Update by DCS on its readiness to take over PPP facilities at the end of contracts; update on the litigation concerning the Mangaung Correctional Centre; with Deputy Minister
Meeting Summary
The Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services met with the Department of Correctional Services to discuss the transition of management of correctional facilities from private operators to the Department. The Committee was informed that the Mangaung Correctional Centre in Bloemfontein, Free State, had been in operation since 1 July 2001 under a 25-year contract managed by Bloemfontein Correctional Contracts and overseen by G4S. The contract is set to end on 30 June 2026, and the facility has an approved capacity of 2 928 inmates.
In November 2021, a take-over task team was appointed to prepare for the Department’s assumption of management at both the Mangaung and Kutama-Sinthumule Correctional Centres, with the latter's contract expiring in 2027. The Chairperson commended the progress of the take-over plans and urged the Department to ensure their timely completion.
During the meeting, the Committee was briefed on non-compliance incidents at the Mangaung facility that prompted the Department to invoke Section 112 of the Correctional Services Act on 28 March 2023. Subsequently, in May 2023, the DCS issued Bloemfontein Correctional Contracts with a 90-day termination notice due to repeated violations of the concession agreement. However, Bloemfontein Correctional Contracts responded by applying for an urgent court interdict to challenge the termination decision, which delayed the management transition pending the resolution of legal proceedings. The matter remains unresolved and is still under legal review.
Despite these challenges, the DCS reassured the Portfolio Committee that the take-over would proceed either after the legal issues were settled or at the end of the contract period. Committee Members cautioned that further legal actions might be used to prolong the current arrangement until the contract expires. The Committee raised concerns about inmates lacking identity documents, emphasising the risks posed by such situations, as evidenced by the case of Thabo Bester, who escaped custody without proper identification.
Meeting report
Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson reflected on the past six months, acknowledging the Committee's busy schedule and accomplishments. She noted that only one matter would be deferred to 2025, namely the matter of the Department’s infrastructure projects, both implemented and pending. This had been postponed to accommodate discussions on annual reports in the previous week. She clarified the capacity details of the Mangaung and Kutama-Sinthumule Correctional Centres and emphasised the importance of readiness to assume control when the private management contracts expire. She noted the apology from the Minister of Correctional Services, who had Cabinet commitments. She then invited the Department to brief the Committee on their preparedness for the transition of the public-private partnership (PPP) correctional facilities and the ongoing legal proceedings. She expressed concern about the absence of the regional commissioners of the Northern Cape and North West Province, whose inputs were relevant to the discussion due to their jurisdictional oversight of these regions.
Deputy Minister’s opening remarks
Deputy Minister of Correctional Services, Ms Lindiwe Ntshalintshali, thanked the Chairperson and outlined the purpose of the briefing, which was to provide updates on the state of readiness for the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) to take over private correctional facilities under PPPs, particularly the Mangaung Correctional Centre (MCC). She acknowledged the ongoing litigation related to these facilities and assured the Committee that, despite legal challenges, the Department had already assumed some management responsibilities at the Mangaung Correctional Centre. Preparations for the take-over were progressing and detailed updates on litigation and readiness would be provided during the meeting. She referred to the transfer of inmates and responsibilities to the DCS, and she assured the Committee that while some issues, such as payment matters tied to the litigation, remained under dispute, these concerns were being addressed.
DCS Briefing
Mr Makgothi Thobakgale, National Commissioner, DCS, said the presentation would focus on Mangaung.
Ms Subashini Moodley, Regional Commissioner: Free State and Northern Cape, DCS, who co-chaired the transition task team, explained that the handover process for the Kutama-Sinthumule centre would follow the process for the Mangaung centre closely.
Mangaung Correctional Centre (MCC) in Bloemfontein, Free State Province, started its operations on 01 July 2001 and will end 30 June 2026. The MCC has been managed by Bloemfontein Correctional Contracts (BCC) for a period of 25 years under the daily operations of G4S. The Centre has an approved accommodation capacity of 2 928. Kutama-Sinthumule Correctional Centre (KSCC) in Makhado, Limpopo Province started its operations on 16 February 2002 and will end 15 February 2027. KSCC is being managed by South African Custodial Management (SACM) for a period of 25 years. The Centre has an approved accommodation capacity of 3 024. In November 2021, the National Commissioner appointed a Take-over Task Team led by Regional Commissioners: Limpopo, Mpumalanga and North-West and Free State & Northern Cape Regions in preparation for the taking over of both Mangaung and Kutama-Sinthumule Correctional Centres at the end of the contract in 2026 and 2027 respectively (PPP). The Task Team is comprised of Regional Heads, Head Office and Contract Management.
The Task Team agreed to start with the take-over of Mangaung Correctional Centre since its contract ends in 2026, a year earlier than KSCC. However, the take-over process for MCC will also be applicable to KSCC. While the Task Team was preparing the take over process, there were number of non compliance incidents uncovered at MCC that led to DCS invoking Section 112 of the Correctional Services Act on 28 March 2023. In May 2023, DCS decided to issue Bloemfontein Correctional Contracts (BCC), a consortium running the MCC under the daily operations of G4S with a 90 days’ notice of termination due to multiple non-compliance to the concession contract. The 90 days commenced on 02 May 2023 to 31 July 2023 and the task teams had to focus on ensuring that the Department was ready to take-over the MCC after the 90 days. The National Commissioner appointed a Temporary Manager and an Acting Controller at the MCC facility to oversee the daily operations of the Facility.
The Task Team and the Work Stream Champions held a number of meetings to develop take-over action plans. The Work Stream Champions, supported by Free State and Northern Cape teams, conducted a number of site visits at the MCC to assess the functioning and operations of the Facility in preparation for the take-over and future operations. Emanating from the visits and engagements, the work stream action plans were developed and monitored by the Task Team respectively.
Legal challenges
After the Department invoked Section 112 Clause and issued a notice of termination of the BCC Concession Contract, BCC applied for an Urgent Court interdict to challenge the decision of the Department. This action impacted on the taking-over process pending the Court outcomes on the cases. The matter has not yet been finalised and is still receiving legal attention. The take-over will continue after the legal processes are finalised and or at the end of the contract, whichever one comes first.
See attached for further information on the workstream action plans.
See attached for update on implementation of Public Protector report on the scape of Thabo Bester.
In conclusion, the Department said it is ready to take-over the operations of MCC. The take-over will only commence once the Legal processes have been finalised. The take-over of Kutama-Sinthumule Correctional Centre will be finalised after Mangaung Correctional Centre.
See presentation document for further details.
Discussion
The Chairperson was grateful for the reports and updates provided but raised concerns about the presentation, noting that the Committee had not received all relevant documentation, particularly detailed ground reports on the litigation process. She highlighted that certain aspects, such as litigation options mentioned during the presentation, were not included in the forwarded documents.
Ms K Kgobisa-Ngcaba (DA) asked about the cost of the take-over and how long the preparation process would take to conclude. Specifically, she asked how quickly the Department could assume control of the facility if litigation were resolved immediately. She sought clarification on the activities and findings mentioned in relation to the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) “updating” on Slide 15, as she was unclear about its implications.
On the topic of litigation, she questioned why DCS was opposing the involvement of G4S in the process. Was it of substantive importance or was it merely procedural? She was concerned about the potential financial burden of extended litigation. She urged the Department to consider the costs and implications of its legal strategies, asking whether these decisions were being approached thoughtfully. She asked about the identity of the counsel representing the Department and the counsel who previously advised that there were no prospects of success in the litigation. Her questions reflected a focus on the financial and procedural aspects of the take-over process, emphasising accountability and strategic decision-making.
Mr M Moela (ANC) acknowledged the Department's progress as outlined in the presentation, particularly the ongoing efforts to prepare for the transition and ensure readiness. However, he was concerned about the antagonistic relationship between the Department and the private operators and questioned the steps being taken to achieve compliance and smooth the transition process. What measures were being implemented to address non-compliance issues and ensure a seamless handover? Were all necessary preparations and compliance requirements were being met to facilitate a smooth transition of operations from the private contractor to DCS?
He also referred to previous presentations where steps in the development of the process had been outlined, expressing interest in understanding potential challenges that could disrupt the smooth execution of the take-over. He inquired about the special needs and criteria used for admissions into the private correctional facilities, seeking details on the standards required for these facilities.
Mr J Engelbrecht (DA) criticised the initial decision to outsource a core state responsibility. He questioned whether the state was properly enforcing penalties for non-compliance in the contract with G4S and whether such penalties were adequate, especially considering the costs involved in taking over these facilities. He also inquired about the financial implications of the MCC take-over, specifically whether it would lead to an increase in the operational budget due to the hiring of additional personnel and their housing needs. He raised concerns that housing officials on-site would not be a desirable solution and emphasised the importance of finding a more sustainable approach.
He sought clarity on the future use of the MCC facility. Would it remain a maximum-security prison or would it be repurposed to accommodate medium-security offenders or even juveniles? He suggested that the facility's workshops could be used for skills development, benefiting inmates and reducing recidivism, rather than keeping it solely for maximum-security cases.
He expressed concern about the ongoing litigation and its impact on the facility’s operations. Was the Department fully considering the long-term costs associated with intractable litigation? Mr He pointed to recent reports highlighting serious shortcomings in MCC’s management and asked whether the Department had properly considered these issues in its decision-making processes. He raised ethical concerns regarding the original contract negotiations, noting that some members of the negotiation team later joined G4S, which could present conflicts of interest. He suggested that an investigation into these issues would be worthwhile. He also compared the MCC with the Kutama-Sinthumule facility in Limpopo, which he praised for being well-managed and effective. The Department should consider using it as a model for the future. Lastly, he questioned whether MCC staff, many of whom had been working under G4S management for over 25 years, would undergo additional training to align with the Department’s standards, given their familiarity with private-sector practices.
Mr S Mwali (MK) expressed concern about the timing and the Departments readiness to take over MCC at the end of its contract. Why had the Department waited until the final stages of the contract to begin the process of preparing for the take-over? He pointed out that the verification process indicated that the Department's efforts to take over the project were being rushed, potentially leading to a situation where they might fail to take over effectively. The Department should have been proactive in pushing for the take-over much earlier, rather than leaving it to the last moment, which could result in failure and blame being placed on them. He asked whether the Department had considered using mediation to resolve issues related to the take-over, especially if litigation processes were still ongoing.
He called on DCS to resolve these concerns and ensure they are fully prepared for the transition.
Mr Moela raised concerns regarding overcrowding in correctional facilities, particularly as the Department prepared to take over facilities currently run by private entities. The Department needed to be proactive in addressing the issue of overcrowding, which was a significant problem in many correctional centres, including those managed by the private sector. He asked what measures DCS intended to implement to prevent overcrowding once they took over these facilities. He stressed the importance of maintaining the infrastructure in these facilities. He noted that there had been concerns about the state of infrastructure in some DCS-run centres. He questioned what steps would be taken to ensure the facilities were properly maintained and adequately equipped after the transition. He wanted to know how the Department would manage to meet these challenges and avoid the same issues seen in other overcrowded centres. His concern was about ensuring that the Department’s management of the facilities would be effective and that overcrowding and infrastructure issues would be addressed comprehensively as part of the take-over process.
Mr M Sokopo (ANC) raised concerns about the costs and logistics involved in the process of transferring the correctional facility from the private contractor to the Department. He questioned the daily costs associated with the facility, specifically asking if the figures provided were per bed or per inmate. This was a point of interest for him, particularly because during the presentation on litigation, it had been mentioned that the contractor had taken on the responsibility of making repairs to the facility. He wanted to know what happened during the repairs—whether inmates had been transferred to DCS-managed centres during this time, and if so, who was financially responsible for housing them.
He asked about the labour implications of the take-over, specifically about the absorption of staff once the facility was transferred to DCS. He asked whether the salary levels for the staff would remain the same, especially if employees had been expecting better pay after the Department's take-over. This concern extended to how such changes might affect the Department’s labour dynamics and if it would lead to any tensions or challenges within the workforce. All stakeholders must ensure a smooth transition while maintaining clarity on costs and employment conditions.
The Chairperson was concerned about the presentation’s focus, which primarily dealt with one facility, while updates on both facilities were needed. She noted that during a previous visit, there had been discrepancies related to reports on escapes. Despite initial indications that no escapes had occurred, it was later revealed that there had been an escape, with attempts to cover up the incident. She asked for clarity on whether there had been any escapes or escape attempts at either facility during the current financial year. What had been the status of those who escaped, had they been recaptured and was the Department to monitor this independently of G4S to ensure accountability?
She raised concerns about gender equity within the facilities, referring to the Department's target of 60% male and 40% female staff. During a previous visit to the facility, officials had cited issues with assigning female staff to male-dominated areas, which contradicted the national Department's quota. She asked whether the issue had been resolved, particularly in ensuring that female staff were appointed to managerial positions, and whether the recommendations of the Portfolio Committee had been implemented.
She also raised the issue of overcrowding in the facilities, asking whether the Department would maintain the same standards of not allowing overcrowding once the facilities were fully taken over. She also asked for updates on the admission process of inmates, particularly concerning their identification. She was concerned about incidents like that of Thabo Bester, where a high-profile inmate was found to lack proper identification despite being incarcerated for a long time. She stressed the importance of ensuring proper screening processes to avoid similar incidents in the future.
She asked about penalties related to non-compliance with the contract since its inception, particularly with respect to the two facilities. She asked about the penalties imposed on both facilities for not adhering to their contracts, and whether the Department had been responsible for paying those penalties. She sought clarity on the total penalties charged to the facilities, and whether any violations had led to payments made by the Department.
