National Council for Correctional Services Appointment (with Ministry); Committee Reports: DCS & DHA Budgets

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson welcomed everyone, including the Minister for Justice and Correctional Services, Ronald Lamola, as well as the Deputy Minister for Correctional Services, Phathekile Holomisa. The two agenda items were a briefing by the Department of Correctional Services on the appointment of the National Council of Correctional Services (NCCS) and adopting the Committee reports with regard to the budgets and APPs (Annual Performance Plans) for the Department of Correctional Services as well as the Department of Home Affairs.

The main function of the NCCS was to advise the Minister on developing policy with regard to the correctional system and the sentencing process.

In terms of section 83(2)(h) of the Correctional Service Act, these appointments need to be made in consultation with the relevant Committees in Parliament in the National Assembly (NA), the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services, whereas in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), the Select Committee on Security and Justice. Members would have received the presentation and all the relevant and necessary documentation, including the CVs of those appointed. The Department indicated that it wished to make the appointments by 1 July 2023. She handed over to Minister Lamola to take the Committee through this process.

Presentation by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services on the appointment of Members to the National Council for Correctional Services
Minister Lamola noted that the slide presentation was not moving but understood that Members had received copies. Members might be aware the Minister of Correctional Services was mandated to appoint the NCCS. The main function of the NCCS was to advise the Minister in developing policies with regard to the correctional system and the sentencing processes. Discussions would be on those appointments that related to section 83(2)(h), appointments which had to be made in consultation with the relevant Parliamentary Committees.

The Minister must refer draft legislation and major proposed policy developments regarding the correctional system to the National Council for its comments and advice. The Council has historically (dating as far back as the old Act of 1959) been very instrumental in the development of processes and procedure within the Correctional and Penology field nationally and outside our Borders. 

The Council also considers cases of offenders serving sentences of life imprisonment and must make recommendations to the Minister regarding the placement of such offenders on parole or day parole and cancellation of day parole or parole.  Certain members of the Council also sit as the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board, to review the decisions of Parole Boards.

The term of the current Council was extended until 30 June 2023.

It was legislated that the Council should consist of the following persons:
-Three Judges of the High Court or Supreme Court of Appeal;
-A magistrate;  
-A prosecutor from the National Prosecuting Authority;
-A representative from each of the Departments of Correctional Services, Social Development and Police;
-Two persons specialising in the field of corrections;
-Members of the community.

An advertisement was published in the Sunday media inviting nominations/applications and a re-advertisement was published with the aim of increasing the pool of candidates for appointment. Following in-house consultation and needs-based research, the appointments were limited to the legal, religious, academic, community involvement and social fields. Security screening was conducted by State Security Agency. The new Council was to be appointed with effect from 01 July 2023 for a period of five years. The budget of the Council was controlled by the Council’s Secretariat which was employed by the Department. The Council meets once a month for three days - about 150 lifer profiles are discussed during days one and two, and policy is discussed on day three. The Minister provided details of the budget, allowances, etc.

The names, ages, qualifications and experience of the proposed candidates were listed and broken down into these categories: legal fraternity, religious fraternity, Academics with experience in criminal justice, Knowledge of the community justice system, Criminologists, social workers and psychologists.

(See Presentation)

Discussion
The Chairperson called for comments or questions.

Mr K Motsamai (EFF, Gauteng) referred to more than 67 inmates who are serving life sentences and had been in jail for more than 15 years. When their files went to the NCCS, it is sent back and they are referred to either a 14-day life skills programme or a social worker programme. It only took 14 days but then they waited for a long time before anything else happened, making centres overcrowded. Why was that?

Ms M Dlamini (ANC, Mpumalanga) asked about one of the potential candidates Nkopo Maluleka. Could the ministry verify whether he was the one who had been taken to the Human Rights Commission for writing a Facebook post that said: “Rape elderly white woman and kill her afterwards.” If that was the same person, she and her party felt discomfort because they could not have someone who viewed rape as a corrective action or to have ever had a thought like that cross their mind. She just wanted to verify whether he was the one who had been taken to the Human Rights Commission for that Facebook post.

Ms A Maleka (ANC, Mpumalanga) asked how effective the Council was in considering cases of offenders serving sentences of life imprisonment, as mentioned in slide five. Were there any challenges in the operations of the NCCS? The term of the current council was extended until 30 June 2023. On what grounds was that extension made and what vacancies were there currently on the Council? When was the advertisement published and when was the re-advertisement published?

The Chairperson asked whether the Department had satisfied itself in respect of the background of the candidates it was putting forward to the Committee and whether there was any additional information pertaining to the candidates that the Committee needed to be aware of. 

Minister Lamola indicated that Adv Carol Mobu from his office and Mr Mbilini Twala from the NCCS would provide some responses and he would add anything necessary at the end.

Adv Mobu referred to the first question asked by Mr Motsamai about the inmates that were granted a further profile. She explained that in a case where, after consideration, the NCCS recommended that the inmate undertook a further profile/course of two weeks or so, there was a delay after completion of the course because of the processes to be followed. The case had to go back to the centre which had to make a recommendation and then it went to the Case Management Services which made a recommendation to the Parole Board. From the Parole Board, it went to the NCCS and then to the Minister. So, it was not so much of a delay but a fairly involved process that was followed. 

Mr Twala added that the NCCS was constituted of judges, advocates, representatives from the Department and the SA Police Services, the National Prosecuting Authority as well as professionals such as social workers and psychologists … (connectivity interruption)

Minister Lamola informed Ms Dlamini that he did not know if the person by the name of Maluleke Nkopo was the same person who had appeared before the Human Rights Commission, but he would verify that. He would request approval of the names, pending verification of that person who would not be appointed if it were the same person.

Adv Mobu answered the question asked by Ms Maleka about the effectiveness of life sentences, and the challenges facing the NCCS. While considering the profile of the offender, there were certain factors that the NCCS also considered. They looked at the psychologist’s report, a social worker’s report, and any programmes that the offender had undertaken or undergone. The Council also checked on whether the offender had completed his or her minimum detention period. Once the members had considered all the factors, the Council would make a recommendation to the Minister either for parole or for further profiling.

Mr Twala added to what Adv Mobu had said. He indicated the composition of the Council and explained that each profile was looked at on its own merit. So when a profile arrived, the decision taken by the NCCS depended on what was in the profile report. If the offender had to undergo a course, the length of time it took was dependent on what the offender had to do. (network interruption)

The Chairperson referred to the question that was asked by Ms Dlamini with regard to Mr Maluleke. She could not find the name on the presentation. Could the Minister assist her?

Adv Mobu responded that a security clearance was done of all candidates and then upon receiving the results from the SSA (State Security Agency), it was discovered that he had a criminal record of assault and it was recommended that his name should be removed from the list of selected candidates. The Portfolio Committee had agreed.

The Chairperson confirmed that his name was no longer on the list of selected candidates presented to the Select Committee.

Adv Mobu explained that his name appeared on one of the slides as one of those who were not given clearance by the SSA. But he had been replaced on the list of selected candidates.

Ms Dlamini confirmed that his name had been on the original list that Members had received but it did not appear in the list presented that day. She had picked up the name when her party had done its own vetting process of the original list of names.

Adv Mobu confirmed it had been removed because he had been found guilty on a charge of assault.

Mr Twala repeated the composition of the Council and said that each profile was considered on its own merit and the person might be required to complete an additional course or activity of a couple of weeks up to 12 months or even 24 months. It depended on what was required by the Council. With regard to the question asked by Ms Maleka about the vacancies, there were currently two vacancies, one was for a judge and the other was for the SAPS representative. He understood that the process to fill those two vacancies was at an advanced stage.

The Chairperson requested that he respond to the question asked by Ms Maleka about when the advertisement was published.

