Correctional Services Act workshop

Correctional Services

08 November 2005
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
8 November 2005
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT WORKSHOP
 


Acting Chairperson: Mr N Fihla (ANC)

Documents handed out:

Annual Report of the Inspecting Judge
Correctional Services Amendment Act (No. 32 of 2001)
Correctional Services Act (No. 111 of 1998)

SUMMARY
The Minister of Correctional Services, Mr N Balfour briefed the Committee on the hostage situation that occurred at Zonderwater Prison on 6 November. He assured Members that the Department had done all it could to prevent loss of life. He emphasised that low salaries could not blamed for the corrupt activities of some Department officials.

The Department conducted a workshop on the Correctional Services Act, as amended. Members raised numerous questions covering a wide array of issues such as transfers, programmes offered to inmates and visitation rights. They were also concerned about the practical enforcement of certain sections of the Act. In addition, they felt that the National Council of Corrections had not acted according to the provisions of the Act for appointing four members of the public.

MINUTES

Comments by Minister of Correctional Services on hostage situation at Zonderwater correctional facility: Sunday 6 November
Minister N Balfour said that he felt the need to report to the Committee on the recent hostage drama at Zonderwater so that it did not just read about it in the press. He said that despite the fact that he had only been working in this portfolio for 18 months, it felt like 20 years due to the weight he has had to carry on his shoulders.

He provided the Committee with the profiles of the five inmates who had taken officials hostage at Zonderwater. Three of them were serving life sentences. Two of them had been part of the infamous Chauke gang. The inmates took hostage the Assistant Head of the facility, two other officials as well as two nursing sisters. The inmates had a firearm and demanded safe passage, two loaded R5 rifles and a car with tinted windows. Negotiations lasted from about 11h30 to 17h45. They were aimed at saving not only the lives of the hostages but also the lives of the inmates who, unfortunately, were ‘bent on going out and causing destruction’. After not getting what they demanded they shot the Assistant Head, Mr Dirk Taljaard. The Minister admitted that some of the offers that had been made were ‘crazy’. He even offered to replace the officials, which the inmates would have accepted had the SA Police Services (SAPS) not advised him against it for fear of the stakes then being too high.

One of the inmates said that he was a trained soldier in an organisation whose name the Minister did not want to mention. He claimed that he had ‘gone bad’ because no one had cared for him. When the inmates tried to get away in the vehicle they had demanded, the snipers managed to kill one of them. The others were apprehended and were taken to C-Max and they may be transferred once the case had been put together. Mr Taljaard was in a bad condition in hospital.

The preliminary investigation identified an official as having sold the weapon to the inmates for R20 000. This official would probably be arrested that day. The Department was still waiting on the outcome of the investigation. The necessary arrests would then be made. The case would probably commence in June 2006. The Department was trying to transfer most of the ‘lifers’ to Kokstad and improve the security at this facility. Most of the resources would be shifted to Kokstad over the next two months.

He said one life lost was too many but that the situation could have been a lot worse had it not been for the negotiations. The Department had tried its best to save the situation.

Discussion
The Chairperson commented that the Committee had commended Zonderwater during its oversight visit. In light of this the recent events were shocking.

Ms S Seaton (IFP) asked whether the Minister was in a position to shed light on the rumour that an official had been involved in the shooting at Groote Schuur Hospital. Was this an ‘inside job’ and has the official been found guilty?

The Minister said that the investigations were still ongoing. Officials were being charged with negligence. The prisoner involved should not have been taken to Groote Schuur. He was a ‘cash heister’ and was a headache even now. When he was being taken to court all stops had to be pulled out in terms of his protection. Other gang members wanted him since he was the only one who knew where the loot was stashed. The Minister had no information as to whether or not the Groote Schuur incident was an ‘inside job’.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that Durban Westville had reported that due to staff shortages it was not possible to fill the facility to capacity. He was delighted that resources would be diverted there. C-Max was there to absorb high-risk prisoners. It seemed as though a longer-term solution was needed which would involve bringing Kokstad up to full capacity.

