people who are not dangerous to society, and who have been granted bail but cannot afford it. The Fund would also benefit those accused whom the court has determined: will stand trial, are not a danger to the public, will not commit further offences while out on bail, will not present a danger to state witnesses, and have fixed addresses.

He stated that the fundamental premise is that it is wicked and wrong for the system of administration of justice to free those who have the money to pay bail, whereas those who simply from poverty cannot pay bail remain in what we all know sadly are very adverse conditions.

JICS has secured donor funding of some R650 000 for the feasibility study, which is being undertaken by the Bertha Institute at the University of Cape Town.

There are several questions on what will happen when someone else pays bail for a remand detainee who already has funds allocated for them, who will benefit from the fund, should there be limitations on the offences that have been committed, should there be a limit on the bail amount?

He concluded his presentation by stating that a Fund of this kind is a private response to a systemic problem. Sustainable, structural solutions to the problem of cash bail must come from the state itself. Parliament will be kept fully updated before any further steps are taken on the Fund.

(See Presentation)

Discussion

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked how many countries already have this system in place. She noted that who will receive the bail fund will be decided from the feasibility study, and asked who will the family income or will the individual income of the person requesting the payment be looked at? This fund should obviously go to the poorest of the poor who are not able to afford bail. Who would be administering the fund should this fund go ahead? Would it be JICS or another agency?

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) began by thanking Judge Cameron for this positive idea. She observed that the presentation stated that who the recipients of the bail will be will be looked into and that the perpetrator’s family will be involved in terms of consultation. When the study is undergone, it must be considered that there are families who would need the assistance and there are families who would not want the perpetrator released from prison or to receive bail. Many families who are victims of Gender Based Violence (GBV) have made calls for GBV perpetrators to not receive bail, yet the perpetrators have a right to receive bail. Have the conductors of the study considered how they will work around this issue? How do they plan to deal with the issue of foreigners? Will foreigners also be accommodated in this category? Have they thought about the time frame for the feasibility study so that the Committee can know when it will receive the full presentation? The Committee sees this as an important idea that will deal with the overcrowding in prisons.

Adv S Swart (ACDP) stated that the Committee shares Judge Cameron’s concerns about overcrowding in prisons, particularly when it comes to remand detainees, many of whom who could be found not guilty some stage. He was concerned about the statistic which showed that there are 2000 possible remand detainees where bail is set at less than R1000. The financial cost to the state as well overcrowding were also important considerations. The initiative can help the state save on costs. He appreciates what the Deputy Minister indicated on the importance of a financial bail commitment to ensure that detainees arrive for trial. The Committee appreciates that this is the beginning of a process and all these factors have to be taken into consideration.  The existing legislative provisions are not properly used to reduce the number of remand detainees. This process is welcomed particularly considering the fact that the target audience is remand detainees that are not a danger to society but are prisoners of poverty that are costing the state more money to keep them in remand.

Judge Cameron thanked Adv Swart for his comments and stated that when they last visited the remand detention centre at Johannesburg Prison, he was told by the acting head of that centre that it costs the state an estimated R10 000 per inmate per month (or R313) to keep an inmate. He was not sure how he arrived at this figure but it is a shocking cost on the state and the budget of DCS.

On who the administrators of the bail fund will be, he replied that in all jurisdictions the fund is run on a semi-private basis. It has been sponsored here by JICS here but it will be a private institution of some sort. There are many states in the United States that have bail funds. Many states have abolished cash bail as they say it is a wicked imposition where the rich get out and the poor do not. There is intense contention in the US about this.

On the consideration of family income, he agreed that it is true that some families do not want some detainees back. These are issues that must be negotiated and considered.

On whether non-nationals will be accommodated in this category, he replied that he was not prepared for that question. It would depend on their status.

On time frames, he replied that they are concentrating on that.

On the GBV question, he replied that he floated that question because he will personally tell that the feasibility document should cut out of consideration those who are accused of committing GBV. There might be people who think differently, but this issue will be brought back to the Committee before the feasibility study teams proceeds.