Adv Mobu stated that the advertisement was published in a newspaper in 2020. The response to the advertisement was very poor and the Minister had not received a suitable pool of names so the vacancies were re-advertised. Her colleagues were checking on the dates but one advertisement was published in 2020. She thought that the re-advertisement was also done in 2020.

The Chairperson thanked her. 

Adv Mobu indicated that she had received the exact dates and the first advertisement was on 6 July 2019 in the Sunday media and the re-advertisement was in 2020.

The Chairperson asked the Minister or Deputy Minister whether either of them wished to make an input.

Minister Lamola said that the Committee would note the period since the re-advertisement and the background checks. There had been a great deal of back and forth between the Portfolio Committee and his office, particularly on the background check, given the number of people and because the Committee determined that all the applicants should have been screened before the Committee could approve the names. Hence the delay, but he had all the reports on all the applicants and was ready to proceed.

The Chairperson asked what had been done to try and address the process or speed up that process of filling the vacancy for the judge and for the SAPS representative.

Adv Mobu explained that in respect of the judge, the Act provided that the appointment of the judges to the Council should be made by the Minister after consultation with the Chief Justice and the Minister had already written to the Chief Justice. The ministry was awaiting a response. The process was at an advanced stage. On the issue of the appointment of a representative of SAPS, the ministry had written to the National Commissioner requesting a nomination to replace the current representative who had recently taken retirement. That process was also at an advanced stage and the Minister’s office followed up regularly.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister. A report would be forwarded to the Committee and would be considered for adoption in the next meeting. She would inform Members of the date and the time of that meeting. She noted that the National Commission for SAPS was also on the platform and had indicated in the chat that the SAPS representative for the NCCS had been approved.

She moved to the last agenda item, i.e. the reports for the Committee. She would first take the report on the Budget and Annual Performance Plan for Correctional Services.

Policy Assessment and Recommendations Report of Select Committee on DCS Budget Vote 2023/24
The Chairperson requested the Committee Secretary to take the Committee through the key issues for discussion.

The Committee Secretary presented the report dealing with the Policy Assessment and Recommendation Report of the Select Committee on Budget 22, the Department of Correctional Services. Key issues that Committee dealt with included: the arrests by the Hawks and the response; the irregular expenditure by the Department, the gambling by inmates, the anti-corruption strategy and the differentiation between treatment of inmates and victims as opposed to ordinary citizens. The Committee further looked at the budget reduction in the rehabilitation programme and the impact load shedding had in terms of generators and the Department’s functioning. The Committee followed up on overcrowding and foreign nationals, parolee offenders, victim dialogue and the victims not being informed of the release of offenders as well as the Department's response to that. The Committee addressed the question of the Regional Commissioner post for the Eastern Cape as well as the number of psychologists and social workers available. Members followed up on the re-offending of inmates and the benefits of victims of crime. Then the Committee delved into the Thabo Bester escape and followed up on what had been happening with the security company. The Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services Bill that the Department was proposing was awaited. The Committee had looked at remand detainees and escapes.

He added that other issues addressed included presidential pardons, the upgrading of correctional centres, overcrowding and bed spaces, obtaining bail swiftly, support for victims of crime and compensation, roll out generators or other sources of power, prevention of escapes, rehabilitation programmes, the services of psychologists and social workers and healthcare practitioners, measures to prevent escapes, informing victims and families in the event of inmates escaping, protection of whistleblowers and monitoring the activities of parolees.

The recommendations were that the Department should within 30 days of the adoption of the report, furnish the Committee with reports on consequence management,  expenditure, disciplinary measures undertaken, the incidence of corruption reported by the public, the Department's self-sufficiency and sustainability programme, foreign nationals within operation centres and those handed over to the Department of Home Affairs, best practice case studies of parolees starting their own businesses, and employment equity targets for persons with disabilities. The Committee encouraged the Department to ensure rehabilitation care for inmates as well as the overall health of the Department, despite some big budget cuts.

