SA Prisoners Association for Human Rights: briefing

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
10 September 2004
SA PRISONERS ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: BRIEFING

Chairperson:

SAPOHR presentation on chronic overcrowding in South African prisons
The White Paper and Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Offenders
Postmortern of the DCS White Paper : Appropriate sentencing: "Who should go to Prison?"

SUMMARY
The SA Prisoners Association for Human Rights (SAPOHR) explained that the problem of overcrowding in prisons was exacerbated by the absence of the remission and ineffective credit system, lack of work opportunities, and the incarceration of first time offenders who could not afford small bail amounts. He further recommended that the Department should revisit the electronic monitoring system, as its success in Pretoria had demonstrated. The private sector could play a part in ensuring that prisoners were equipped with skills that would be helpful when they were released from prison. Members raised their concerns about the lack of counselling and individual assessment for inmates. Systems should be put in place before inmates were released.

MINUTES

SAPOHR briefing
Mr G Bhudu presented that rehabilitation of an offender was a very long process which needed the co-operation of society, the Department of Correctional Services and the Department of Justice. First time offenders should undergo individual assessment to establish what skills they needed. The Department could invite the private sector to utilise the 'dormant workforce by providing jobs and at the same time teach skills to prisoners. Inmates could then pay taxes and contribute to a family and victims trust fund. This could be achieved by forming partnerships with civil society, the business sector, and the Department.

SAPOHR was in favour of the establishment of a permanent Commission to monitor overcrowding and lobby government to release those prisoners not a threat to society. According to SAPOHR, 35% of prisoners in South Africa, did work but received almost no compensation. Inmates were not trained for the work they were doing in prison, so prisoners were exposed to occupational health and safety hazards. There were official mechanisms for inmates to seek redress for the injuries sustained in workplace situations. SAPOHR proposed that prison workers be granted the right to form their own trade unions. That could only be achieved with the amendment of the Labour Relations Act.

All the larger prisons such as Westville in Durban, Pollsmoor in Cape Town, Johannesburg prison and Saint Albans in Port Elizabeth, had outsourced their kitchens to private companies. Those companies were using prisoners as labourers without compensating them, although those companies were not ploughing back a cent of their earnings.

Rehabilitation would remain a pipe dream without successful reintegration of ex-offenders into society. Halfway houses could be utilised to ease the return of ex-prisoners to society. Destitute ex-prisoners and certain type of offenders, such as parolees and probationers, could be placed in halfway houses.

The Department had also contributed to prison overcrowding. Before 1994, the then Department of Prisons had a system that ensured that prison sentences were reduced. Every sentenced prisoner was entitled to four months reduction of sentence for every year that he /she spent in prison. Second time offenders were entitled to three months reduction of their sentences for good behaviour. After the 1994 elections, the Department had introduced the Credit System. This system stipulated that prisoners had to earn their credits by behaving accordingly i.e. a model prisoner could earn credits to ensure his release. The situation in South African prisons encouraged gangsterism and gang rape and violence. The failure of the credit system was demonstrated by the overcrowding. Secondly, prisoners were clearly at the mercy of warders. Overcrowding could lead to prison riots.

Amnesty was proposed as another way to ease overcrowding. On 27 April 1995, President Nelson Mandela announced a partial amnesty for deserving prisoners. Unfortunately, there were no systems in place for the released prisoners and most of them went back to prison. Overcrowding was compounded by the fact that the credit system was not working. The government had done away with the remission system. There were no 'safety valves' to combat prison overcrowding.

Judge Kriegler had recommended that those convicted of petty crimes serve a minimum sentence. Some prisoners could do community service while others could be dealt with through electronic monitoring. The latter system was proved a success during a pilot project in Pretoria. Mr Ben Skosa, then Minister of Correctional Services, however never implemented those recommendations. SAPOHR recommended that the Committee revisit the issue of electronic monitoring. President Mbeki should look at means to set up a specific 'amnesty panel' to look at individual cases with regards to amnesty, community correction, and pardon or reduction of sentences. SAPOHR had been informed that the President was ready to release certain category of prisoners, but the Department had no proper plan to cater for newly released prisoners.

SAPOHR further recommended that another panel be set up with delegates from church, civic, human rights, and youth organisations. Such an 'Amnesty Resolution Committee' could set up community support structures for released prisoners, and establish halfway houses to ensure that ex inmates are equipped with relevant skills

Discussion
Mr B Fihla (ANC) said there had been a task team set up to deal with overcrowding and to look at the release of awaiting trial prisoners. The Department of Welfare, DCS, Safety and Security and the National Prosecutions Authority formed part of the task team to speed up this process. The credit system had been abolished by Parliament

Mr J Selfe (DA) stated that few prisoners had opportunity to work. For instance, in Goodwood prison not one prisoner was working. He asked about the practicalities of establishing a trade union for prisoners who were not working.