The Minister said that the measures to be taken at Kokstad were part of a long-term strategy. The Department wanted to ensure that people were trained properly and that the necessary resources were in place. The Department would then identify the ‘lifers’ who would be accommodated in this facility. For now he was happy to move senior, experienced officials to Kokstad who would be able to train the younger recruits in how to deal with these inmates. He added that he still hoped that some of these inmates would be rehabilitated, but acknowledged that there were some cases that were beyond help. He said that Kokstad was a very ‘harsh prison’, but when lives were being lost ‘harsh decisions’ had to be taken. This plan had been in the pipeline, but in the light of recent events action had to be taken quickly to prevent any further loss of life.

Mr Selfe noted that this was not the first time that such an incident had occurred on a Sunday. What was the effect of the seven-day establishment? Were facilities still short staffed on Sundays? Has this had an effect on security?

The Minister said that a shortage of staff was not the issue. In his opinion these incidents took place on Sundays because on Sundays there was some laxity. No one expected that something of this nature would happen. The inmates involved in the hostage drama on Sunday had requested to go and see the nurses and were allowed to. No one knew that they had a gun. The gun was not smuggled in on that Sunday. It might have been smuggled in a week before. Baviaanskloof claimed that they had searched for the gun but had found nothing. It had transpired that the Unit Manager at Baviaanskloof had been the person who had provided the gun.

Mr Fihla wondered whether it was possible to establish courts at prisons so that high-risk offenders would not need to be ferried from correctional facilities to courts or hospitals. He mentioned that St Alban’s had established a court precisely because they had had such problems. Were prison sentences not too long adding to the desperation of inmates?

The Minister said that the Inspecting Judge of Prisons, Judge Fagan, was very brave for saying that sentences were too long. The Minister agreed but would not want to get involved in a row with the judiciary. He agreed that although the sentence needed to fit the crime, sentencing frameworks needed to be changed. Offenders needed to be changed but it should not be forgotten that officials needed to attend to these inmates.

Prison Courts could not deal with high profile cases. These cases required judges; not magistrates. Prison courts were equipped to deal with petty crimes that could be handled by magistrates. Judges could not be ferried from prison to prison to deal with high-risk offenders and high profile cases.

Ms Mgwenya asked whether the fact that officials were dissatisfied with their salaries was not a contributing factor to the low morale and corruption amongst officials. How could the Department ensure the safety of its officials?

The Minister responded that better remuneration did not make a person a better person. One had to resist corruption with morality, healthy values and principles. No one was denying that salaries were low. Officials within the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) were on the same salary level as other Departments. They could even be considered to be better off compared to the SAPS as they received housing assistance for instance. The issue of remuneration had to be taken out of the equation since DCS officials were not the worst off of public servants. He agreed that salaries needed to be reconsidered in the light of the seven-day establishment which in effect took away an official’s ‘second cheque’. He mentioned that some upgrading of salaries had been announced. No one could claim that he was corrupt because he was earning too little.

DCS Workshop on Correctional Services Act
Mr Carol Paxton (Director: Code Enforcement) led the workshop which covered all the sections of the amended Correctional Services Act. The Act covered amongst others the purpose of the Correctional System, all matters related to the custody of inmates, sentenced prisoners as well as unsentenced prisoners and matters related to those bodies affiliated to the Department of Correctional Services.

Discussion
Mr E Xolo (ANC) asked whether the Department had any structures in place to assist released offenders with re-integration. Mr Khambule (Deputy Commissioner: Personal Development) said that when inmates were admitted their details were taken and they were given the opportunity to inform their families that they were in the correctional facility. Inmates had access to telephones and could write letters to their families. If there were real problems, inmates could get in touch with their families via social workers.

Mr Xolo asked why offenders who were terminally ill could not be released to their families before they passed away. He said that on the Committee’s recent visit to Durban Westville, a nurse had said that one of the problems she had was related to informing a deceased inmate’s next-of-kin of their death. She had said that she would have felt better if she could inform a terminally ill inmate’s family of his or her condition so that they could die with their families.

Mr Paxton referred Members to Section 79 which stated that ‘any person serving any sentence in a prison and who, based on written evidence of the medical practitioner treating that person, is diagnosed as being in the final phase of any terminal disease or condition may be considered for placement under correctional supervision or on parole, by the Commissioner, Correctional Supervision and Parole Board or the court, as the case may be, to die a consolatory and dignified death’.

Inmates with a terminal disease could thus approach the Parole Board. Mr Khambule added that the Act did make provision for release on medical grounds, though in practice this was problematic. A medical doctor should certify that an inmate was terminally ill. A social worker should then investigate the inmate’s family background to determine whether the family would be able to receive the inmate. Sometimes the family would not be in a position to cater to the ill inmate’s medical needs. He noted that there could be cases where an inmate had been certified as being terminally ill, only to recover upon his or her compassionate release. This brought with it its own set of problems. He assured Members that terminally ill patients whose medical status had been certified could approach the Parole Board who would then make a decision. Previously the Commissioner or his delegate made this decision.

Mr Xolo informed the presenters that on an oversight visit in KwaZulu Natal he had found that prisoners were not even allowed old newspapers or study materials despite the fact that Section 18 of the Act stated that inmates had the right to such materials. How could inmates in some centres be denied this right? Mr Khambule was surprised that inmates at this prison were not allowed newspapers considering that depending on inmates’ security classifications they were allowed to order newspapers via the news agency. There was a directorate who could assist inmates in furthering their education. The incident Mr Xolo mentioned might be isolated and would have to be followed up on.

Ms S Chikunga (ANC) wondered how Section 24(3)(c) [Restriction of amenities as a penalty] was implemented considering that many inmates were confined in communal cells. Mr Paxton said that if, for example, an inmate was in a communal cell and his or her access to a television was taken away as a penalty, that inmate would be placed in segregation, so as not to infringe upon the rights of other inmates.

Ms Chikunga pointed out that in terms of Section 24(4((a) an inmate had the right to legal representation yet elsewhere it stated that disciplinary hearings could be informal. Could the Department clarify this? Mr Paxton said that in the case of minor offences, informal hearings with no legal representation were held. Legal representation was needed in the case of serious transgressions since the outcome of these hearings may result in a penalty of isolation i.e. a further limitation on the inmate’s liberty.

Ms Chikunga asked how practical Section 43(1) of the Act was. This section was not very specific. She pointed out that inmates coming from the Western Cape could be found at a prison in Barberton for example. These prisoners could not be transferred to the Western Cape. The Inspecting Judge’s report indicated that many of the complaints received were related to transfers. Mr Khambule said an inmate could request a transfer when he or she approached the period after which they could apply for parole. If inmates were closer to their homes it would be easier to approach their families. He admitted that due to overcrowding the application of this provision was difficult. It was necessary to transfer an inmate two months before his or her release so that he or she could be released at home.

Ms Chikunga asked for clarification on Section 45(3). How practical was it to assist inmates financially and materially upon their release? If a prisoner had been incarcerated far from his home, did the Department pay for his or her travel costs? Mr Khambule said that if an inmate was not incarcerated in his or her home town the Department had to pay the travel expenses. If an inmate had been involved in a skills or trade training programme while incarcerated, he or she would be given a ‘starterpack’ (e.g. tools) to be used to attempt to earn a living once released. Inmates who received a gratuity had access to half of it while in prison; the other half was received upon their release.

Ms Chikunga requested clarity on Section 45(4) which stated that a prisoner had to undergo a health status examination at his release if the medical officer recommended it, because elsewhere the Act stated that medical examinations were not compulsory (Section 12(4)(b)).