The Chairperson asked for additions or corrections.

Mr G Michalakis (DA, Free State) was in broad support of the report itself but requested that the abstention of the DA be noted in respect of the last paragraph where it said that the Select Committee supported the budget. He was in general support of the recommendations.

There being no further objections, the Policy Assessment and Recommendations Report of the Select Committee on the 23/24 Budget Vote 22 was proposed for adoption, seconded and duly adopted by the Committee, noting the concern of the DA.

Read: ATC230614: Report of the Select Committee on Security and Justice on the 2023/24 Budget Vote 22, Annual Performance Plan (APP) of the Department of Correctional Services, dated 14 June 2023

Policy Assessment and Recommendations Report of Select Committee on Home Affairs Budget Vote 2023/24 Budget
The Committee Secretary presented the Policy Assessment and Recommendations Report of the Select Committee for Budget Vote Five and the Annual Performance Plan for the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). The Report addressed the protection of whistleblowers, friendliness of staff and staff morale at centres, infrastructure and challenges in the Medium-term Expenditure Framework allocations, smart ID cards, the rollout of the DHA services in shopping malls on Saturdays, long queues and the rollout of the biometric movement control system. Other issues included the employment of Malawians by Chinese business owners and the Border Management Authority. Recommendations were to tackle corruption and fraud, protect whistleblowers, generate sufficient revenue to provide efficient services to communities, introduce legislation aimed at extending trading hours, improve the overall morale of staff, address the employment of undocumented foreigners, and speed up the recruitment of young people. The Border Management Authority (BMA) should within 30 days of the adoption of the report submit a service-level agreement between the BMA and the Department of Home Affairs to the Committee as well as a report on its plan for gender-based violence and the list of selected officers for IMS case management system.

Mr E Mthethwa (ANC, KwaZulu-Natal) recommended that the Department should move with speed in synchronising all the departments under one BMA.  A lot of separate departments were involved but the BMA had to stand alone in terms of budget and everything else. At the moment the BMA was relying on Home Affairs and everybody else.

The Chairperson was sure it had been part of the discussion when the Committee had engaged the Department. It could be added to the report as a recommendation. She called for any other additions or comments.

Mr Motsamai wanted to add the issue of a nationalisation certificate, and also the issue of work permits because people were taking advantage and attacking foreigners who did not have work permits. When people went to Pretoria and Marabastad to get their papers, they were faced with long queues and were not assisted. He had observed that during his oversight visits. He was very happy about the steps being taken to protect whistleblowers.

The Chairperson stated that there was already a recommendation for addressing the queues. She asked Mr Motsamai to clarify the issue of nationalisation and the time it takes for the Department to attend to matters. Was the addition around the matter of the queues? If the issue was nationalisation or any other matter, she would expect the Department to address it efficiently.

Mr Motsamai clarified that he had a case that he had raised with the Minister of Home Affairs, where a man was granted a nationalisation certificate but did not receive it.

The Chairperson stated that Mr Motsamai had raised that matter in the meeting with Home Affairs.

Mr Mthethwa suggested that those matters were not part of the report. The Department had responded to the issue of whistleblowers and naturalisation. Those were not matters of the report and were not even covered by the Department’s presentation. The Member had been allowed to ask the questions and the DHA had guaranteed that whenever those issues were highlighted, they would be prepared to assist. 

The Chairperson noted the comments and called for a proposer and seconder for the adoption of the report.

The Policy Assessment and Recommendations Report of the Select Committee for Budget Vote Five and the Annual Performance Plan for the Department of Home Affairs was duly adopted with no objections or abstentions.

Read: ATC230614: Report of the Select Committee on Security and Justice on the 2023/24 Budget Vote 5, Annual Performance Plan (APP) of the Department of Home Affairs, dated 14 June 2023

Closing remarks
The Chairperson indicated that the Committee would meet to consider the report on the selection of candidates for the NCCS. She would inform Members of the details of that meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.