The Chairperson thanked Justice Cameron and stated that the Committee believes that this is an important initiative because at the core of the idea, it aims to tackle inequality in as far as access to justice is concerned. It is an initiative that must get everyone talking and contributing to enhancing it to ensure that it is a success. He requested that the National Commissioner assist with providing information on how much the state spends per prisoner or remand detainee per day or month so that everyone gets the national picture. From that national picture, the Committee will be able to find better ways of managing it down and use that money to deal with other issues that affect our society. This mechanism is innovative and its time has arrived. He asked Judge Cameron when he will return for a progress report.

Judge Cameron stated that he will undertake to give a report back before the June parliamentary recess kicks in. A suitable time for a report back can be arranged with the Committee’s personnel.

Briefing by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) on the roll-out and Implementation of the e-corrections system

Mr Makgothi Samuel Thobakgale, National Commisioner, DCS, introduced the presentation to the Committee. Mr Evans Maponya, Chief Deputy Commissioner: ICT, Department of Correctional Services, delivered the presentation.

He reported that the JICS Mandatory Reporting system now has 573 active users.

On the utilisation caseload since 2018, he reported that there have been 1696 cases that were loaded on the system to date.

On the utilisation caseload from 01 Jan 2022, he reported that there has been a significant increase in the utilisation.

Mr Maponya encouraged management areas and correctional facilities to capture and register users on the system so that the Department can get an accurate report.

(See Presentation)

Discussion

Mr Engelbrecht asked when this system will be rolled out to all correctional services facilities. In terms of data capturing, any electronic system is as good as the information being fed into it. He understood that this system will be helping the Department in its reporting to JICS. However, who will be responsible for accessing the system? It needs to be clearly determined who operates system so that the correctness of the information of the data is not corrupted. It will be advantageous for the Committee to get statistics and see progress. However, the figures that are stated there for all the provinces at this stage are not representative of what is going on because not everything is captured. When can the Committee expect this system to be rolled out and for the operators of this system to be trained?

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen stated that she was partly covered by Mr Engelbrecht. She would like to understand the numbers. The presentation speaks of 119 correctional centres across all regions of the Department but does not indicate out of how many remand detention facilities. The presentation then speaks of 542 active users but does not speak of how many users are wanted.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked whether it is possible for the Department to do its own research in terms of the systems that are not working in the department. She stated that the last time she went to Bosberg there was a lot of systems that were not working such as cameras and other expensive machines. Can the Committee receive a presentation on what is and is not working in relation to the security systems and IT systems in correctional services?

 

The Chairperson added to Ms Maseko-Jele’s input. How does this into the integrated inmate management system (IIMS)?

Mr Thobakgale stated that the Department has 123 facilities that accommodate remand detainees. Out of the 123, 103 are mixed between remand detainees and other offenders. 20 are specifically meant for housing remand detainees and are not mixed.

On the roll out, he replied that the programme plans indicates that all the 123 facilities would have been covered by the end of September. Only a few remain as the system is working in a 119 facilities.

On access to the system, he replied that there are case management administrators who are trained to utilise the system. They are users. There are heads of correctional facilities who have the authority to authenticate information and give assurance that the information that is put into the system is information that reflects what is obtained.

Mr Maponya stepped in to answer questions.

The 119 facilities are 119 out of the 243 facilities.

On the number of users, he replied that user registration on the system is solely at the discretion of the head of the correctional centre.

On how this fits into the IJS, he replied that this particular system will integrate all the IJS and this will be used as a reporting tool to produce reports that are required by the external stakeholders.