Ms Chikunga noted that Section 93(1)(d) stated that Independent Prison Visitors (IPV) could discuss ‘complaints with the Head Of Prison, or relevant correctional officer with a view to resolving the issues internally’ yet Section 21(5) suggested that inmates could discuss issues with the IPV only once all other avenues had been exhausted. What was the correct procedure? Mr Paxton agreed that normally internal remedies should first be exhausted. In cases where the inmate felt that he or she might be victimised if he or she followed the normal procedures, the IPV could be approached first. The IPV would always enquire whether the internal procedure had been followed. If there were a particular reason for not following this procedure, the IPV would take the matter up with the Head of Prison.

Ms M Makgate (ANC) asked what the implications of Section 73 (2) were for the Department if the inmate was not released but then died during the period he or she waited on the authorisation of the medical officer.

Mr Paxton said if an inmate was on the point of release, but the medical officer found health risks either to themselves or to the public, that inmate would be detained without a warrant for a period of time. Care would be taken to release such an inmate as soon as possible.

Ms Makgate requested practical examples that illustrated Section 102 regarding the use of force. During its oversight tours, the Committee became aware that many officials felt that they had fewer rights than prisoners. They feared disciplinary action if they used force. How were officials protected when it came to this section of the Act?

Mr Paxton emphasised that the Act stated that any force used should be ‘proportionate to the said objectives’. Mr Khambule said that there was normally an emergency support team to respond to violent situations. This team was equipped with a range of weapons (batons, shields, gas canisters etc) that they could use to stabilise a situation. In extreme cases they could use firearms. He emphasised that force could only be used to stabilise an inmate that posed a threat. Force was not allowed once the situation or the inmate no longer posed a threat. The Department was getting a great number of complaints from the public claiming that they had been "maimed" while in prison. This section of the Act served as a guideline to officials. It was aimed at protecting them from unnecessary litigation.

Mr M Phala (ANC) said that on the oversight visits, the Committee had become aware of inmates who had been kept in correctional facilities beyond their date of release. What authority did the Commissioner have in terms of Section 4 of the Act? Could the Commissioner recommend that a prisoner be released based on their good behaviour before he or she was supposed to be?

Mr Paxton said that this question also related to issues around parole. The Commissioner’s powers related to the establishment and organisation of the Department, the distribution of staff, training institutions, appointments, remuneration, etc. An inmate could be placed on parole by the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board, which made the final decision. The Commissioner did however have the authority to grant parole to offenders serving sentences of less than twelve months. This reduced the burden on the Parole Board. Once the arrest warrant had expired an inmate had to be released.

Mr Xolo said that while on an oversight visit at Durban Westville, the Committee had become aware of a group of young girls who had been arrested on charges of loitering and disturbing the peace. They were not allowed bail, nor were they allowed visits by IPVs. While he was aware that the Department was not responsible for their arrest, he would like to know why they were not allowed to apply for bail.

Mr Khambule said that he was not sure why these girls had not been allowed bail. This was a matter for the Department of Justice; not for the DCS. The IPVs should also be allowed to interview them. The Department would follow up on the individual cases if it needed to. Ms C Davids (Area Commissioner: Goodwood) added that normally officials from the Department could make referrals to the Court to see if bail could be reduced. If it were found that the offenders were not able to pay bail, the Department would try to place them under correctional supervision. The Department could only make a referral to the court. It could not make the final decision.

Mr Xolo noted that Section 40 (1) stated that inmates should be ‘active’. Many inmates spent the whole day doing nothing constructive. What did this provision mean? How active were inmates required to be?

Mr Khambule admitted that due to practical concerns such as overcrowding there were many offenders who were loitering around correctional facilities. In theory the case management committee was meant to allocate each inmate a task. This remained a challenge. Human resources were stretched to the limit. There were not enough officials available to take inmates to the agricultural sites. At the moment very little could be done to get inmates involved in programmes other than educational, psychological and social work programmes. He added that earlier sentencing could stipulate that an inmate would have to perform two years of hard labour for instance. This was no longer the case. Inmates could no longer be forced to take part in such programmes. The Minister was working towards implementing some compulsory programmes.

