Briefing by Judicial Inspectorate off Prisons on 2004/05 Annual Report

Discussion
Mr S Shiceka (ANC) promised that a strategic relationship would be fostered between the Select Committee and the JIOP. He noted that, on visits to prisons, the Committee had found the implementation of Sections 62(f) and 63 (a) to still be quite weak. There were a number of issues that required urgent attention and needed to be raised at national and provincial level. Gangsterism was still rife in many prisons. He was not convinced by the notion that gangs constituted a ‘microcosm of society’. Gang activities within prisons could be linked to corruption within the system. He was concerned about the lack of rehabilitation taking place in prisons and questioned why prisoners were able to choose the type of activity they took part in, in addition to having the option of not taking part in any activity.

Mr D Worth (DA) was surprised that the IPVs received only approximately 7000 complaints regarding rehabilitation programmes.

Mr Shiceka said that it was necessary to put structures in place within communities to ensure the effective reintegration of offenders into the community. The education of communities would play an integral role in this. Some prisoners lived in appalling conditions. The Committee had visited prisons that were so overcrowded it was necessary for four prisoners to sleep in a single bed, some slept in shifts, while others were plagued by termites. Magistrates should visit prisons in order to have first hand knowledge of these conditions. Social workers and Legal Aid officers also did not visit prisons regularly. He was excited at the suggestion to have traditional courts reinstated. South African law was based on the Roman Dutch model, which focused more on punishment, whilst African law focussed on rehabilitation.

Mr Morris welcomed the prospect of a partnership between the Committee and the JIOP. He said that because prison was an unnatural environment (at present 60% of the prison population was made up of young men under the age of 29), it was an easy breeding ground for gang activities.

He fully agreed that not enough was being done to implement Section 62(f). Magistrates needed to pioneer alternative sentencing, which would in turn force the Department to make provisions for the effective implementation of this clause. Section 63 (a) was used in some instances but remained problematic since applications needed to be made at different courts. In addition, heads of prisons were required to write submissions indicating that conditions in their prisons were inhumane.

As far as creating awareness was concerned IPVs would be required to spend a number of hours every month on awareness programmes. He fully agreed that legal aid officials, social workers and magistrates should visit prisons regularly. 80% of awaiting trial detainees were detained in only 9 prisons across the country. An agreement had been made with the Law Society in Cape Town according to which 7000 attorneys and advocates would assist in trying to reduce this number.

Mr Morris admitted that rehabilitation was virtually non-existent in some prisons. This was largely related to the problem of overcrowding since rehabilitation programmes could not be run in overcrowded facilities.

Mr Z Ntuli (ANC) applauded Judge Fagan’s passion, noting that normally magistrates were not this enthusiastic. He too pointed out that magistrates were not very eager to discuss Section 62 (f). Commenting on the Committee’s visit to Canada in May, he said Canadian correctional facilities focussed on rehabilitation, giving inmates a choice between furthering their education or working. Offenders were assessed upon their arrival to see what the best course for their rehabilitation should be. Structures were in place to ensure the reintegration of offenders upon their release. In Canada re-offence was uncommon and the crime rate was low. Mr Worth added that Canada has invested much into an intense rehabilitation programme aimed at first time offenders and children. This contributed to the low recidivism.

Mr M Mzizi (IFP) pointed out that the public had a very negative perception regarding minimum sentences, bail and whether arrests would take place once a crime had been reported. Why should a crime be reported if there was a great possibility that no arrest would be made, or that the offender would be released into the community on bail? Offenders served sentences that were too short. He added that the public also had certain perceptions regarding the much-praised special remissions, especially considering that recidivism was rife.

He suggested that when magistrates decided on whether bail should be granted they should not merely rely on the recommendations made by the investigating officer and the prosecutor. Magistrates should make their own assessments of the crime that had been committed. Parole decisions should also be referred to the National Council on Corrections (NCC).

Mr J Le Roux (DA) said that he distanced himself from the remarks made by the Chair regarding the Scorpions. Thanking the presenters for a balanced view of the situation he pointed out that the public felt unsafe. He agreed that overcrowding was a big problem that needed a long-term solution. Early release however was merely a short-term solution that left the public fearing that those who had committed serious crimes would be released.

Judge Fagan said that the Institute of Security Studies had found that despite the crime rate having come down dramatically public fear has increased. Education was thus very important. Violent offenders needed to be imprisoned for as long as required by the law. The new parole boards included two members from the community. They were tasked with informing the community of the reasons why some offenders were released on parole. The situation called for innovative solutions. Combating poverty as well as illiteracy for example would contribute the ‘moral regeneration’ of the society. Mr Fritz said that much had been done in the Western Cape especially, to create awareness and to change the public’s perception regarding prisons and prisoners.

Mr A Manyosi (ANC) commented that the problems facing Correctional Services today were clearly rooted in Apartheid. He agreed that much crime was committed as a result of poverty. Many, who had been left unskilled and untrained by the Apartheid system, felt that they had no choice but to turn to crime. Great care should be taken to address the actual causes of the problems. He was curious as to why IPVs were employed on three-year non-renewable contracts. Mr Shiceka questioned whether a five-year contract would not offer the JIOP a better return on the training invested in the IPVs.

Mr Shaku said that in accordance with the Act IPVs could not be in the employment of the state, but were contracted. The three-year period of their contracted afforded them enough time to be trained and to become familiar with the job they were required to perform. Their remuneration was approved in was subject to minimum service delivery. A list of all the IPVs and their contact details would be left with the Committee. Members could then contact them for more information on their tasks and the [problems they were faced with. Judge Fagan added that there was a fear that should the term of the IPVs be extended over a too long period they might become institutionalised. The three-year term needed debate since there were some very good IPVs who could not be employed again because their term had ended.

Mr Manyosi asked who determined what the final phase of a terminal illness was? Mr Raga said that although the medical practitioner defined ‘final stage’ he or she did not have the final say in whether or not the inmate would be released.

Mr Manyosi wondered whether the delay in the appointment of magistrates could be a contributing factor in the high number of awaiting trial detainees. Was Judge Fagan suggesting that a separate inquiry should be held to determine whether or not a person could afford bail?

The Chair said a prisoner in the Free State, who complained that his conjugal rights had been denied, had approached him. Judge Fagan said that in the current prison set-up the grating of conjugal rights was impossible. In Denmark and Canada this may be allowed but it was still a long way off in South Africa.

Judge Fagan said that Saturday and night courts would play a large role in reducing the number of awaiting trial detainees. He was very disappointed that Saturday courts had been stopped.

The Chair asked whether the JIOP had the support of other Departments? Mr Morris said that although the JIOP was above all an advisory body. It had a good relationship with the other Departments. Mr Fritz added that while in other provinces more assistance was needed, in the Western Cape all stakeholders were working together closely. The Western Cape was the only province who used plea-bargaining in 2003/2004 for example. He said that solutions could only be found of everyone worked together.

Committee Planning
The Chairperson informed the Committee that if they were not called upon to do interventions there was a possibility that they would have to meet to discuss the Constitution 12 Amendment Bill as well as the Black Administration Act.

Mr Shiceka added that the intervention planned for that evening might be postponed due to administrative problems.

Mr Manyosi requested clarity on what the Committee had planned for the week. The Chairperson said that the Committee might meet again on Thursday. From Monday to Thursday the following week the Judicial Service Commission would be sitting. On Monday and Tuesday public hearings would be held on the JIOP’s annual report.

Mr Ntuli requested more clarity on the status of the Member from the Northern Cape.

The meeting was adjourned.