On the Department searching the systems that are not working and those that are working, Mr Thobakgale replied that there is information on that. He used the security systems as an example. The Department has already started a process of rolling out programmes to revive all the integrated security system components that the Department has in its correctional facilities. The Department can provide the Committee with such a report. The Department has components that exist that have been commissioned years ago. This includes cameras. The cameras were not working in most facilities, however a programme is being rolled out to revive all of them. The Department’s vision is to have all the integrated security systems in facilities working by June. A process is being undertaken on other IT systems. This process aims to ensure that the systems are integrated so that the system flows properly and the information is also consistent. The Department has appeared before the Committee previously to report on IIMS. The matter is currently between SITA and the Department. The Department has been advised by legal services to write to SITA through the Minister to request that SITA provides the Department with permission to revive the contract and revive the IIMS roll out programme. The letter is prepared for the Minister to sign to the Minister responsible for SITA. Once this is done, the Department will be able to put together a project execution plan and will now have a bit of certainty to get IIMS off the ground or what becomes the alternative as advised by SITA.

Ms Maseko-Jele requested that Mr Thobakgale provide an honest answer on whether the Department has people who are able to work on these systems daily and have know-how on how these systems work. The report she received stated that there are nice and helpful machines that have been bought but nobody knows how to operate those systems. If there is something like that, can the Department work on that. IT people who have know-how should be found because procurement is done often however, there are no people who can operate the systems daily. The Committee is not criticising the Department. The Committee is simply saying that this issue must be attended to. It is not a secret that these systems need young people, with IT knowledge, who know how to work these machines. Is there such a challenge that needs to be attended to?

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked whether the information automatically goes to JICS when the correctional centre person uploads the data on the system? How does JICS get the information? Does JICS have the software in their system to see the newly updated data that is stored by the correctional centre? How do those systems work?

On Ms Maseko-Jele’s questions about capacity, Mr Thobakgale admitted that the Department did not have that capacity before and it was relying on IT consultants and security companies that were contracted to install commission and do day to day operation of the systems. The Department is addressing this problem. That is why there is provision for two artisans on the technical side in the facilities that are being activated now. These artisans would have skills in electronics or mechanics. This programme is being utilised for young people. The young people will be attached to the contractors who are on site for three years. Provision to absorb these skills would then be made in the organisational structure of the Department after three years. On the IT side, provision has been made to recruit young people with IT qualifications. There is also an internship programme where a quota has been made for 60 young people with IT skills. The process of the macro-organisational structure has been finalised with the Department of Public Services and Administration (DPSA) and the budget for this has been cleared with National Treasury. This will take some time but the process has started. The correctional facilities have cameras, x-ray machines, and control rooms. The x-ray machines and body scanners were not integrated with the whole security system in the past. One would not be able to tell whether the body scanner is working or not when they entered the control room. These machines are now being linked with the control room as the security systems are being revived. There is also an issue of human interference. Some of the machines would appear as though they are not working but it would turn out that they are just not plugged in. It would be visible from the control room whether these machines have been sabotaged or not. The Department has a presentation readily available that they can present to the Committee in the next meetings.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen stated that her question was not answered.

Mr Maponya directed the Committee to slide number five on the presentation to address this question. This slide provides that the head of the correctional centre captures complaints on unnatural deaths or natural deaths, and causes of deaths. This information is captured on the JICS reporting system. This would then automatically send a message to the JICS case management system. The regional office would then acknowledge the report by the head of the correctional centre on to the system.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee might need to have a closed meeting as he is uncertain about the detail security features. The DCS is a highly securitised environment. He understands that it would not be good for some of those details to be broadcasted live. Written permission for a closed meeting must be obtained.

Mr R Dyantyi (ANC) agreed with the Chairperson’s suggestion. The Committee must work towards a closed meeting. The meeting could be had on site and not virtually as one learns better when they are learning about the systems practically. One of the things correctional services is known for is introducing these systems that have been an achilles heel for the Department. This is seen in the stats and under expenditure, where the systems are not working and the money has to be rolled over. The Department needs to integrate the lessons that they learnt from their previous failures into their presentation in order to show the Committee how they plan to improve their systems.

The Chairperson requested to end the meeting on this note.

The meeting was adjourned.

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: