Committee Reports: adoption

Meeting report

Committee Report on Department Annual Report
Ms Imogen Davids (Committee Secretary) informed the Committee that all the reports before them would be quality controlled before they went on to the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports document. She pointed out that in the introduction she had mistakenly referred to the Annual Report as that for the year 2003/2004; it should read 2004/2005. This error would be rectified before the report went on to the ATC.

Members noted some grammatical and editorial changes that needed to be made.

Mr J Selfe (DA) found the use of ‘industrial unions’ in the administration section of the report rather peculiar. He had never heard of unions referred to as such; they were normally either ‘trade unions’ or simply ‘unions’. He also felt that the sentence ‘64% of parolees and probationers had been traced" needed more elaboration. The Committee might be aware of which category of parolees and probationers the figure referred to but those outside of the Committee might not know.

Ms Davids indicated that the section ‘Committee observations and recommendations’ merely served as guidelines. Members could still make additions and changes.

The Committee adopted the report.

Annual Report of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services
Mr Selfe pointed out the Committee’s oversight trip to the Northern Cape had been omitted. The oversight was noted.

Mr Selfe commented that the Committee had spent very little of its budget in 2005. He said that the Committee always criticised the Department of Correctional Services for over-budgeting and under-spending, yet it was ‘hugely under budget’. This might be as a result of a problem with how budgeting was done. It might also be that the Committee would have to up its activities in order to absorb its budget. It could for example undertake an international tour of inspection.

Ms Davids explained that the Committee had worked out a budget of about R2 million the previous year. This budget was then cut to R 536 000. When she received the budget statement; however it reflected that the Committee had only been allocated R471 106. At the beginning of September the budgets of all the committees had been reviewed. 30% of the budgets of those committees who had spent less than 50% of their budgets, was credited to the Consolidated Fund. This resulted in an amount of about R105 000 being deducted from this Committee’s budget. Mr Selfe asked whether this meant that if the Committee had spent about R235 000 by the end of September the deduction would not have been made.

The Chairperson responded that the budgeting of Parliament was ‘upside down’. They said that the Committee was under-spending yet when the Committee requested permission to have study or oversight tours, restrictions were imposed. The Committee had budgeted for R1.5 million. In the Chairpersons’ Meeting the Committee was told that it would need to cut the budget since it would be unable to spend all of it. A trip with the cluster had been planned but the Committee was told to postpone it until January 2006. The Committee had also planned two African trips for 2005 but both had been rejected because of preparation for the local government elections. He noted that other Committees had however been allowed to undertake such trips. If the Committee had been allowed to undertake all the activities it had wanted to it would not have under-spent. All Committees were complaining about the way in which Parliament was handling the budgeting process.

He suggested that if Members felt very strongly they could add that Parliament should seriously review the budgeting process as well as the spending of committees. The matter would come to the presiding officers when raised by the Committee. Mr Selfe pointed out that the Chairperson would probably be the best person to formulate such a recommendation since he best understood the context in which the budgeting process took place. He suggested that the recommendation could indicate that the Committee had planned several other trips or oversight visits that had been disallowed for reasons extraneous to the budget. The Chairperson thought it appropriate to add a recommendation to the report so that the next time it made a budget request, it would have been noted.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) asked who Ms Ester May, mentioned as the Committee’s researcher, was? The Chairperson responded that Ms Nadia Dolly had been assigned as the Committee’s researcher. She was on maternity leave until January. Ms Ester May was a researcher in the justice cluster. No one in the Committee knew who Ms May was; he himself had not interacted with her. It might be more appropriate to indicate that Ms Dolly was the Committee’s researcher and that she was currently on leave.

Mr Filhla raised a question regarding the process followed when adopting reports. The Chairperson explained that the Rules Committee had decided that each report should be debated in Parliament. The presiding officers had said that Committees could cluster. The oversight visit to the North West had been debated. The others have not yet been debated. The rules have changed. All reports had to be adopted and not merely noted. This means that the presiding officers would have oversight. They would take charge of each and every report and recommendation.

The Committee adopted the report.

Adoption of the Committee Secretary’s Minutes
Mr Selfe was concerned that despite the fact that the Committee had just adopted an entire year’s report, some minutes were still outstanding. Ms Davids informed him that in the Annual Report it said that all other reports would be adopted in January. They were still in the process of being drafted and edited. The Chairperson suggested that the outstanding minutes also be adopted at that time.