Mr Fihla requested the Department to elaborate on the ‘day parole’ referred to in Section 54. Mr Paxton explained that an inmate who was being considered for parole could be allowed to leave the facility during the day to look for work or to readjust to life outside of prison. Such an inmate returned to the facility at night. Mr Khambule said that those inmates who had been in prison for too long would need a period of adjustment before they were released. Day parole not only made it possible to find employment but also to re-acquaint themselves with the community. This was normally done over a six-month period. He pointed out that day parole should not be confused with weekend leave. An inmate who already had a parole date could, six months before the parole date, apply to spend weekends with his or her family. This also promoted social reintegration. Ms Davids added that inmates who qualified for day parole did not stay in the same facility as the other inmates. They also wore their own clothes.

Mr Fihla asked what was being done in terms of the internal service evaluation to eradicate corruption. Officials were being corrupted from time to time. How often did the Department conduct this evaluation? Was it wise to have officials work with high-risk offenders over long periods of time? Did this not cause familiarity which could result in an opportunity to corrupt these officials? Should officials not be changed on a regular basis? Considering that money was ‘the father of all evils’ what measures had the Department taken to prevent such enticement?

Mr Paxton reported that during the restructuring of the Department, the Departmental Investigation Unit (DIU), which focused on corruption and the Directorate: Code Enforcement which conducted disciplinary proceedings on the cases investigated by the DIU had been established. Officials had been recruited and trained to investigate and prosecute such cases.

Ms Chikunga pointed out that Section 83(2)(h) indicated that the National Council of Correctional Services (NCCS) consisted of amongst others ‘four or more persons not in the full-time service of the State or members of Parliament appointed as representatives of the public after consultation with the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services’. Was the Department implementing this provision? The NCCS was already in existence but was probably not aware of the need for consultation with the Committee with regards to the four members of the public. Since this structure was in place already was it functioning legally in terms of the Act?

Mr Paxton admitted that he was not in a position to comment on the structure of the NCCS. The Department would respond at a later stage. Mr Khambule agreed that the Department might have to follow up on these appointments. He agreed that these members were supposed to be appointed in line with the provisions of the Act.

Ms Mgwenya (ANC) noted that Section 13 provided for a minimum of one hour for visits each month. Was this time not too little for people who were serving longer sentences? Was there any difference between this Section in the 1959 Act and the Section in the 1998 Act?

Mr Khambule said that offenders were classified differently. Each classification was allowed a certain amount of visits per month. Maximum security inmates were allowed the least amount of visits per month. An inmate was allowed two visitors at a time. Ms Davids pointed out that an adult visitor could be accompanied by two to three children under the age of fourteen. Inmates could apply to have an additional visit, especially if they had family matters to discuss. In most cases, the Head of Prison approved such applications. Mr Khambule added that if there were really serious issues such as divorce, social workers could make consultation visits.

Ms Mgwenya wondered what the difference was between this Act and the previous one. Ms Chikunga pointed out that this was the 1998 Act, and the amendments were from 2001.Ms Mgwenya requested a copy of the previous Act. In her opinion nothing had been changed. A Member asked whether there was any difference between the 1959 Act and the latest one.

Mr Paxton responded that as far as visits were concerned there was no difference. The 1959 Act used the standard minimum rules which prescribed a minimum of one hour per month. This was the internationally recognised standard minimum.

The Chairperson person thanked the Department for the elaborate explanation of the Act. The Committee was being ‘armed’ especially with regards to its interaction with other Departments. It was critical for the Committee to be familiar with the Act especially when they were in discussion with the other cluster members (Justice, Safety and Security). When the Committee confronted other Departments regarding issues such as overcrowding, release and diversity it needed the ammunition provided by the Act.

The meeting was adjourned.


 

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

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.

Share this page: