Review of Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons: briefing by Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
11 August 2004
REVIEW OF JUDICIAL INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: BRIEFING BY CIVIL SOCIETY PRISON REFORM INITIATIVE

Acting Chairperson: Mr N Fihla (ANC)

Document handed out
Report on the evaluation of Independent Prison Visitors system by Jacqui Gallinetti
Review of the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons of South Africa by Saras Jagwanth
CSPRI presentation on Evaluation of the IPV system
CSPRI presentation on Review of Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons

SUMMARY
Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative briefed the Committee on two evaluations they initiated of the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Prison Visitors system. The aim was to assess the efficacy of the Judicial Inspectorate as an organ of independent oversight of prisons. It found that most Independent Prison Visitors (IPVs) showed understanding and insight into their functions and duties as well as prisoner's rights to lodge complaints. But knowledge of prisoner's rights by the Department of Correctional Services seemed to be lacking and this environment may lead to problems for IPVs in carrying out their duties. It reported that guidelines for dealing with complaints seem to be followed, but there was some confusion as to time periods.  The independence of IPVs was of great concern, however, as just under half of prisoners interviewed did not regard IPVs as independent.

The objective of the research on the Office of the Inspecting Judge was to evaluate the functions, interaction and effectiveness of the IPV system in order to determine whether the system is functioning in accordance with its purpose and mandate. There is general consensus that an independent oversight body of prisons in South Africa was necessary, and that the existence of the Inspectorate contributed significantly to addressing the lot of prisoners in South Africa. An overwhelming majority of those interviewed felt that its work was valuable and should continue. The Inspectorate is an important institution supporting democracy and human rights in South Africa and its work should be acknowledged, supported and strengthened.

MINUTES
The Acting Chair, Mr Fihla, announced that the Chairperson would not be able to attend the meeting. He invited the delegation to introduce themselves and commence with the briefing.

The Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI), led by Mr L Muntingh (Deputy Executive Director: Nicro) and Ms Melanie Lue-Dugmore (CSPRI Programme Manager), briefed the Committee on the findings and recommendations of both an evaluation of the Independent Prison Visitors system and a review of the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons of South Africa (see PowerPoint presentations).

The aim of the review of the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons was to assess the efficacy of the Judicial Inspectorate as an organ of independent oversight pertaining to prisons. The Judicial Inspectorate is newly established in terms of the Correctional Services Act of 1998, and has now seen the term of office of two Inspecting Judges. CSPRI is of the opinion that the Judicial Inspectorate is making a significant contribution to improving the human rights situation in prisons, but this contribution needs to be described, analyzed and evaluated.

The objective of the research on the Office of the Inspecting Judge (OIJ) was to evaluate the functions, interaction and effectiveness of the IPV system in order to determine whether the system is functioning in accordance with its purpose and mandate. The powers, functions and duties of the OIJ include arranging for and inspecting prisons to report on the objects of the OIJ as set out in the Correctional Services Act, 1998.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) commented that the OIJ was in the process of opening a regional office in Gauteng. He asked if the office has been opened. He said there had always been a debate on the independence of the Office and other Chapter Nine institutions. There had always been a desire on the part of the institutions to acquire funds independently of the State. He asked how such financial independence could be achieved bearing in mind that if funds come from Treasury they come with various accounting burdens.

Mr Muntingh replied that he did not know if the regional office in Gauteng had yet been established.
Ms Lue-Dugmore added that the issue of independence had implications on accountability and oversight. Not only is the budget of the OIJ from the Department of Correctional Services. The DCS Commissioner also has a say in a number of issues. It is difficult to see how the OIJ could exercise proper oversight over a Department that happens to be its manager. It also is not easy for the Office to confront the Commissioner in an acrimonious way given the dependency relationship.

Mrs L Chikunga (ANC) asked if it is possible to “research� the findings that the research had yielded.

Mr I Mfundisi (UCDP) asked if there is a need for the Office to appoint a permanent spokesperson so as to give the desired publicity to the Office.

Mr Muntingh replied that he was not sure if a permanent spokesperson would be a solution. The Office already receives good attention from the media. There is a need for more rigorous reporting on the findings of the Office.

Mr T Xolo (ANC) was worried by the conditions under which prisoners are released and also the release of awaiting trial prisoners. He asked if the so-called '90 days without trial' still exists. If this does no longer exist then why is it that there are prisoners who are released after awaiting trial for quite some time.

Mr Muntingh relied that the release of prisoners is a matter of grave concern. Close to 40% of prisoners are released without even standing trial. This might be that they were wrongfully arrested or that they were arrested for minor offences. The average detention cycle for awaiting trial prisoners in around 130 days across the country. If one singles out Regional Court cases the average goes up to over 300 days and yet most of them are released without being prosecuted. This is cause for concern because some people lose their jobs as a result of being detained for that long. He added that the so-called '90 days without trial' does not exist anymore.

Mr Xolo asked why it takes so long for follow-up on complaints to take place. He also asked why it is so difficult to implement recommendations made by the Office.

Mr Muntingh replied that some of the unresolved complaints at prison level are referred to the OIJ. Sometimes the process of resolving complaints takes too long. There are complaints that take a few days to resolve.

Mr Fihla was not satisfied with the scope of the mandate of the Inspecting Judge. It was not wide enough. It was thought the mandate would be extended to deal with issues of corruption. It is disappointing that the Office uncovers problems but cannot do anything about them.

Mr Xolo was disappointed that people are still detained for more than 130 days without being prosecuted even though the so-called' 90 days without trial' no longer exist. He asked if a person who had been detained without prosecution could, upon his release, sue the Department for wrongful arrest.

Ms Lue-Dugmore replied that the 90 days applied to police holding people in custody without them appearing in court. In this case the people have appeared before a judge or magistrate. They are detained for such a long time either because bail was refused or as a result of delays in the court process. There is no legal requirement in the Criminal Procedure Act that a case has to be finalised within a particular period of time.

Mr M Moatshe (ANC) asked if there are any mechanisms to ensure that the recommendations by the Office of the Inspecting Judge are implemented. He also commented that there are people who were sentenced to death before 1994. Some of those people do not know if their sentences have been changed to life imprisonment. He asked for a comment on this.

Mr Muntingh replied that follow-up on recommendations is one problem identified in the research. A follow up mechanism is necessary to ensure that problems are addressed and that they do not surface again at a later stage. Death sentence cases are still being processed and the prisoners would soon hear from courts if their sentences have been changed to life imprisonment. There would be no blanket conversion of sentences. Every case would be decided on its merits.

Ms Chikunga noted that the recommendations do not address the issue of security in prisons. She asked if there are ways of assisting IPVs to get information from prisoners in a confidential manner. She also asked if the presenter could pinpoint where problems are with regard to the implementation of recommendations.

Mr Muntingh replied that there is a need to look at creative means of ensuring that there is confidentiality. Local conditions sometimes dictate solutions. There is definitely a need to get away from a situation wherein warders want to listen to communication between the IPV and a prisoner.

On problems regarding implementation of recommendations, he said that problems exist at many levels. Some are due to lack of training and skills in the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). There is also the question of governance and whether there is effective oversight of the Department. The Department is also a recipient of decisions from other Departments and such decisions come with their own implementation problems. For instance it is not DCS that is responsible for the delays in the prosecution of prisoners.

Mr Xolo said that there are complaints that the budget of the Office is not enough to cover their projects. He asked what steps should the Office take to ensure that there is an increase in its budget.

Mr Muntingh replied that the OIJ gets its budget from the Department of Correctional Services. It is relatively small and there are suggestions that it should be increased so as to enable the IPV system to run effectively.

The Chairperson commented that the sooner there is decentralization of the Office the better. It would also be preferable to get quarterly or half-yearly reports instead of yearly reports. This would enable the Committee to identify problems at an early stage and help where it can. The OIJ is a leg of the Department. The autonomy of the Office might be improved by making it report to the Minister and not the Commissioner. It is important for the Inspecting Judge to continue with tackling the problem of overcrowding in prisons. The Inspecting Judge made some significant breakthrough in addressing this problem in the Western Cape. It is unclear why the exercise was discontinued. It is important that there is transparency in the system.

The meeting was adjourned.