Zonderwater Incidents; New Generation Prisons; Committee Reports

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
1 February 2006
ZONDERWATER INCIDENTS; NEW GENERATION PRISONS; COMMITTEE REPORTS

Chairperson

Correctional Services Memorandum
Progress Report with Department of Correctional Services' four new Prisons

SUMMARY
The Department of Correctional Services briefed the Committee on the recent attempted escapes from Zonderwater Correctional Centre. The Committee agreed that Correctional Services should be more proactive in their assessment of high-risk offenders. The Chairperson urged Correctional Services to submit their official findings on the matter as soon as possible.

The Department of Public Works briefed the Committee on progress with the four new generation prisons. The delays in the project appeared to be caused by the increase in costs. Correctional Services would consult with the National Treasury about funding and would then revert to Public Works. The Committee agreed that it was clear that Public Works was waiting on a response from Correctional Services and therefore it would be best to take the matter up with Minister Balfour since he was the political head of Correctional Services.

The Committee adopted the Secretary’s Minutes of the previous term. Members agreed that the Committee’s budget should be reconsidered since it did not flow from the Committee’s business plan and thus did not take into consideration the Committee’s needs. The Committee’s business plan for 2006/07 was adopted with amendments.

MINUTES
The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Commissioner of Correctional Services had explained that the report the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) would present was merely a review of the two incidents that had occurred at Zonderwater Correctional Centre. The criminal investigation was still underway and another briefing would be held as soon as the final report was available. The Committee, as part of its oversight duties, should interrogate the final report, so as to be able to answer the difficult questions that the public might raise.

Report by the DCS on the investigation into incidents at Zonderwater Correctional Centre
Mr Motseki (Executive Manager: DCS) reiterated that the South African Police Services (SAPS) were still in the process of conducting the criminal investigation. The investigation would be a collaborative exercise between the SAPS and DCS. He emphasised that the Department would only present the facts of what happened during these incidents; it would not be commenting on the ‘how and why’.

Ms S Mthabela (Acting Regional Commissioner: DCS Gauteng) presented the report. Zonderwater Correctional Centre was situated in the Cullinan management area and consisted of a medium A and a medium B section. Due to the large number of high-risk offenders in the Gauteng region this centre also accommodated maximum-security offenders despite the fact that it was not designed for this purpose. At present the Centre accommodated approximately 1800 maximum security (medium A) and approximately 1200 medium security offenders. The report focussed on the section that housed the 1800 high-risk offenders. 194 officials staffed this section.

On 6 November 2005 an official escorted five inmates to the Hospital Section of the Centre. They had not been searched and the firearm they were carrying was not detected. It was believed that the official had assisted the inmates in their attempted escape. He had since been suspended.

The Department had handled the initial negotiations after which the SAPS Special Task Force took over. When the inmates attempted to drive away from the facility in the getaway car they had demanded, the SAPS opened fire. Numerous shots were fired and the hostages were freed. Unfortunately one of the officials had been seriously injured and was still in hospital. He was paralysed.

Before measures could be put in place to prevent similar security breaches another incident took place at the same Centre. On 27 November 2005, three offenders went to the contact visiting area after having been summoned. They carried a radio within which they had concealed two firearms, which were used to take control of the visiting area. Ms Mthabela said that officials were wary of inspecting inmates’ radios, televisions etc since they were often accused of tampering with the items’ warranty. All three offenders were re-arrested within hours of their attempted escape. The death of one of the offenders was still under investigation. No officials or civilians had been killed.

After both incidents the regional Commissioner appointed an Investigation Task Team to investigate the factors that contributed to the security breaches.

Various measures have since been put in place to make the facility more secure. These included changes to the management of the Centre as well as the installation of improved access control and CCTV systems.

Ms Mthabela reported that some of the problems experienced at Zonderwater resulted from management problems dating back 3 or 4 years. The management style at the time of the incident was problematic although one could not isolate this as the cause of the incidents.

Mr Motseki reiterated that Gauteng experienced an overload of people classified as maximum-security offenders. These offenders were accommodated at facilities that could not readily accommodate them. He said that measures had been put in place to prevent other such incidents. The Department had learnt a major lesson from these incidents. He said that during November and December 2005, Johannesburg had been plagued by heists on an almost daily basis. The Zonderwater situation has however not been repeated anywhere else.

The Chairperson thanked the Department for their presentation and requested them to indicate when the report would be available. He said that the investigation could not continue indefinitely.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) said that he accepted that the Department had learnt from the Zonderwater experience. He said that similar incidents had however occurred at Pretoria C Max and Baviaanspoort prison prior to the Zonderwater incidents. The Committee had been briefed on these incidents. He said that it appeared as though security had only been tightened up after the event. After these incidents Mr Mlombile (Gauteng Regional Commissioner) had assured the Committee that the Department had learnt a valuable lesson from these incidents and that preventative measures would be applied across the region. He said that this appeared to be a situation in which the Department was closing the gate after the horse had bolted. Measures were put into place only once serious events such as the ones mentioned in the report had occurred.

Mr S Mahote (ANC) said that he appreciated and understood that offenders were being detained in prisons that could not accommodate them. He asked whether there were no scanners that could detect weapons being hidden in radios, etc. Were officials also searched before they were granted entry? He believed that no offender entered these facilities with weapons.

Mr Motseki admitted that the security in almost all of the Department’s facilities was inadequate. This point had been made in a number of prior presentations to demonstrate the value of security and the extent to which the integrity of a facility could be compromised by a lack thereof. The Department had started rolling out the installation of a biometric system whereby everyone entering a facility would be searched. CCTV cameras have been installed in close to 66 centres. These would enable the Department to monitor the movement of people in and around the facility. He said that at the moment the Department was prioritising the centres of excellence and all maximum-security facilities. This project would be finalised soon.

He said that in the Zonderwater case there had been a very stressful management problem that had become known to the Department too late. In Gauteng in particular, the security at the entry and exit points had been amplified quite drastically. He said that the human factor could not be ignored in successful security. Physical barriers could be put in place but people were still needed to man these barriers. This has resulted in the Department isolating a group of people who would be responsible for the management of security. These individuals have been provided with specialised training. The Department has assigned a special task force to man entry and exit points across Gauteng. Many of these measures were the result of the lessons that had been learnt from the unfortunate incidents at Zonderwater. He admitted that the Department experienced some budgetary constraints that did not make it possible to install the biometric system at all facilities. Due to savings that had been made, the Department would be able to extend the installation to some other facilities; needless to say Zonderwater had been prioritised.

The biometric system was part of a package that included scanners, etc. Everyone would have to pass through these access controls. It would be possible to see what a person had in their possession as they passed through these exit and entry points. The system would allow for duplicated control rooms at local, regional and national level. One would then for example be able to sit in Pretoria and go into the system to see what was happening in Mdantsane. It would assist in pinpointing the weaknesses in security. There was still the possibility that people who did not stick to the procedure and took chances could compromise even these systems. Mr Motseki said that through improving the Department’s personnel integrity and capacity, it has managed to curb the flow of drugs in and out of their facilities. He admitted that ensuring that everyone irrespective of his or her rank was searched proved to be a challenge. Ms Mthabela added that security measures had not enjoyed priority until after the above-mentioned incidents. Security systems have now been installed but were not yet operational. At the moment only the CCTV cameras at entry points were operational.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) commented that generally many offenders who had committed serious crimes were being held in awaiting trial facilities. He asked whether offenders were assessed upon their admission into correctional facilities or whether assessments were only done once they had tried to escape? It appeared as though the Department was reacting to situations instead of being proactive in their assessment of offenders upon their admission into correctional facilities. The Chairperson agreed that this was a very important point. Offenders who had committed serious crimes could not be detained with petty criminals.

Mr Motseki admitted that as far as risk assessments were concerned, the Department experienced some problems. He hoped that the Committee in the course of 2006 would be able to assist in the matter by proposing amendments to the Correctional Services Act. Legislation required that offenders be incarcerated in facilities closest to their families. Sometimes an offender qualified to serve his sentence in Kokstad correctional facility due to the severity of the crime he or she had committed. Often the Department received instructions from the court to accommodate such prisoners in prisons closer to their homes despite the risk that they posed. When such prisons had the means to contest the Department’s decision, the courts have ruled in favour of their transfer to less secure facilities. The Act should be amended so that the Department in some cases would be allowed to use its discretion.

Mr B Xolo (ANC) voiced his concern regarding Mr Gordon Mthimkulu who had been suspended due to his possible involvement in the 6 November hostage drama. The report gave no indication as to where the firearm used in the first incident had come from. He said that he agreed with Mr Mahote that officials were not being searched. He suspected that the Department must have suspected that this official’s behaviour was questionable long before the incident had occurred. What was the extent of Mr Mthimkulu’s involvement? Mr Motseki refrained from commenting on this matter since the SAPS’s investigation was still underway.

Mr Fihla noted that the Department of Safety and Security was doing a very good job as far as arresting dangerous criminals in the drug trade was concerned. Safety and Security officials have received specialised training to assist in the arrest of these individuals. He pointed out that once arrested these criminals, who often had access to large amounts of money, were able to bribe their way out of the facility. It was critical for correctional officers to receive specialised training to deal with such inmates in order for them to compliment the work done by Safety and Security. It was an oversight on the part of the DCS that new recruits were deployed at a maximum-security facility. These recruits should first be deployed at facilities that detained minor offenders. He concurred that the Committee, along with the other Committees in the cluster (Safety and Security, Justice) should work together to bring about some flexibility in the legislation relating to risk assessment and where inmates should be held. He emphasised that this was important since high-risk offenders posed a threat to everybody’s safety.

Mr Mahote agreed with the Chairperson that the Department would have to supply the time frame in which they expected to have completed the report as well as the time frames for when the biometric system would be fully functional.

Mr Motseki said that the Department was eager to resolve the situation. Their report had been completed and they were waiting on the SAPS to complete their investigation before making it available. They were wary of releasing a report that might influence the police’s investigation. The Chairperson stressed that the police should be advised to complete their investigation as soon as possible. He reiterated that the situation could not continue indefinitely.

Mr Motseki said that the first biometric project started in 2005 when 66 centres had been equipped with access systems. The deadline for the completion of this stage was November 2005. He was hopeful that by the end of the financial year this stage would have been completed. The others would then follow. The time frames would be confirmed with the Committee at a later stage.

Mr Mahote added that on an oversight visits to one of the private prisons, Members had to wait outside in the rain while being searched since that was the procedure they followed at the facility. Action should be taken against officials who did not search everyone who passed through access points. The Chairperson added that Mr Tolo had expressed his concern regarding this issue on numerous occasions.

The Chairperson commented on the Department’s statement that poor management had been part of the problem at Zonderwater. When did the Department realise that the facility experienced problems as far as management was concerned?

Ms Mthabela said that it was only once the DCS had examined the details of the Zonderwater incident that officials revealed the management issues that they were dealing with. There appeared to be a culture of not being frank about what the real situation was. She said she was not sure whether this was a culture within Correctional Services or South Africa as a whole. She said that the Department had policies that people knew they had to adhere to. At Zonderwater there was a clear indication that top management had not been able to ‘pull management forward’ as had been expected. She commented that in meetings with regional board members everything appeared to be in order. It was only after incidents such as these, when managers and junior officials made conflicting comments that one realised that there had been some problems. If given the opportunity the Department would present the situation as they saw it at a later stage.

The Chairperson commented that the Committee had visited Zonderwater in October 2005 and the Management had sung the praises of the facility. The Committee probed to find out what the situation at the facility was and no one had anything negative to say. How was the Committee supposed to trust what people told them? The Committee had met with Mr Olckers, the then Area Commissioner for the Zonderwater facility, and had not been told about any of these challenges. He asked whether this might be a communication problem between junior and senior officials. People were fearful of not being promoted should they discuss the weaknesses of their seniors.

Mr Tolo said that the Committee often saw people fighting for promotions during its oversight trips. When they did get promoted they failed to perform. He said that some officials had told him that they were afraid to voice their concerns for fear that they might jeopardise their chances of promotion. He said that on a visit to a prison in Thoyandou two years ago the Commissioner did not even reprimand an official who was sleeping at the gate he was supposed to control.

Why was there such a difference between the private and state prisons? He agreed with Mr Selfe that Correctional Services’ approach did appear to be more reactive than proactive. He said since 1994 the DCS has not ever come to the Committee with complaints relating to their officials.

The Chairperson commented on the fact that the Department often found its decision challenged when it held offenders in prisons that were far from their homes. He assured the Department that amendments to the Act would enjoy the Committee’s support. He added that inmates’ privileges should be reviewed. It appeared as though the prisoners who had wronged society were now holding the Department hostage. He said that in 1994 everyone was very sympathetic and wanted to bring about change for the better in all institutions. The Committee would consider inmates’ privileges without jeopardising the Constitution. He emphasised that the Committee had a duty to protect and investigate all areas of concern. He assured the Department that the Committee would put Correctional Services’ rules, regulations and privileges on its programme for 2006. He requested a list of the restructured management so that Members knew who they had to address their queries to on their oversight visits. In conclusion he assured the Department that when its report was ready the Committee would interact with it thoroughly.

Progress with Department of Correctional Services’ Four New Prisons
The Chairperson welcomed the DCS and the Department of Public Works (DPW) to the joint meeting. He said that although the DCS from time to time gave briefings regarding the progress on the four prisons, he thought it wise to hear from the DPW. DCS had requested to be part of the meeting so that they could respond to some of the issues that may arise.

He stressed that the meeting was not an interrogation session. There would be no fighting. He urged both Departments to refrain from discussing any differences that they might have. These should be resolved at a different time. The Committee wanted to understand what progress had been made and why there had been delays.

Briefing by the Department of Public Works
Dr Shaun Philips, (Acting Director General and Chief Operations Officer briefed the Committee on the progress on the four new generation prison projects. DCS had initiated the project in 2002 and by early 2004 designs, cost estimates and tender documentation had been completed. DCS accepted the estimated project costs and approved the projects. The adjudication process revealed that the tender prices received were substantially higher than the available allocation in the DCS budget over the three-year Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period. This could be due to the boom in the construction industry, which resulted in an escalation in labour and material prices. The increase in cost would have had major implications for DCS. Once informed of the increase in cost, DCS indicated that it would, in consultation with the National Treasury, review their budget. DPW was waiting on a response from DCS. The projects were at various stages of completion.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the DPW for a clear and concise report. He said that he was very concerned about the fact that DCS would consult with Treasury before giving a decision about whether to continue with some or all the prisons. The Minister of Correctional Services would have to meet with the Committee since he was the political head of the Department. It was clear that the DPW was waiting on DCS for the go ahead.

Ms S Seaton (IFP) shared the Chairperson’s concerns. She said that in three years not much progress had been made. She said that the DCS had planned to build four prisons in addition to the four mentioned here. The prison in Port Shepstone was supposed to be up and running by 2006. She agreed the Minister needed to meet with the Committee to address the issue.

Mr Fihla concurred that the Minister was the only person who would be able to give clarity on the situation. Members agreed that the Minister would have to meet with the Committee to explain the situation.

Adoption of Minutes
Members adopted the Committee Secretary’s minutes.

Discussion of Committee budget for 2006/07
Mr Selfe pointed out that the budgets of all Committees were identical and took no account of Committees’ individual responsibilities. He pointed out that the Committee spent much time and money on the site visits which they were mandated to undertake. He said that the budget should flow from the Committee’s business plan. The business plan should be completed and the budget should then be aligned accordingly. He did not think that the Committee should accept the standard budget as given by Parliament. The Committee should request the Chairperson to, in the appropriate forums, interact with those who were responsible for drawing up the budget in order to articulate these concerns.

The Chairperson said that he would take Mr Selfe’s recommendation to the forum to express the Committee’s concerns. The Committee would adopt the budget at a later stage.

Adoption of Committee Business Plan for 2006/07
Mr Selfe said that, as indicated the day before, the business plan was a great starting point but still needed a great deal of ‘fleshing out’. It did not contain any key performance indicators or time frames. He Committee still needed to consider what specific outputs it wanted to have in 2006. He said that he had a few suggestions, which he would submit to the Committee secretary or the Chairperson for possible inclusion.

He said that one of the Committee’s main tasks was to facilitate public participation. Under the Chairperson’s leadership public participation has been a feature of the Committee. Traditionally the Committee met with people on an ad hoc basis depending on issues and situations. He realised that there would always be a need for these ad hoc meetings since there would always be unforeseen circumstances. The Committee also ought to interact with statutory bodies such as the National Council for Corrections and the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons.

He said that there were a number of areas within DCS that involved more than one stakeholder. Recruitment for instance would involve private recruitment agencies, unions and human resources. He suggested that the Committee should meet with all stakeholders at the same time as opposed to meeting with them individually. This would give the Committee a more holistic idea of what the situation within the DCS was.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Selfe for his suggestions; saying that it was helpful that he had done some work on it. He assured him that the suggestions would be included in the business plan.

Ms Seaton supported Mr Selfe’s suggestion. She said that the Committee criticised the Department of Justice and yet there was no interaction between them. She suggested that the Committee should consider interacting with the Department of Justice. The Committee’s concerns should go directly to Justice instead of being debated in Parliament and then getting lost.

The Chairperson agreed and said that the Committee should in fact interact more closely with the cluster (justice, safety and security, social services). He requested Ms Seaton to draft a proposal that could be included in the business plan.

Mr Fihla said that the Committee had undertaken some interesting visits with representatives from Justice and the police. He said that if the cluster had accompanied the Committee they could have made some headway in dealing with issues on the ground.

The Chairperson reminded Members that the cluster had intended to undertake a week long joint visit in January. The office of the Chief Whip cancelled the visit. In addition each Committee had its own programme, which made it difficult to organise joint visits. He commended the Chairperson of the Justice Portfolio Committee, Ms Fatima Chohan-Kota, for trying very hard to organise a joint visit. He complained that many such visits were turned down. Ms Chohan-Kota wrote a letter complaining about the treatment the cluster was receiving. He would copy and circulate the letter. He agreed that this was a very important point.

The business plan was adopted with amendments.

Adoption of the Committee’s reports on its visits to Prisons in the Limpopo Province, to Private Prisons and to the Training Colleges of the DCS.

The Committee adopted the reports and agreed that all three reports would be debated in Parliament.

The meeting was adjourned.