Investigation into Attack on Staff and Prisoner at Health Facilities: Department briefings

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
31 MAY 2005
INVESTIGATION INTO ATTACK ON STAFF AND PRISONER AT HEALTH FACILITIES: DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS

Chairperson:

Gauteng Regional Commissioner’s report on attacks
Western Cape Regional Director report on shooting at Groote Schuur Hospital

SUMMARY
The Minister of Correctional Services, Mr N Balfour, briefed the Committee concerning the two reports on attacks at health facilities. He stressed that the reports were only preliminary and had not been discussed internally at the top levels of the Department. He highlighted the need for trained personel to staff security systems and for more accurate profiling of hospitalised prisoners.

The Regional Commissioner of Gauteng, Mr S Mlombile, presented his report on the assaults at the Emthonjeni Youth Correctional Centre in Baviaanspoort. It had been determined that the security system at that Centre had to be upgraded immediately. The incident should be further investigated.

Mr B Cixilishe presented his report on the Groote Schuur incident, but this was dismissed by the Chairperson because the report did not include any recommendations. The Regional Commissioner had not been able to get assistance from Groote Schuur to draw up the recommendations. The Western Cape Department was currently involved in talks with the National Health Department to break the communications stalemate and promised a full report to the Committee within one month.

MINUTES

Gauteng report
Mr Mlombile gave a detailed description of the incident and a summary of their findings. These findings included that the Emthonjeni Centre had been built on behalf of the Department of Public Works. The centre had a ‘Norment Integrated Security System’ which excluded the use of keys inside the facility. To gain entrance to a gate, an inmate or staffmember had to buzz an official inside the control room who could see the person trying to gain access on the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV). The cameras did not cover all the areas of the section and the camera that covered the section where the offence took place, was out of order at the time. The facility was not equipped with any panic buttons. The official who gave the offender access to the hospital had not determined the reason for the perpetrator’s presence. The security system had been ineffective because of a lack of proper staff training and proper logistical support. The system was out of date as it was not a digital system.

Mr Mlombile had observed that the facility had a weak technological support system; officials in the control room did not perform their duties properly; and the Head and Assistant Head did not seem to have had a clear understanding of the role of the technology available. The management of Emthonjeni had not related to staffmembers the details of their expected work performance. The accused were older than 21-years-old and should not have been at the facility in the first place.

The Commissioner went over the decisions taken by the Department. Inmates were no longer to be escorted by other inmates to and from hospital visits. Disciplinary steps would be taken against staffmembers who were found guilty of negligence. CCTVs was to be installed in the central walkway. Panic buttons would be installed within the facility. The system at Emthonjeni would be upgraded to a digital one. A more reliable system of identifying when offenders reached adulthood would be put in place. The Head and Deputy Head of the Centre would undergo disciplinary hearings.

Mr Mlombile went through the progress in implementing the above decisions. More cameras would be installed by a newly recruited Information Technology (IT) company and the same company would upgrade the system to a digital one. Panic buttons would be installed. A chairperson and initiators for the disciplinary hearings had almost been appointed. The issue of the age of offenders had been attended to. Case studies had been sent to other management areas to help prevent similar incidents in the future.

DiscussionThe Chairperson promised that Committee would compile its own report on the incidents.

Mr J Selfe (DA) asked if the facility had design flaws, and whether the report would refer to other facilities. The Commissioner admitted that the facility had design flaws due to a lack of design expertise. He suggested the Department report be shared with Gauteng and maybe other regions.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) commented that only trained security staff should have been employed at the facility. The Commissioner explained that due to personnel movement within the organisation, untrained members had to be used in some instances.

Mr S Mohate enquired whether inmates were being searched when they left detention blocks. Mr V Mooi (Department Deputy-Director: Parliamentary Liaison) responded that the duty sheets instructed staffmembers to search inmates.

Mr C Burgess asked how dangerous the inmates at the facility were. Mr D Scholtz (Assistant Head: Pollsmoor Centre) responded that the facility catered for lower-risk offenders.

The Chairperson asked how long the cameras had been out of order. Mr D Scholtz guessed it was a matter of months. Cameras had intentionally been damaged by convicts and the maintenance costs were too high for the Department of Public Work’s budget.

The Chairperson asked whether this had been reported to the Regional Commissioner’s Office. Mr Scholtz said that it had not been reported to the Commissioner.

Mr S Moatshe wanted to know how freely the detainees could move within the facility. The Commissioner responded that over weekends, offenders could freely move around the courtyard. The control point was the entrance to the courtyard but the security had been lacking on the day of the incident. That particular offender had been called as if he had a visitor. He was no stranger to the hospital section as he had worked there before.

Mr Mohate asked who had determined that the facility maintenance was too costly, if the matter had not been reported to the Regional Commissioner. The Commissioner responded that the facility was funded by the Department of Public Works. Costs were determined in relation to the funds made available by this department.

The Chairperson asked the reason the offender had stayed at the facility after he had reached adulthood, and whether anyone was ‘doing him favours’ by keeping him there. Mr Scholtz explained that the age of offenders was recorded by the year when they committed the offence, and not by when they were born.

The Chairperson asked when the final report would be ready. The Commissioner asserted that this was his final report. Comments of his superiors would add value to the report, and then it would become a national report.

The meeting was adjourned.