Ms S Chikunga asked whether the Committee could be briefed on the conference to combat overcrowding that had been held earlier in the year.

The Committee adopted the Committee Secretary’s minutes.

Approval of the Draft Programme for January to March 2006
Ms Davids took the Committee through the programme for January to March 2006. The Chairperson reminded the Committee that Parliament would come up with its own programme. The Committee’s programme would then have to change. This made it very difficult to organise a programme for a Committee. The Committee would have to organise facilitators for the proposed workshop. These professionals could not be told at short notice that the dates have been changed. He said Members should bear in mind that even if the programme was adopted it was subject to change depending on Parliament’s programme. Mr Selfe added that the 2006 elections would also impact on the programme.

Ms Chikunga asked why the agenda for 31 January and 1 February was the same? Could nothing else be added? Ms Davids explained that she had arranged the programme for those two days so that the first day would be for the workshops, while the second day, which would be shorter, would be for questions, discussion and wrapping up. It would not be a problem to add other topics to the first day. The Chairperson reminded Members that in January the Committee would only have four days for Committee work. This time should be used optimally. More workshops should be held. He agreed that Members should know the field that they were in. Inmates were more familiar with the Correctional Services Act because they had more time to study it. It was important that Members were able to respond to questions raised by inmates as well as Department officials. He urged Members to suggest any other topics that they would like to have discussed at that time so that the necessary changes could be made.

Mr Fihla asked whether the joint visit by the cluster could be accommodated in this programme. The Chairperson said that this meeting had not yet been confirmed. He had discussed the trip with the Chairpersons of Justice and Safety and Security. Due to the forthcoming elections the date could not be confirmed. This trip was still in the pipeline and it was very important that it did take place. The Committee would be kept informed.

Mr Selfe suggested that the Committee should take note of the Programme as a draft and if there were any other suggestions, these should be relayed to the Committee Secretary. These additions would then be subject to Parliament’s programme. Ms Chikunga agreed that one should leave room for flexibility in any programme. The Chairperson reminded Members that the programme had to be submitted to the presiding officers for approval. The Committee would submit the programme as is and would make any necessary changes at a later stage. Mr M Phala (ANC) urged the Chairperson to emphasise the difficulties for planning a programme especially in light of the elections.

The Committee adopted the entire document.

Zonderwater Hostage Situation Briefing
The Chairperson requested the Committee to brief him on the Minister’s briefing to the Committee a week earlier regarding the hostage situation at Zonderwater Prison. He had been unable to attend the meeting. He said that the life of every person in prison was very important. He regarded the matter as very serious.

Mr Fihla said that the Minister had due to the seriousness of the matter held the impromptu briefing. He had provided the Committee with the profiles of the five inmates who had taken officials hostage. 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. They had a firearm and demanded safe passage, two loaded R5 rifles and a car with tinted windows. Negotiations were aimed at saving not only the lives of the hostages but also the lives of the inmates. After their demands were not met, they shot the Assistant Head, Mr Dirk Taljaard.

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 of the Special Task Force managed to kill one of them. The others were apprehended and were taken to C-Max. They may be transferred once the case had been put together. Mr Taljaard had been admitted to hospital in a serious condition.

The preliminary investigation identified an official as having sold the weapon to the inmates for R20 000. The Department was still waiting for the outcome of the investigation. The necessary arrests would then be made. The Department was trying to transfer most of the ‘lifers’ to Kokstad. Most of the resources would be shifted to Kokstad over the next two months in order to improve the security there. Mr Phala said that the Minister would report to the Committee once the investigation had been completed.

The Chairperson was concerned that this was the third such incident that occurred on a weekend. The Committee also had to investigate why these incidents only occurred at the weekend. On their oversight visits officials had complained that during weekends correctional facilities were understaffed. The Committee had to determine whether this was really the case or not. He reminded the Committee that he had given all Members a document from the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) representatives at Zonderwater Correctional Facility which raised the issue of understaffed facilities at weekends. He added that the Committee had said that it would not entertain complaints by unions, but the same issues had been raised by officials ‘from Douglas to Durban Westville’. It was very easy for the Committee to investigate issues regarding a shortage of staff at weekends. It only had to determine how many people were on duty during the week. Members should then go to that prison on a Sunday to see how many people were on duty then. The Committee knew that many new officials had been recruited but it had to determine whether these complaints were true. He reminded Members that officials were not working with Sunday school children; they were working with very intelligent inmates as well as some corrupt officials. He asked what decision the Committee had made on how to approach the problem.

Mr Fihla said that the Committee had felt that the inmates involved in the hostage situation had to be transferred from Zonderwater to Kokstad. He felt that there were dangerous inmates who should also be transferred to Kokstad which was not currently used to its full capacity. The Committee and the Department should be pro-active in their approach. They should not wait until something happened and then react to it. The best time for escape attempts were at the weekend because prisoners were mainly in their cells and warders were relaxed. No matter how many warders were on duty, they tended to be relaxed during the weekend.

The Chairperson reminded the Committee that there was talk of transformation in the prison system. He said that there were a number of changes that implied that more officials had to work at the weekends: inmates would no longer receive their last meal at 14h00 on weekends, church services were being held. He said that transformation was at the heart of the issue. Inmates should not be left idle in their cells.

Mr L Tolo (ANC) agreed that weekend visits should be made to prisons. He was concerned however that Members would not be allowed entrance to facilities. This had happened to him when he had arranged with the Head of Prison in Witbank to visit the facility. He was refused entry and the Head of the prison could not be reached. The Area Commissioner said that he would see what he could do. He had to return home without ever setting foot in the prison. He remembered that Ms Chikunga had had the same experience in Barberton.

The Chairperson advised Members to call him if they were denied entry to a facility. He would then contact the National Commissioner. It was not appropriate that any member of the Portfolio Committee should be denied entry to a correctional facility.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said that she was an assistant pastor and used to visit prisons on Saturdays. They were not allowed sufficient time with the inmates. On Sundays they were also not given enough time. This was an activity that would prevent idleness at the weekend. More time should be allowed since some inmates needed counselling to help them through their time in prison.

The Chairperson said that this concern would be put on the Committee’s programme for 2006. The National Chaplain of Correctional Services would be called to explain why little time was given to pastors, etc. Correctional facilities might have specific reasons for not allowing pastors and preachers to spend the whole day with inmates.

Ms W Makgate (ANC) said that the Committee undertook many announced visits. She pointed out that if a facility knew that it would be visited it would prepare for the visit and not show the Committee what the facility was really like. She suggested that the Committee should have unannounced visits as well.

The Chairperson agreed that unannounced visits were very important. Without these the Department may never learn the truth about what was going on in prisons. He had suggested night visits at the beginning of the year to ensure that officials who were supposed to work were actually on duty. These visits should not only be to determine whether there were sufficient officials but also to check on the conditions.

Ms Makgate suggested that the Department should consider specialised training for officials as far as dealing with high profile offenders was concerned. The problems the Department faced were real, yet it appeared as though it was in denial. Officials were reporting that new, inexperienced recruits were working during weekends. This did not help the situation since they had to deal with inmates who had been in prison for long periods of time.

The Chairperson agreed that denial was an ‘illness’ in the Department of Correctional Services. The Committee was not fighting against the Department or the Minister. The Committee was there to help. If something were wrong it should not be hidden or denied otherwise you would never get help. The Department always wanted to hide or deny things. They would never get help with this attitude.

Mr Phala suggested that the Committee should talk to the Department about considering incentives for working at weekends. Warders who worked at the weekend could be given some time off during the week.

Ms Chikunga suggested that the Committee should perhaps recommend that research organisations look into why so many incidents occurred during weekends. She said that there might be reasons why fewer people worked at the weekends e.g. there were no court appearances on weekends so officials who transported inmates from court to the facility were not needed. There might be a host of other reasons that might not be related to staff shortages. It should also be noted that many disgruntled officials were involved in these incidents. They were informing inmates of when the best time for attempted escapes would be. She was of the opinion that there were many other factors besides staff shortages involved.

The Chairperson commented that if officials were corrupt these incidents would keep occurring regardless of whether an institution had the best security system in place. During the weekend some officials came to work with hangovers. Inmates were aware of this. He said that he disagreed that high risk inmates should be transferred to more secure facilities. Would these transfers keep happening as these incidents occurred? The Committee should emphasise that al prisons should be made secure facilities. Anyone who was in prison would do anything if they became frustrated so greater security was needed at all prisons.

In conclusion the Chairperson urged Members of all parties to, at this time, focus their energy on their respective parties’ political work.

The meeting was adjourned.