Certain judges complained that without a proper amnesty policy, there had problems in handing down proper sentences. Why not do away with sentence reduction and amnesty in favour of appropriate sentencing?

The Chairperson asked for more clarity on the outsourcing of prison kitchens.

Ms M Rajbali raised concerns about what was being done to rehabilitate first time and young offenders. How were such prisoners utilised in daily duties? She further suggested that offenders be taken out during the day to do community service. Prisoners could also be given a piece of land with a starter pack to plant crops and report back on a weekly basis. A portion of their produce could be given to the Department.

Mr G Bhudu commented that the credit system had been abolished but not replaced with any other system. SAPOHR had never been informed about the abolition.

The unionisation of working prisoners was referring only to those prisoners that were already working. The private sector could invest in building manufacturing plants within prisons and employing prisoners. For example, Toyota could manufacture bumpers for their cars using prison workshops. A special arrangement would have to be made involving all the trade union federations.

The money 'ploughed back' could put up into a trust fund for the families of the victims of crime and prisoners' wives and families. The inmates' portion of the salary could also contribute to the fund. SAPOHR had been lobbying for some time for this but they all their pleas had fallen on deaf ears.

Amnesty was normal in every democratic society - mostly after elections. Even countries ruled by monarchs had practised amnesty

The Department had advertised in the press for private tenders on outsourcing kitchens. Companies that tendered had to be well established and capable of feeding thousands of prisoners. The companies that won tenders had utilised prison labour without compensation. Instead, prisoners were promised accredited training. On 1 June the tenders were advertised, on 1 July the tendering process had closed by the beginning of August companies that won were awarded contracts.

There were thousands of first time and young offenders who should be rehabilitated or diverted to halfway houses. SAPOHR had done studies on halfway houses in 1997 and 1998. Results had shown that halfway houses were working very well in California, USA, where first time offenders and petty criminals were diverted to a halfway house for training towards reintegration. Promotion of halfway houses needed political will to succeed in South Africa.

Ms C Burgess (ID) enquired if judges and magistrates handed down sentences and whether the Department interfered with sentences. How was the Committee going to deal with separation of powers, important for any democracy? What kind of impact would the remission system have on overcrowding if it were reintroduced.

Ms S Rwexana (ANC) asked about implications when companies already paying taxes were expected to plough back a portion of their earnings to the Department.

The Chairperson suggested the use of inmates for the benefit of communities, to for instance clean graveyards, work in vegetables gardens, clean community residential areas, and plant and maintain trees in poor areas. Prisoners could be trained by companies and be accredited with certificates that could be used for employment purposes. A law could be enacted to enable companies to be partially exempted from tax in order for them to plough back a portion of their earnings.

Mr S Moatshe (ANC) commented that the remission system was appropriate it was part of rehabilitation and motivation. Amnesty was a reasonable mechanism to ease the pressure on overcrowding. Children should be released to the responsibility of parents and school governing bodies.

Mr S Mahote (ANC) asked where the tenders had been advertised.

Ms Rajbali enquired about prisoners' individual assessment and counselling of newly sentenced prisoners. Who would be responsible for the monitoring of community service in the halfway houses?

The Chairperson commented that communities needed to accept ex-prisoners so they could be fully reintegrated. The Department was spending R20 million to feed awaiting trail prisoners alone - something had to be done to address the problem.

Ms Burgess asked what could be done to eradicate gangsterism in prisons.

Mr Bhudu replied that SAPOHR had initiated a system of cell representatives that elected section representatives, that then elected prison representatives. The Department had however devised their own plan where warders appointed representatives. This plan failed in implementation because warders were paid bribes. SAPOHR then suggested work for prisoners to help provide alternative activities to gangsterism.

The Department had no plans in place for individual assessment and counselling of prisoners.

The tenders had been put out through the media for the outsourcing of kitchens.

The Department could utilise SETAs for training and accreditation of prisoners in halfway houses

Some parents of young prisoners had serious social problems like alcoholism and drug abuse, and others were generally not skilled to take care of the released prisoners. Support structures had to be put in place to assist those parents with help from the Department of Social Welfare and school governing bodies.

Inmates who lacked social support structures could be rehabilitated in the halfway houses. Some mining houses had made abandoned facilities with workshops available. There needed to be co-operation with the Departments of Labour, Trade and Industry, and Social Welfare.

The Chairperson commented that it was first time they had heard about the outsourcing of kitchens.

The meeting was adjourned