Inmate Rights & Privileges: briefing by SA Prisoners’ Organisation for Human Rights (SAPHOR), Police & Prisoners’ Civil Rights U

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
29 August 2006
INMATE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES: BRIEFING BY SOUTH AFRICAN PRISONERS’ ORGANISATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (SAPOHR), POLICE AND PRISONERS’ CIVIL RIGHTS UNION (POPCRU) AND PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION (PSA)

Chairperson: Mr D Bloem (ANC)

Documents handed out:
South African Prisoners’ Organisation for Human Rights Submission
Public Servants Association Submission
Police and Prisoners’ Civil Rights Union Submission
Committee Report on oversight visit to the Eastern Cape (available shortly at Committee Reports)

SUMMARY
The South African Prisoners’ Organisation for Human Rights, the Public Servants Association and the Police and Prisoners’ Civil Rights Union briefed the Committee on their views regarding deteriorating inmate-warder relationships and discipline and its relation to prisoner rights and specifically prisoner privileges. All parties agreed that a review of privileges should not affect prisoner rights and that improved working relationships based on mutual respect between inmates and warders would aid rehabilitation and build morale among officials. Members raised concerns around the dangers some sophisticated inmates and corrupt officials involved in smuggling, posed to officials. The debilitating effects of overcrowding on discipline, rehabilitation and warder morale also featured strongly.

MINUTE
Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson opened by saying that prison officials complained that they faced a serious breakdown of discipline and respect from prisoners. They felt that prisoners were abusing the privileges they enjoyed. In contrast, the public felt that inmates were having a very good time in prison and that correctional facilities were “five-star hotels”. They felt that people no longer feared prison, and that once in prison, inmates were not required to take part in work activities.

He acknowledged that all three organisations that would be presenting that day did a fair amount of work in the area of conditions for inmates and conditions for officials. They would debate the issues related to discipline, respect and privileges and would hopefully arrive at solutions that would allay the fears that prison had become a pleasure palace. He added that the reality was that inmates did nothing while in prison and that they complained to the Committee about the lack of activity.

SAPOHR Presentation
Mr Miles Bhudu, President of SAPOHR briefed the Committee on the need to industrialise prisons with view on unionising and eventually politicising inmates. These developments would aide rehabilitation and reintegration. Recognising prisoner rights would amongst others aide rehabilitation, protect their working conditions and develop teambuilding and negotiation skills.

PSA Presentation
Mr Koos Kruger (Western Cape Provincial Manager) felt strongly that a review of prisoner rights and privileges would not only be beneficial to officials but also to offenders. A reward and punishment for good and bad behaviour would aid rehabilitation. He emphasised that due to the lack of morale and trying working conditions some officials failed to effectively perform their duties and faced threats to their physical and psychological well being.

POPCRU Presentation
Mr Natty Tiled, Deputy General Secretary of POPCRU briefed the Committee on the current rights and privileges of inmates, the staffing challenges within the Department of Correctional Services as well as the retraining and reorientation of correctional officers. POPCRU recommended that inmates’ rights and privileges need not be increased, and it made special reference to those who killed police officers who should not be considered for parole. The current state of relations between warders and inmates hampered the implementation of meaningful rehabilitation programmes. The organisation also called for the Correctional Services budget to make provision for the retraining needs of personnel.

Discussion
Ms S Seaton (IFP) said that while she agreed with the some aspects of what Mr Bhudu had spoken of in his presentation e.g. the industrialisation of prisons she held a different opinion on others. Prisoners should work during their incarceration, but she felt that allowing unionisation would jeopardise respect and a good working relationship between warders and offenders. She also cautioned that at some stage people would feel that going to prison would be much easier than to actually search for work. She urged Mr Bhudu to imagine the difficulties that would be created in society if prisoners were to be granted the kinds of rights SAPOHR was advocating for.

Ms S Chikunga (ANC) agreed with much Ms Seaton had said and wondered whether Mr Bhudu did not think that the human rights and privileges that were being advocated for were in contradiction to the aims of punishment. She was also concerned that by industrialising prisons and paying inmates a minimum wage people might start thinking that by going to prison one would be guaranteed a job. This would encourage crime.

Ms Chikunga agreed that prisoner rights were non-negotiable. She wondered if Mr Bhudu could tell the Committee which of their rights he believed were being undermined.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said that at St Alban’s prison there was a memorial for an official who had been stabbed to death by an inmate. She wondered how much progress had been made in the quest to get more rights for prisoners and which of these rights Mr Bhudu felt were being undermined. She also wondered to what extent the rights and privileges advocated for, created space for rehabilitation, and were not being taken advantage of by prisoners so that they could continue with criminal activities and gangsterism even within prison?

Ms Ngwenya wondered whether SAPOHR promoted penal reform. She was curious as to whether the organisation felt that existing penal theories were effective and promoted rehabilitation and crime prevention. She asked whether Mr Bhudu could suggest alternative practices that would promote rehabilitation?

Mr Bhudu responded to the first set of questions by reminding the Committee that his organisation was not recognised by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). If SAPOHR had been officially and legally recognised he would have been in a position to answer the questions members had asked. His organisation could not play any role in terms of making sure that inmates understood the difference between rights and privileges because it was “not wanted at these institutions”. He felt that his organisation was seen as a terrorist threat.

SAPOHR was a prisoners’ rights organisation. They would not be concerned about people who were outside of prison and did not have work because that was not their mandate. The organisation focused on people who had been sentenced to prison. He got irritated that educated and well written members of society who had done much research felt that what he was advocating would contribute to a rise in crime levels. The task of leading the country required one to place issues “in boxes” and deal with them in that manner. He said that he did not want to be told that the industrialisation of prisons (i.e. inmate training, education and employment, their getting a stipend and making a contribution) would result in more crime. If people believed that this would be the case then there was “something very terribly wrong with our democracy”.

He said people went to prison and came out of prison being hardened criminals. SAPOHR wanted to break this cycle. He believed that it helped to sometimes have tunnel vision and to simply do what one thought was best without considering other influences. The responses that members had made were the kind of comments made that had brought DCS’s rehabilitation and reintegration programmes to a stand still.

To his understanding the transition from an “insensitive” Apartheid government to a democratically elected political dispensation meant to repair the damage that had been done during Apartheid.

Industrialisation would address the ‘human warehousing’ that was associated with the correctional services under the Apartheid regime and would assist in giving an offender a second chance so that he or she did not easily return to his criminal activities upon release. SAPOHR believed that if one industrialised and then unionised, rehabilitation and reintegration should become a reality. The process would also function as a deterrent. He added that people should be told that they needed to get work outside of prison because one did not go to prison to find employment. He emphasised that he wanted to crush the notion that when one started to industrialise prisons one would encourage people to commit crimes in order to access the employment opportunities for prisoners.

Prisoner rights were also undermined by overcrowding, lack of discipline and corruption. Overcrowding should be reduced but he did not know what would be done with the excess prisoners since there were no support structures or halfway houses available for them. Offenders would be released into a no man’s land and would be back within the system within no time.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) felt that Mr Bhudu thinking was too idealistic and utopian. He remembered that in 1995 Mr Bhudu had accompanied the Committee on a trip to Denmark. After the visit the Committee had agreed that the Danish were too advanced in development and their treatment of inmates and realised that it was not practical to implement what they had done there. Now it seemed that Mr Bhudu “jumped the gun” and thought that what had been done in Denmark could be improved on in South Africa. He reminded SAPOHR that the countries quoted in their research were far more advanced than South Africa and had all the resources to implement what the organisation sought. He said that although much progress had been made since 1995 conditions were not yet conducive to implement such advanced strategies.

He reminded everyone that the briefings were aimed at eventually finding ways of balancing the rights and privileges of inmates with the rights of the officials who work with them. He cautioned that one could not implement strategies that were too advanced and could not be sustained. He added that efforts were made to move from a retributive to a restorative type of justice and emphasised that privileges were earned by being responsible and participating in healthy activities as well as having a good working relationship with warders. He reminisced that while incarcerated on Robben Island it was expected that he and fellow inmates should be submissive. The warders’ attitudes had been changed by inmates’ insistence upon mutual respect. The Committee had no qualms about the fact that prisoner rights should be respected; they did feel however that privileges were too easily accessed.