Responses
Commissioner Thobakgale provided a comprehensive response addressing several operational and management concerns within the Department. On the issue of penalties, he explained that the contract made provision for the establishment of a supervisory committee to adjudicate penalties. It had been in existence from the start, though its effectiveness was hampered at times by external pressures, such as the absence of legal representatives. Once fully operational, the committee focused on resolving previous challenges. He underscored the difficulties caused by delays in reporting. Regarding overcrowding, especially due to high-profile offenders serving life sentences, he acknowledged that it was a significant concern. He warned that this issue could become unsustainable by 2026-2027 and stressed the importance of exploring alternative solutions, such as repurposing facilities for medium-security offenders and implementing youth development programs to help ease overcrowding.
He also discussed the deteriorating conditions of some facilities, including issues like non-functional water supplies, electrical problems, and lack of windows, all of which had contributed to a decline in the infrastructure. He assured the Committee that, despite these challenges, efforts were underway to improve the humane treatment of offenders.
On the issue of financial management, he explained that temporary management was brought in to oversee operations at certain facilities, with payment for these services contingent on the operational status of the facilities. This was expected to generate savings once the Department assumed full control, particularly in areas, like kitchen management, which had previously been outsourced.
He assured the Committee that, if all legal issues were resolved the next day, the DCS was prepared to absorb staff without layoffs, although those found implicated in wrongdoing would be subject to internal disciplinary processes. Staff wishing to resign would be given the opportunity, while those deemed unfit for duty would be dealt with accordingly. The Department’s internal management would help offset the financial impact of the take-over, eliminating the need for costly contractor payments. He also provided details about an investigation into a fire incident at one facility, where management’s failure to respond properly to inmates' complaints had contributed to unrest. He confirmed that recommendations from the investigation were being implemented to prevent similar incidents in the future.
He addressed the issue of corruption within the Department, acknowledging that officials had been compromised by offenders. Specifically, at Mangaung, one offender had coordinated with officials to manipulate situations, resulting in the removal of both the offenders and the implicated staff. Criminal cases were opened where necessary, and the Department was committed to following proper internal processes to address corruption and ensure accountability.
Ms Moodley focused on several key issues during her response, particularly highlighting the challenges related to ID application processes for incarcerated individuals. She explained that DCS was engaged with the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) on this problem. A lack of funding hindered the ability to process ID applications for all offenders, however, and some inmates did not want IDs because they could be used to link them with other crimes. DHA was also unwilling to allow people to apply for IDs on behalf of offenders because this would require them to waive the fee. The issues were compounded by the ending of certain contracts, and discussions were ongoing with the national Department to explore potential solutions, such as using support vector technology to help locate and assist offenders with ID applications.
Regarding the issue of salary levels, she confirmed that there were plans to address discrepancies and make provisions for staff to apply for positions when opportunities arose. However, she emphasised that changes in salary structure and staff positions would be implemented with careful oversight, ensuring that staff adhered to ACS (Acquired Competency Skills) standards and operating procedures. The approach to supervision would be more moderate, with one official assigned direct responsibility, and there would be an effort to ensure that job applicants met equity and empowerment criteria.
She also discussed the Department’s efforts to address management structures, noting that while they had requested reviews of the management portfolio, the response had been delayed due to ongoing safety concerns and staffing issues. Despite these setbacks, she told members of the Committee that follow-ups would take place, and the Department was committed to improving staffing practices, particularly within the Mangaung region, where job creation programmes had been initiated but were currently lagging due to the challenges they faced in the region.
Ms Pheladi Kekana, Director: Litigation DCS, informed the Committee that the Department had advocated for serious legal representation, considering the nature of the cases.
Deputy Minister Ntshalintshali noted that security equipment and facilities had been evaluated as part of their stabilisation plan, and threat assessments had been conducted. The Department was aware of the issues around outsourcing services and emphasised that while PPPs could be beneficial, subcontracting presented challenges. She acknowledged that this experience had provided important lessons and highlighted the importance of citizen involvement. She also clarified the issue of ID issuance. In South Africa, the first-time issue of an ID was free, but reissues required payment, which has caused some frustration. She explained that while individuals in their facilities could use the registration number for ID purposes, there were challenges in collecting data, especially when some individuals did not want to cooperate. She highlighted the importance of having an integrated and sustainable data collection system to improve this process.
On the issue of salary discrepancies, she pointed out that the presentation had already covered the differences in salary packages, and efforts were being made to address these disparities. She acknowledged the resource constraints regarding certain services but assured the Committee that the Department would continue to monitor and improve structures as they moved toward the completion of these facilities. She expressed confidence that the Department would submit the required documentation on education issues and other matters as needed.
Follow-up discussion
The Chairperson raised a concern about the digital programme that the Commissioner had been working on. She suggested expanding this program and implementing it across all correctional facilities. She emphasised the importance of ensuring that the system operated smoothly. She expressed concern about potential issues where an inmate's information might not synchronise properly between the justice and correctional systems as an inmate moves through various stages, such as arrest, court appearances, and incarceration. She noted that the Integrated Next-Generation Sequencing (INGS) system has its own challenges, which must be addressed, and she called for better integration within the justice cluster to ensure that information was synchronised at all points. She said that an inmate's details, including whether they are an illegal foreigner or a South African, needed to be accurately reflected and shared across all relevant systems.
Regarding penalties, she asked for clarification on the financial penalties that could be applied to both parties in the event of contract breaches or other transgressions. Specifically, she wanted to know if there was any archived information regarding penalties incurred in the past, particularly related to escape incidents at the facilities. She mentioned a recent escape and asked for more details on the financial penalties the private partner might face if found responsible for such incidents. She requested archived data going back 22 to 23 years to help inform their understanding of these issues.
Dr Zodwa Mosoma, Director: Correctional Programmes, DCS, responded by emphasising the need for clarity in the report, particularly regarding penalties and breaches. She suggested that the report should explicitly outline the issues that are most likely to be breached, along with the corresponding penalties for each breach. This would help members of the Portfolio Committee better understand the financial consequences.
The Chairperson asked how much money the DCS had spent in relation to escape incidents and, in particular, how much the penalty would be for such incidents if the private partner was found to be responsible for the escape. She wanted clarification on the specific financial penalties associated with escapes.
Ms Moodley explained that the concession contract included specific penalties for various transgressions, including escape incidents. The penalty for an escape would vary depending on factors such as the severity and the duration it took for the individual to be re-captured. However, the general penalty for an escape would be around R500,000 to R600,000. She also mentioned that there were penalties for other contractual breaches, such as failing to serve food within the required time or at the required temperature. These penalties would generally be of a smaller amount compared to those for escapes. She emphasised that the supervisory committee had clear guidelines on these penalties, which could be made available to the Committee for further review.
Commissioner Thobakgale responded to Mr Engelbrecht’s comment about comparing contracts by stating that the current contract was the worst the government could ever have entered into, or had ever entered into. It was written in a way that heavily favoured the contractors, benefiting them in all respects. He mentioned that he had been working on the issue, highlighting the poor terms of the contract.
The Chairperson requested updated information on the current daily cost for inmates, noting that when last she checked, it was around R400 per day, and asked how this amount had changed due to cost of living adjustments, particularly in comparison between the Mangaung and Kutama-Sinthumule Correctional Centres. She asked for a detailed report on the contracts for both facilities, including information on penalties for non-compliance with contract terms, such as food serving times or temperature violations.
She also requested detailed plans on how employees from the Kutama-Sinthumule Centre would be absorbed into the DCS and asked for information on employees who may choose retirement or leave due to differences in salary structures. She mentioned the need for a smooth transition when DCS took over the facilities, with special attention to maintaining the quality of services such as healthcare and kitchen management. She suggested that systems should be put in place prior to the take-over, such as training personnel for kitchen work, and ensuring healthcare services remain uninterrupted.
She highlighted the importance of managing remand detainees and sentenced inmates separately to prevent issues within the correctional facilities. She also emphasised the importance of maintaining facility security and addressing recurring incidents of misconduct by officials. She proposed that lifestyle audits be conducted on employees, especially those transitioning from the private sector, given that some officials had been involved in illicit activities, to ensure that there were no conflicts of interest or corruption.
She also raised concerns about paying for bed spaces that were not occupied and supported the Department’s approach to avoiding paying for empty spaces. She suggested that the practice of officials resigning before investigations should be handled more carefully to ensure accountability. She noted that a full report on the Mangaung take-over plans would be discussed in next year’s meeting, while the plans for Kutama-Sinthumule would be addressed as well. She emphasised the importance of having comprehensive and practical plans for the take-overs and ensuring that no major hurdles were faced during the transition.
She urged the Department to submit reports timeously, expressing frustration that the Committee had not received requested documents and noting that failure to provide these reports would mean officials would need to appear before the Committee in person.
Deputy Minister’s closing remarks
Deputy Minister Ntshalintshali expressed her gratitude for the guidance provided during the meeting and acknowledged the importance of the Committee’s feedback. She emphasised the need to take the Committee’s suggestions seriously and assured that all outstanding reports would be submitted. She mentioned that there should be a checklist to track these reports and committed to following up on any outstanding documents. She apologised for the delay in submitting the required reports. She requested that the office of the Chairperson liaise with her office to ensure the reports were submitted in a timely manner. She also mentioned that some reports had not been finalised because they were pending additional information. She assured the Committee that her office was committed to moving forward swiftly, to avoid any further delays. She expressed appreciation for the Committee’s patience and support in helping to guide their efforts.
Chairperson’s closing remarks
The Chairperson informed Members that any outstanding items, except for the infrastructure meeting, would be deferred to the next year's programme. She also highlighted that the Committee would review the first-quarter programme for next year, identifying key matters that should be prioritised. She emphasised that there were ongoing litigation matters, such as the trailer case involving the Department and the regional Commissioner, that would be discussed separately as standalone items. She mentioned the Department’s responsibility to address these matters and the need for transparency regarding litigation, including possibly involving the state attorney.
She further noted that some issues from the Department’s annual report, especially those flagged by the Auditor-General, would be brought up for further discussion in the coming year. She thanked the Department for their consistent attendance and transparency, encouraging continued accountability in their work. She reminded the Committee that their role was to perform oversight and ensure accountability, adding that it was important for the Department to meet its obligations to avoid delays in approval.
She acknowledged the Deputy Minister’s efforts to adjust to the Committee's work and praised the Department’s commitment to attending meetings. She urged the Department to continue prioritising its engagement with the Committee. In closing, the Chairperson thanked everyone for their dedication and wished them safe travels. She also stressed the importance of respecting the Committee’s schedule and stated that the meeting was adjourned, with future items to be considered in the House.
Consideration of the Committee Oversight Report
The Chairperson introduced the oversight report from a recent visit to the Johannesburg correctional facility, formerly Sun City Jail. This visit included inspections of various facilities and operational elements, which would be discussed in detail in subsequent sessions. The Chairperson emphasised the importance of these oversight activities and concluded the meeting with a focus on ensuring thorough deliberation of the issues raised. She listed all the correctional facilities the Committee had visited, including an unannounced visit to Boksburg Correctional Facility. Other notable engagements included a visit to the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) office. The inspecting judge had also joined the Committee for the unannounced visit, providing valuable insight during the proceedings.
She noted that the oversight report had been circulated to Members in advance. She proceeded to go through the report page by page, inviting Members to highlight any necessary corrections or amendments. She noted that she had also reviewed the report beforehand and made her own amendments where necessary. After addressing comments on pages 1 through 5, she emphasised the comprehensive nature of the report, acknowledging its length due to the breadth of activities covered.
She emphasised the importance of follow-up actions based on prior oversight visits. She stressed the need for the Department to provide a comprehensive report on pending projects, specifically highlighting the unresolved kitchen project and similar issues at facilities like Modderbee and Boksburg. She proposed that the Committee not only consider such reports but also conduct on-site oversight visits to ensure accountability and transparency. While past follow-ups, such as those in Limpopo, had been effective, oversight needed to be expanded to other provinces and facilities in the upcoming year.
The Chairperson also flagged unresolved issues, including contraband smuggling and the inconsistencies in reports provided by the Minister and the Department. She noted the urgency of addressing these matters and proposed that the Portfolio Committee prioritise them in its next session. The issue of contraband smuggling, which had been highlighted in earlier meetings, would require further investigation and clarity from the Department. Discrepancies in reported figures regarding contraband enforcement raised concerns about coordination and reliability within the Department.
Mr Engelbrecht raised the issue of strengthening oversight mechanisms by enforcing Section 119 of the Correctional Services Act. He proposed that the report reflect that any illegal activities, including smuggling of contraband, should be referred for criminal investigation.
Ms Kgobisa-Ngcaba was dissatisfied with how the oversight report characterised the state of Modderbee Prison. She described the facility as being in complete disarray, with a lack of leadership, accountability, and order. She called for the report to more accurately reflect the gravity of the situation observed during the oversight visit.
The Chairperson asked Mr Mpho Mathabathe, Content Advisor, Portfolio Committee, to find stronger wording. She observed that poor infrastructure at the Johannesburg Correctional Centre, such as drainage system failures, stood in stark contrast to the facility’s reported clean audits. Similar to Modderbee, non-compliant kitchens and general mismanagement highlighted a disconnect between audit outcomes and the reality on the ground. Meanwhile, the unannounced visit to Boksburg Correctional Facility had identified fewer issues, but ongoing monitoring would be required to support its newly appointed leadership. The acting Area Commissioner, now permanently appointed as of 1 November 2024, had expressed her gratitude to the Portfolio Committee for recognising her efforts. The visit had revealed mixed outcomes, with certain systems functioning adequately but others requiring further scrutiny.
The Portfolio Committee made key recommendations to address the challenges during oversight visits.
First, the Department must appear before the Committee within three months to present detailed action plans for Modderbee and Johannesburg Correctional Centres, focusing on leadership restoration, compliance, and consequence management. Immediate attention must also be given to infrastructure failures at Johannesburg Correctional Facility, particularly the drainage system, alongside a review of audit practices to ensure they reflect operational realities. Similarly, Modderbee prison requires urgent intervention to establish clear leadership structures and address the operational chaos observed during the visit.
Follow-up oversight visits will be prioritised in the new year, with Modderbee and Sun City as focus areas. The Committee also intends to expand oversight to additional facilities in provinces that have not yet been reviewed. At Boksburg Correctional Facility, continued support for the newly appointed Area Commissioner will be essential to ensure sustained improvement. Moreover, the Department must enhance its reporting mechanisms to address discrepancies between departmental submissions and ministerial statements, particularly concerning contraband, compliance, and leadership accountability.
The Portfolio Committee remains committed to ensuring the identified facilities demonstrate measurable progress. The Chairperson emphasised the importance of ongoing follow-up and consistent monitoring to address systemic failures and improve operational standards across the correctional system.
Mr Engelbrecht suggested adding a separate item in the report regarding the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure’s (DPWI's) handling of their responsibilities concerning correctional facilities. He suggested that the Portfolio Committee emphasise the need for the DCS to independently manage its infrastructure-related projects. This proposal was rooted in the apparent inefficiency and lack of accountability displayed by DPWI in addressing infrastructural challenges. He argued that allowing DCS autonomy in such matters would enhance efficiency and ensure timely interventions.
The Chairperson agreed. It was disappointing that DPWI had failed to take responsibility for the infrastructural issues observed during the oversight visits. She recalled a specific instance at one of the facilities where services were either poorly managed or completely neglected. The report should include a detailed commentary to reflect the Portfolio Committee's dissatisfaction with DPWI's performance and its impact on correctional facilities.
The Committee resolved to adopt the report with the proposed amendments. Once the necessary revisions had been incorporated, the updated report would be circulated to all Members for final review.
See full report here https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/6036/
Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services
The Chairperson asked Mr Mathabathe, the Content Advisor, to guide the Committee through the report. She highlighted the importance of addressing inaccuracies in previously circulated versions of the report and ensuring that it accurately reflects the Committee's observations and recommendations.
Mr Mathabathe provided an overview of the report, beginning with the Department’s performance against its strategic goals and key areas highlighted in the Auditor-General report (AG) report. He noted that the Department of Correctional Services had improved its overall performance from 80% in 2022/23 to 86% in 2023/24. However, despite this improvement, several challenges remained. Financially, the Department was allocated R28bn for the financial year, but significant irregular expenditures, totalling R8.9m, were identified. These were attributed to non-compliance with Treasury regulations, including the splitting of procurement items to avoid regulatory thresholds. The AG also pointed out persistent issues in contract management, despite the Department receiving an unqualified audit opinion for the fourth consecutive year.
The Committee raised concerns regarding the Minister’s limited accountability in the report. While the Minister presented a political overview, he deferred much of the detailed accountability to the former Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, which the Committee found unsatisfactory. Direct engagement by the sitting Minister was deemed critical to comprehensively assess the Department's performance. Additionally, irregular expenditure continued to be a significant issue, with the Committee calling for stricter adherence to the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and improved contract management processes.
Operational inefficiencies were another focal point of the report. The Committee flagged problems in the Department’s social reintegration and parole programs, noting that performance targets in these areas were consistently unmet. Other systemic issues, such as overcrowding, infrastructural inadequacies, and under-resourced rehabilitation programmes, were highlighted as requiring urgent attention. Financial underutilisation in key programmes, particularly in the first quarter of the 2024/25 financial year, was also a point of concern, prompting calls for enhanced oversight mechanisms to ensure optimal use of allocated resources.
Mr Engelbrecht noted the Department's challenges in addressing irregular and fruitless expenditure, specifically emphasising the lack of sufficient investigators to clear the backlog of cases. A service provider had been appointed to assist in the investigations, and the Committee expressed its intention to closely monitor the progress and request updates from the Department on these and other investigations.
On the issue of overcrowding in correctional centres, he stressed that it remains a major concern as it hinders effective rehabilitation and compromises the safety of both inmates and officials. Although the Department met its target for reducing overcrowding, the overcrowding rate persists at a concerning 48%. The report should reflect that the Department must set more ambitious targets for reducing overcrowding.
The report also raised concerns over the increasing reliance on consultants and contractors, which led to significant expenditure. Members emphasised that the Department should minimise dependency on external parties for tasks that could be performed internally by officials. The Committee noted losses incurred from damaged state vehicles and encouraged the Department to recover costs from those responsible. Members suggested purchasing new vehicles might be more economical than frequently servicing older ones.
Another point of concern was the misalignment between the Department's reported overall performance, which stood at 86%, and its expenditure. This disconnect suggested inefficiencies in aligning financial resources with performance outcomes. The Committee recommended that the Department improve its budgeting practices to ensure that expenditure more accurately reflects achieved results.
Mr Engelbrecht also highlighted the disproportionately low funding allocated to critical programs such as rehabilitation and social reintegration, despite these programmes achieving all their targets for 2023. The Department was urged to advocate for increased funding for these areas in future budgets. He linked the issue of overcrowding to the significant portion of the budget allocated to incarceration. He suggested that the report should clarify how resources are distributed across various functions, such as administration, incarceration, and rehabilitation. He proposed that the Department should set more ambitious targets for its rehabilitation and reintegration programs, ensuring they are backed by adequate resources. This would strengthen the Department's capacity to deliver on its mandate and enhance the overall effectiveness of correctional activities.
The Chairperson registered the Committee's concern regarding the Department's payment of interest on rent, urging it to collaborate with municipalities to eliminate such unnecessary expenditures. She highlighted the Department's failure to meet some targets for the year under review, attributing it to ongoing arbitration with a service provider. The Committee plans to request a comprehensive update on the Integrated Management System (IMS) and other related issues.
Despite these challenges, the report commended the Department for securing an unqualified audit opinion and encouraged further efforts to achieve a clean audit. The Department's improved overall performance, increasing from 80% to 86%, was also acknowledged. Additionally, the reduction in fruitless and wasteful expenditure was appreciated, though the Committee urged recovery of amounts from responsible officials.
The report covered the implementation of the audit action plan, with the Committee encouraging steps toward eliminating audit findings. It also noted an increase in revenue, which it believed would support the Department’s self-sufficiency amidst ongoing budget cuts. Members of the Committee expressed satisfaction with the Department's infrastructure plans and their effective management without over-reliance on private investment.
Concerns were raised in the report regarding overspending of R1.1m in the 2023/24 financial year. The Committee urged the Department to align its human resources and financial plans to avoid similar issues in the future. They emphasised the need for measures to address the challenges faced by vulnerable inmates and suggested the development of a career succession plan for those within JICS who aspire to leadership roles. The lack of visible oversight by JICS in correctional centres was a critical concern, especially in locations with deteriorating infrastructure. JICS was urged to address issues raised by inmates and engage in regular campaigns to combat corruption and contraband in correctional facilities.
Remand detention and the treatment of inmates with mental health conditions were also flagged in the report as ongoing concerns. The Committee encouraged engagement with the judiciary to address prolonged detention and requested that greater attention be paid to the conditions of mentally ill inmates. Members expressed disappointment over the strained relationship between JICS and DCS and hoped for its improvement.
The Chairperson also noted the ongoing development of version two of the Trusts and Trustees Bill, with its finalisation expected by 2025. The Committee acknowledged JICS for independently tabling its first annual report on time and expressed appreciation specifically to the Minister, Deputy Minister, and staff of the Department for their support and cooperation.
See full report here https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/6037/
Chairperson’s closing remarks
The Chairperson expressed gratitude to her colleagues for their collaboration and support throughout the Committee's work. She observed that this was their last meeting for the term. Members were reminded that Tuesday would be a free day, and Wednesday would mark the Committee week, where any outstanding work could be addressed. She reflected on the progress made, particularly highlighting the Committee’s first-ever focused oversight on a single province. She also mentioned plans for next year, including an international study tour and continued oversight across three provinces. She thanked her colleagues for their constructive input, which had sharpened her leadership and decision-making. She also touched on key issues for the upcoming year, such as monitoring audit action plans, addressing concerns about inmates' profiles and parole processes, and tackling systemic challenges within the Department. She stressed the importance of developing a robust programme for the Committee's work next year, based on lessons learned and ongoing challenges. She wished everyone a restful holiday and expressed optimism about returning energised for the upcoming year’s work.
The meeting was adjourned.
Documents
Present
-
Ramolobeng, Ms A Chairperson
ANC -
Cloete, Mr EA
ANC -
Diale, Ms B
EFF -
Engelbrecht, Mr J
DA -
Gasa, Mr MM
MK -
James, Ms DE
Action SA -
Kgobisa-Ngcaba, Ms K
DA -
Moela, Mr MS
ANC -
Mwali, Mr SG
MK -
Ntshalintshali, Ms LL
ANC -
Plaatjies, Mr WTD
ANC -
Sokopo, Mr MM
ANC
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.