Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards: DSC briefing; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the Deputy Minister and the new members of the MK Party, Mr Sanele Mwali and Mr Musawenkosi Gasa, who had replaced the outgoing MK members. She remarked that the briefing would be based on documents circulated since the previous week. She called on the Deputy Minister to make her opening remarks.

Deputy Minister’s opening remarks
The Deputy Minister, Ms Lindiwe Ntshalintshali, said the Department would present the report on parole boards as requested by the Committee. She called on the National Commissioner to lead the presentation.

DCS presentation
The National Commissioner, Mr Makgothi Thobakgale, introduced the Chief Deputy Commissioner, Ms Anna Molepo, the Chief Deputy Commissioner: Incarcerations and Corrections as the official who would be guiding the Committee through the presentation.

Ms Molepo presented an overview of the CSPBs. The primary task of a CSPB is to consider and approve or disapprove of the placement of offenders on correctional supervision, day parole, parole, medical parole, setting of placement conditions and granting special remission of sentence for highly meritorious service. In terms of section 74(2) of the Correctional Services Act, which came into effect on 1 October 2004, 52 CSPBs were established. The composition of each CSPB includes a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, both from the community and two additional community members. Additional members include a co-opted member of the South African Police Service (SAPS) and a DCS representative as the committee secretary.

Quarter 1 Outcomes as per the Annual Performance Plan Targets:

Offender profiles approved for placement by CSPBs:
Target 57%
Achievement 69.48%

Offender profiles received from the Case Management Coordinator (CMC) and considered by CSPBs:
Target 90%
Achievement 96%

(See Presentation)
Discussion
The Chairperson invited Members to ask clarity-seeking questions.

Mr D Klopper (DA) wanted to know how many terminally ill inmates have died while awaiting medical parole recommendations. He asked if follow-ups are being done on cases where the medical conditions years later do not equate to the condition at the application stage. He wanted to know if the wishes of community experts are being considered when the CSPBs process parole applications.

Mr E Cloete (ANC) enquired why inmates are not recommended for medical parole. He asked why Committee Members are not sitting on the Parole Boards. He wanted to know if the Committee can review board appointments before the Minister makes them.

Mr J Engelbrecht (DA) wanted to know what happened to the long outstanding review of the parole system. In the past, the system had been causing reputational damage to the Department because of the long list of parolees who have committed serious crimes. He considered it a mistake to have placed the formation of Parole Boards in the hands of community members who have not been educated in the field of criminology. The system was not achieving the expected outcomes. From 2019 to 2022, 99 146 inmates were placed on parole. It has been reported that 16.25% were in breach of parole conditions, and 40% had committed serious crimes which could have been prevented. He requested a timeline for finalising the review of the parole system.

Ms D James (Action SA) asked if Parole Boards communicate the release of parolees to the community. She wanted to know if Parole Boards are funded. Given the shortage of inspectors, she asked if the Department does ad hoc visits to monitor parolees. She disagreed with Mr Engelbrecht about not involving communities in Parole Boards. She felt that community members were better equipped than criminologists to understand the circumstances of communities. She asked that community members be trained and only vetted and ethical people be appointed.

Mr M Gasa (MK) was concerned that the structures of Parole Boards do not address environmental issues, prevent prison escapes, and secure the safety of other inmates and staff. He enquired about implementing security measures at facilities to secure the environment and wanted to know the main causes of prison escapes.

Mr S Mwali (MK) enquired about the channels available for communities when parolees are not adhering to parole conditions. Communities are not at ease when people convicted of crimes re-enter the areas and do not know where to report incidents of parolees who commit similar or worse crimes. He asked how the Department was preparing communities for the re-entering of parolees in their areas.

Mr M Moela (ANC) asked if the SAPS is represented on Parole Boards nationwide. He wanted to know how the Parole Board could function without Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons in the committees. He sought clarity about the timeframes to fill Parole Board vacancies to make thorough recommendations.

Mr M Sokopo (ANC) questioned the appointment of ex-DCS officials as Chairpersons of Parole Boards. He enquired about appointing people younger than 60 to ensure a youth element in the committees. He wanted to know what the turnaround time is for processing medical parole applications to avoid death in correctional centres. Inmates should be able to get external assistance or sent home to die at the hands of their families. He asked where the advertisements for Parole Board vacancies are placed. A rotational appointment process would be helpful. He enquired about the reasons for not filling vacancies and questioned if a Parole Board without a Chairperson for more than two years could do a proper job.

The Chairperson was concerned about the vacant Chairperson and Vice Chairperson positions, especially in the Eastern Cape, which had not had a functional Parole Board for four years. Given the incidents of inmate death, while waiting for the Medical Parole Board to review applications, she wanted to know how often sittings take place and whether sittings are held for urgent cases to mitigate deaths in prisons. She sought clarity on whether the Medical Parole Board and the Parole Review Board are constituted based on reviews referred to them or if they are standard boards that sit regularly.

The Deputy Minister explained that advertisements for community members to serve on Parole Boards are placed in national newspapers and on the Department's social media pages. She explained that every parolee is linked to a parole officer in the area where they operate. There are 218 parole officers nationwide. The first person to contact in case of non-adherence to parole conditions would be the parole officer. Parole officers visit parolees at certain times, dressed in uniforms and are thereby recognised by the community. Breaches could also be reported at nearby DCS facilities. Parole officers are spread across geographical areas and are not stationed in one area. Non-adherence to parole conditions is brought to the attention of the Parole Board, which reserves the right to revoke parole. Parolees are trained to reintegrate into their communities upon release. During visits to facilities at Kgosi Mampuru and Goodwood, she was informed of parolees who had not reoffended for five years. She replied to Ms James that a budget is allocated for Parole Boards, but in 2019, the payment and appointment of board members were found to not be in line with the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The Department subsequently made adjustments to create a conducive environment for Parole Board members to operate effectively and reduce the high turnover rate. She agreed that Parole Boards must include community members, the Department and the SAPS as guided by legislation.

The National Commissioner replied to Ms James that training is provided to Parole Board members. The appointment of community members from the same vicinity or management area of the parolee is prioritised. Appointment criteria are set out in the advertisement and include NQF-level 6 qualification in criminal justice or social sciences, at least five years’ experience in community development or appointment to represent community members and be involved in decision-making. He stated that the Department is working with police stations to coordinate parolee visits and with NGOs and traditional leadership to facilitate the reintegration of parolees into communities. The Parole Board is responsible for raising community awareness; hence, the Department encourages community members to apply to serve on Parole Boards. He confirmed that the SAPS is part of all Parole Boards and that the SAPS representative has critical information about the profile of the area of the offender. Family support is a vital part of the process and is the first line of report if a parolee is non-compliant. Officials from the Department also do spot visits to keep parole officers in check. In response to prison escapes, he explained that a threat and risk assessment was done, forming the basis for the prevention plan implemented in the security environment. The escapes happen mostly when offenders are on the move or working outside the cells, e.g. on farms. It is risky when offenders are on the move, e.g., going to the hospital, but security officials provide services to guard offenders on the move. The causes of prison escapes could be attributed to standard operating procedures not being followed or officials deployed not meeting the demand of securing the movements. Investigations are done through a disciplinary process, and information from fellow offenders usually assists the Department to follow up on escapees.

The National Commissioner replied to Mr Sokopo that the Department does not have a deliberate campaign to appoint ex-DCS officials as Parole Board members. Ex-DCS officials are no longer regarded as staff and get appointed through the normal application process. The contracts of people over 60 have not been renewed, and the campaign to appoint young people was on track. More than 50% of appointees have been younger people who would be able to serve for two or three terms. He advised that the turnaround time for medical parole depends on a case-by-case situation. Sittings are not restricted and can be arranged virtually in urgent cases. He replied to the Chairperson that despite the vacancies, all Parole Boards in the Eastern Cape have Deputy Chairpersons. The vacancies are at the Chairperson level. If a Parole Board is not fully constituted, the Parole Board of the nearest management area is requested to assist. The Review Board is constituted to review cases referred to it. He sought details on inmates who had not been recommended for parole. The composition of Parole Boards does not include Members of Parliament because Parliament must hold the governing bodies to account. He replied to Mr Engelbrecht that the number of functional medical parolees after parole is low. The Department is relying on the expert opinion and recommendations of the Medical Parole Board. According to the Department's records, he differed with Mr Engelbrecht’s re-offender statistics and stated that the figure is below 30%. The figure is based on information from social workers, specialists, victims' families and community members. He acknowledged that parolees have been found to contradict conditions and commit crimes, which is a risk that the Department need to manage. Regarding the timeline of the review of the parole system, he advised that the research had been done in consultation with the National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS). The next step is to brief the new Minister and Deputy Minister and present a memorandum to the Cabinet before progressing to the legislative stages. The goal is to finalise the legislative amendments within the first 24 months of the new term.

The Chief Deputy Commissioner stated that the Medical Parole Board meets monthly and considers urgent cases as the need arises.

The Deputy Minister agreed to submit the outstanding information in writing. She thanked members for their questions and the DCS officials for responding.

The Chairperson sought confirmation from Members whether all questions were answered.

Mr Engelbrecht drew attention to the response on the statistics and said that his statistics came from an answer to parliamentary questions. He would share the information if required.

The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister and the National Commissioner for their responses and comments. She requested that the written responses include the issue of Parole Board vacancies and a proper mitigating plan on how the Department was planning to fill the vacancies that have been backdated for over three years. She noted that the presentation did not include SAPS and Justice Department representatives. On behalf of the Committee, she commended the Department for overachieving the quarter-one target. She enquired about the effectiveness of the CMC in compiling reports for the Parole Boards and the role of the CMC in the Parole Board sittings. She agreed with the National Commissioner that the Bills should be processed timely and not rushed at the end of the term.

The Deputy Minister agreed to provide detailed information in writing on all the required issues and thanked the Chairperson for the opportunity to participate in the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.