The Chairperson agreed and wondered what SAPOHR was doing to try and address the escalating crime in South Africa. It was fine to represent the inmates but he had the responsibility as a good citizen of the country to ensure that people were kept out of prison. He emphasised that the Committee would not tamper with the Constitutions and the rights enshrined in it; it would however seriously consider prisoners’ privileges if they thought it necessary. He wondered whether SAPOHR advocated that inmates should have all the privileges and benefits that not even law-abiding citizens had.

Mr Bhudu recalled the trip that took place “11 long drawn out years” ago. He was outside of the political arrangement of the country and was involved in the non-governmental organisation sector and had enough time to assess what had been learnt from that trip. He cautioned against merely undertaking study tours but not implementing what had been learnt. The trip had been an eye opener for him and he had undertaken many other such trips. He lamented the disappearance of those who had advocated prisoners’ rights pre 1994 but had gone into big business and did not want to do anything without being paid.

A chronically overcrowded system resulted in inmates who lost all hope. Rights and privileges meant nothing in a system that “was choked” and left no breathing space. Officials too were demoralised. The population needed to be brought down to a manageable level and discipline and high morale needed to be fostered in officials.

He did not believe that inmates enjoyed too many privileges and denied that prisons were anything like five-star hotels. A manageable population would make it possible to keep individual prisoners and officials responsible for their actions. He emphasised that DCS needed to have strong leaders who would take responsibility for their decisions and would stick to them. The DCS should not be in the business further punishing offenders who had already been sentenced by the justice system.

Mr Bhudu said that some years ago awaiting trial detainees used to call the SAPOHR offices saying that they had information on how their syndicates operated. SAPOHR then wanted to foster a working relationship with the DCS whereby it would be a human rights organisation by day and a DCS informer by night. The information could then be shared safely and with no threat to the detainees or the representatives who received the information. DCS had rejected the suggestion. DCS National Commissioner, Mr Linda Mti did not even want to meet with him. He said that SAPOHR could assist with crime prevention provided they had a close relationship with the DCS. He reminded the Committee that SAPOHR knew how criminals thought because they worked them.

Ms Seaton said that she too had been on the trip with Mr Bhudu. He should consider what had been done as a result of those trips. Major changes had been made and some of them might not have been that good. The DCS was demilitarised at the cost of respect for officials. She pointed out that Denmark at that time had reported 76 murders per year. Their main criminal activities were drug or theft-related. South Africa who had about 76 murders a day could not be compared to Denmark.

Mr Bhudu suggested that the demilitarisation of the DCS had resulted in a loss of order, discipline because the concept had been implemented in a haphazard manner.

Mr M Cele (ANC) wondered how SAPOHR interacted with communities as far as awareness creation was concerned.

Mr Bhudu admitted that due to financial constraints SAPOHR did not participate or initiate community awareness campaigns. The DCS first had to recognise the organisation as a force that wanted to assist because other role players would only then respect them. At the moment the organisation was seen as a terrorist movement.

The Chairperson told the PSA that some of its own members were complaining about the lack of respect from offenders. The Committee felt that the situation needed to be addressed.

Ms Chikunga wondered what measures the PSA could suggest for effective discipline to be instilled in correctional facilities.

Mr Kruger felt that this was a very difficult question to answer. In correctional facilities as well as in schools there appeared to be a general decline in discipline and respect. The society showed a general lack of respect for fellow members of society. He felt that taking privileges away on an adhoc basis and did not speak to the offender would have no effect. The matter would need to be discussed on a broader platform. Academics would also have to assist in developing a strategy. Prisoners would need to be consulted to determine what they would experience as effective punishment and control. He emphasised that what was currently in place very clearly did not work. Overcrowding was a big problem too.

Ms Chikunga felt that the PSA presentation created the impression that officials did everything right but that the problem lay with the DCS policies and with prisoners. Ms Ngwenya pointed out that many times officials themselves were guilty of smuggling the weapons used in escapes into cells.

Mr Kruger explained that the PSA regarded the situation to be totally inadequate as far as rehabilitation was concerned. Overcrowding made a large contribution to the current chaotic state of affairs. It had adverse effects on warders’ morale and self-discipline and effected how he performed his duties. He admitted that there were “bad apples” among officials. The PSA was in continuous discussion with the DCS to determine how they could jointly address the lack of morale and discipline. Officials’ participation in smuggling could, in some cases be attributed to economic reasons. Officers lived in the same communities offenders came from. Gangs in prison were an extension of gang activities in the communities. Officers were drawn into these activities too. He agreed that it had to be rooted out because rehabilitation could not take place if there was no discipline even among officials. The majority of officers were committed to the system of corrective rehabilitation but lacked morale.

Ms Ngwenya wondered what the PSA was doing to inform its members of developments. Many officials complained that the overtime they had depended on had been stopped without them having been informed.

Mr Kruger pointed out that the PSA was not a signatory to the overtime arrangement and reminded members that they had made a submission to the Committee detailing its satisfaction with the arrangement. The agreement had been agreed to by the majority and was in operation. The PSA abided by it. He failed to understand how any officials could claim not to have been aware of the agreement. It had not been signed overnight and was discussed for a number of years.

He reminded members that many officials had counted on the overtime remuneration and that it had become part of their ‘take home’ money. After the overtime agreement was made they were left with no money to meet their obligations. The PSA was however very enthusiastic about the Minister’s recent announcement about a possible improvement in the dispensation of correctional officers. The PSA would take part in any such discussions.

The Chairperson asked what the PSA thought could be done as far as inmates’ privileges were concerned so that discipline and respect for officials could be instilled.

Mr Fihla felt that offenders had become highly sophisticated. Inmates had access to many sources of communication such as cell phones. These inmates were a danger to officials and to the DCS. They knew the law; they knew their rights and they were able to take the DCS to the Supreme Court. These inmates also acquired privileges. It was the DCS’s task to deal with these inmates. He cautioned that the ordinary inmates would not feel the pinch of punishment. The sophisticated, VIP prisoners, had access to privileges which should be taken away.

Mr Kruger agreed and said that PSA proposed that privileges should be earned and should not be allocated, as was the case at the moment. Them being taken away would then have more effect. The DCS should also perform an effective control and monitoring role. Some inmates needed laptops for study purposes but such privileges should be earned. He emphasised that it would be preferred if inmates could be kept busy in a constructive fashion. They should be allowed to earn the privileges that would make this possible. He pointed out that the DCS should focus on adhering to the rights the Constitution demanded and that privileges should be earned. The distinction between rights and privileges should be very clear.

Ms Chikunga wondered how it would be possible to earn privileges in overcrowded facilities where officials could not keep track of inmates.

Mr Kruger agreed that overcrowding was one of the biggest stumbling blocks. Many of the suggestions required an ideal situation. There were many challenges but dumping someone in an overcrowded cell and claim that we have no choice was not acceptable. He felt that one could address the situation in a creative manner. If a person proved that he or she wanted to better him- or herself the DCS should see how they could assist them. He added that life in prison should never be better than life outside. People should always strive to get out and stay out of prison. He added that the problem needed to be addressed by the justice cluster and all other role players and not solely by DCS.

Mr M Phala (ANC) reminded everyone that the Bill of Rights applied to all citizens. Education was one of those rights. Privileges such as cell phones should not be allowed if they posed a threat to order and discipline within facilities.

Mr Kruger said that the psychologist Pavlov had developed a system of positive for good behaviour and negative reward for bad behaviour. At the moment there was no award system as far as privileges were concerned. Prisons should not offer an easier route higher education or employment. If however a prisoner came into the system, participated and was working at improving himself and getting rehabilitated it should be rewarded. The DCS had to have a say in what the curriculum would entail and the prisoner could earn the right to access it. He emphasised that he was not offering 100% success guaranteed solutions. The ideas still needed to be investigated, researched and developed. A privilege system should exist alongside a punitive one.

The Chairperson wondered why people could not be allowed to work during the day. This would relieve the stress overcrowding placed on the infrastructure of correctional facilities. The inmates did not have to go far from the prison; they could tend the grounds of the facilities which post 1994 were in a terrible state.

Mr Kruger felt that prison programmes should be run in conjunction with the reward system. Participation and commitment to programmes should be rewarded. He did not advocate forced labour but development programmes. It should be explained that participation and commitment came with benefits e.g. getting out of the cell, television at night, access to the library, etc. At the moment inmates were often forced to participate in programmes as a form of punishment. This should be reversed.

Mr Fihla pointed out that at one point the United Kingdom had passed a law that if one killed a police officer one received the death penalty. Killing an officer represented a challenge to the order of the state. He felt that for certain categories of crimes there should be no option of earning privileges. The minimum sentencing legislation resulted from the upsurge in crime. In the absence of the death penalty it was the only available deterrent. He had no problem with POPCRU’s suggestion that those who killed police officers should not be considered for parole.

Ms Ngwenya said that members often stressed and depressed after their oversight visits to prisons. She felt that prisons were “in a mess” and that the availability of prisons should perhaps be totally reviewed. She said that when she was sentenced to 10 years in prison during Apartheid a day felt like a year. She was upset that prisoners were now killing correctional officers. Perhaps prisons should be prisons.

Mr S Mahote (ANC) said that he had been touched by the memorial for the slain officials at the St Alban’s facility and felt that those who murdered DCS officials should also not be considered for parole. He noted that the POPCRU presentation indicated that the organisation did not feel that privileges and rights needed to be reviewed. POPCRU members however felt that these rights and privileges needed to be reviewed in the interest of discipline and respect for officials. He wondered whether there was effective communication between the leadership and membership of the organisation.

Ms Chikunga was concerned about the suggestion that the murderers of police and correctional officials only should not be considered for parole. She wondered why magistrates, judges even members of parliament were not included in this list. She warned that such a list could continue since everyone considered him or herself to be important and murder remained murder.

Mr Teledi explained that POPCRU was a police based organisation. The Department of Safety and Security was faced with a large number of police killings. Police officers represented the organ of the state that needed to ensure that all citizens were protected. He said that a solution needed to be considered. It would not be problematic if the scope were broadened to include other categories of citizens. POPCRU felt that since police officers as protectors of all citizens faced death in the execution of their duties and measures should be taken to severely punish their murderers and act as a deterrent.

POPCRU had understood the Committee’s invitation to be for a discussion to increase the right and privileges inmates had. The organisation felt that no such increase was needed and would participate fully in a review of the privileges.

Ms Chikunga wondered whether POPCRU felt that awareness around privileges and rights should be included in recruits’ training curriculum.

Mr Xolile Maripani, a POPCRU representative, felt that training was very important especially since inmates had become so sophisticated. Only well capacitated officials would be able to deal with them. He agreed that training around rights and privileges would be useful.

Mr Cele noted that the suggested training around privileges and rights had never been well distributed. He wondered whether training would be run again should it be budgeted for.

Mr Teledi said that POPCRU had proposed a budget but that the change of leadership in the Department had had an impact on those discussions. The training that had been budgeted for had been conducted and was useful. Those officials would be able to train other officials. He said that if the discussions around training could be resumed it would prove useful.

The Chairperson wondered whether those people who murdered police officers still enjoyed privileges. He suggested that people who raped children and those who murdered farmers who produced food for the country should also not be considered for parole.

Privileges should be awarded after consideration of the seriousness of the crimes that had been committed. He agreed with the PSA that privileges should be earned. He acknowledged that those who committed serious crimes should not enjoy any privileges. He said that police officers were the protectors of all citizens. The Freedom Charter said that there “shall be peace and security” in the country. He said that if there was no peace and security in the country all other freedoms became vulnerable and useless. Therefore it was critical that those who maintained the law and worked for peace and security should be adequately protected. Warders and correctional officers were included in this category.

Mr Mahote agreed that offenders should have no automatic privileges upon entry into facilities. Their privileges should be earned. He wondered what guarantee one would have that members would suspend or terminate privileges for bad behaviour. He reminded members that it was alleged that at Middledrift, the “escapees” were in fact escorted out by DCS officials.

Mr Teledi agreed fully with what Mr Fihla had said. He reiterated that once the review of privileges had been made and agreed upon, they should be clearly communicated to officials. If POPCRU agreed to the changes and had been a participant in the discussions its members would abide by the outcome.

Mr Kruger said that the PSA agreed with POPCRU and would welcome and participate fully in any of the Department’s initiatives to introduce a new policy on privileges. Training would ensure the full participation of the correctional officers who should enforce the system rather than undermine it. He said that if a warder smuggled a pistol into a correctional facility, that warder put the lives of fellow correctional officers at risk.

Mr Bhudu explained that SAPOHR could only be a positive contributor in the furthering of the reformation and transformation of the DCS provided the Department recognised it. The one-time acting deputy commissioner Mr Steven Conradie had given SAPOHR the opportunity to discuss whether SAPOHR could be recognised as an organisation. He was the only person to ever take such a step. After Mr Conradie’s redeployment the process came to a standstill. SAPOHR then received a letter saying that the organisation would be treated as any other “welfare organisation”. He said that “whether people liked it or not” SAPOHR had an “unlimited mandate”. He emphasised that he was not an “enemy of the state” and declared that he was a “staunch die-hard member of the African National Congress”. He concluded by saying that if the DCS did not approach SAPOHR with an offer to work together, he might early in 2007 “fall through the trap” he had avoided for many years and would start a prisoners’ political party which would contest the 2009 elections. He emphasised that this would not be done with the intention to govern the country, since they believed the country to be in good hands but would be aimed at seeing to the implementation of the White Paper, the Correctional Service Act (1998) as well as other provisions.

Closing remarks
Mr Bhudu thanked the Committee for giving him the opportunity to address them. He hoped that it would be an ongoing process. He was passionate about the cause and wanted to make a contribution. If one wanted to keep democracy flourishing the correctional services needed to be addressed and the sector should not be isolated. Citizens needed to understand that “if you did the crime you would do the time”. DCS needed to ensure that offenders were rehabilitated and reintegrated.

Mr Kruger thanked the Committee for the opportunity to participate in the debate around the contentious topic of prisoner rights and privileges. He assured the Committee that the PSA was committed to participation and cooperation. The matter would need further consideration and thought it important that the issues be addressed. The morale of employees was important and was linked to the rights and privileges of offenders.

Mr Teledi was aware that over the past three years POPCRU and the DCS had experienced some difficulties in their relationship. The organisation had made sure that the problems were resolved. Many measures had been put in place to improve the relationship. He too assured the Committee of POPCRU’s commitment to meaningful participation.

Chairperson’s closing remarks
The Chairperson assured the presenters that the Committee was serious about doing its work. The meeting had not been just a “talk shop”. The Committee was committed to addressing the issues raised and needed the assistance of all stakeholders including POPCRU, PSA and SAPOHR. Such organisation would regularly be invited to brief the Committee.

He reiterated that the Committee had no intention of tampering with prisoners’ rights but would certainly, in consultation with other stakeholders, reconsider inmate privileges.

It was important that SAPOHR listened to its membership. Inmates pleaded with the Committee to speak to the DCS about allowing them to pay their debt to the communities they had wronged. It would be a disservice if these inmates were not listened to. They needed to participate in programmes.

It was painful to hear officials complaining about their powerlessness in the face of disrespectful and undisciplined inmates. Inmates were now telling officials what to do. The Committee felt that this state of affairs was totally unacceptable. He said that the Correctional Services Act said that sufficient work had to be provided as far as possible and prisoners should be compelled to participate in it. He assured everyone that inmates would not be exploited at all but action would be taken to do justice to inmates’ needs. It was unacceptable to see facilities and grounds fall into disrepair when there were inmates who could get involved in its upkeep. He said that sexual offences were rife because people were kept in their cells for far too much time.

Adoption of Committee Report on oversight visit to the Eastern Cape
The Committee adopted its draft report on the oversight visit to the Eastern Cape, which would be tabled for discussion in Parliament.

The meeting was adjourned.