Preferential treatment of high profile inmates; Jali commission recommendations: department progress report on implementation

Meeting report

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL SELECT COMMITTEE
15 November 2006
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF HIGH PROFILE INMATES; JALI COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: DEPARTMENT PROGRESS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION

Chairperson: Kgoshi L Mokoena (ANC Limpopo)

Documents handed out:
Implementation of Recommendations of Jali Commission: presentation
Implementation of Recommendations of Jali Commission: detailed progress report
Jali Commission Executive Summary available at www.dcs.gov.za

SUMMARY
The Department of Correctional Services met with the Committee in order to brief members on the progress it had made as far as the implementation of the recommendations of the Jali Commission of Inquiry. Given recent media coverage of the alleged preferential treatment of high profile inmates, Members raised concerns related to the Department’s policy as far as inmate transfers and parole were concerned. The National Commissioner assured them that the Department’s policy allowed only for equal treatment of inmates regardless of their political affiliation, race or gender. It was agreed that the Minister and his Deputy were best positioned to respond to the related political questions.

The Committee raised a number of concerns about the Jali Commission recommendations. These included the need to interrogate their ability to be implemented, especially the outsourcing of certain services and the proposed measures for dealing with overcrowding. Members agreed that gangsterism in prison posed a threat to inmate safety as well as to the integrity of prison security and that urgent measures to address the situation were necessary. The need for alternative sentencing and adequate rehabilitation and reintegration strategies was also highlighted. The Committee proposed that a day-long workshop be held early in 2007 to give Members a better understanding of the problems facing Correctional Services and urged the Department to regularly report to the Committee.

MINUTES
Committee on media reports of alleged preferential treatment of high profile inmates
The Chairperson commented on media reports alleging that certain high profile prisoners received preferential treatment and stated that it would have been appropriate for the political heads of the Department to be present in order to respond to some of the issues the Committee would raise. He was uncertain as to whether the officials present would be in a position to confirm or deny the allegations. The media had approached him for comment, which he was unable to give because he was not adequately informed on the matter.

Mr M Mzizi (IFP Gauteng) concurred with the Chairperson that only the Department could verify or deny media reports and also felt that the political heads of the Department were better suited to respond to the political questions that might be raised. He wondered whether there was any particular reason why neither Minister of Correctional Services, Mr Ngconde Balfour nor his deputy Ms Loretta Jacobus, was present.

The Chairperson was not aware of why Deputy Minister Jacobus was unavailable but knew that Minister Balfour was chairing the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) cluster in Minister Charles Nqakula’s absence. While he agreed that the Commissioner would not be able to respond to political questions he felt that however that the delegation could respond to administrative issues such as the transferring of inmates from one facility to another.

Commissioner Mti quipped that the "unexpected attack" would in military terms be referred to as an ambush. He explained that the Deputy Minister was attending a social cluster meeting and apologised for any inconvenience the political heads’ absence posed. He agreed that the political heads were better positioned to deal with the issue because he was ‘’not clear’’ about what he was dealing with. Commissioner Mti explained that the centre an inmate would be incarcerated at was determined at the centre at which one reported. He emphasised that the Department did not condone or promote preferential treatment on the basis of political affiliation, gender or race and was sure that the Minister would confirm this.

At the beginning of their sentence, first-time inmates often requested to be held in either the hospital or a single cell so as to adjust to the prison environment. Any offender could request that such a consideration be made. While he did not want to speak of any particular case he clarified that an offender’s prison classification, assessment and the potential danger he or she posed were also taken into consideration when determining where they would serve their sentence. If any offender failed to honour any arrangement that might have been "negotiated" appropriate steps would be taken.

Mr Mzizi recalled that the former Inspecting Judge, Judge Johannes Fagan had at some stage commented that Ms Winnie Madikizela-Mandela could not have been sentence to imprisonment in prisons that were in such an appalling state. While one could interpret this statement in a number of ways, Mr Mzizi had come to the conclusion that many facilities were considered inappropriate for certain high profile offenders. He commented that people who grew up in areas where gangsterism was rife for example could argue that because they were known in those communities they did not want to be held in the same facilities as the gang members they might have offended.

The Chairperson said that while he would allow further questions the Department would not be required to respond since it had been agreed that the Minister and the Deputy Minister would be the best people to respond to these questions.

Dr F van Heerden (FFP Free State) accepted the Commissioner’s statement that all prisoners were treated the same and that there was no policy that allowed for the special treatment of certain high profile inmates. Mr Tony Yengeni was sentenced under Section 276 (1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act and that he could therefore go on parole at the behest of the Commissioner. Dr van Heerden pointed out that there were many such inmates. He represented certain people who were still imprisoned and he would use this precedent to argue for their parole too.

Mr J Le Roux (DA Eastern Cape) said that he too was satisfied with the Commissioner’s response and agreed that the Minister had to discuss the matter with the Committee.

Mr S Shiceka (ANC Gauteng) said that the Committee would appreciate if in future the Department and the Ministry in particular, touched base with the committees of Parliament on issues of national importance. Committees would then be kept abreast of issues and would be able to respond when questions were posed to them. The Committee should not have to request briefings on these matters. Parliament was expected to respond on such issues and if members were not kept abreast they might speak "in a language that might not be liked by the Department". He hoped that the Commissioner would convey this request to the Minister. He felt that in such cases "bureaucratic red tape" should be ignored because the public discourse required parties to respond.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would invite the Minister to respond to some of the political questions. He also requested that in future the Department should ensure that the Committee received briefing documents in advance so that members could prepare for the briefings. The Jali Report had been tabbed a long time ago yet the Committee only received the document that day.

Department progress report on implementation of Jali Commission recommendations
The Department of Correctional Services’ delegation was led by National Commissioner Linda Mti; and comprised Chief Deputy Commissioner for Central Services Jenny Schreiner and the Chief Deputy Commissioner for Corporate Services, Mr Vinnie Petersen. Ms Schreiner gave the presentation, which was aimed at providing the Select Committee with feedback on the progress the Department had made as far as the implementation of the Jali Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. The Committee received information on the background to the Commission and on the departmental processes since, while the bulk of the presentation focussed on the implementation status of the recommendations related to systems and policies, as well as matters related to misconduct. The Department assured the Committee that monitoring and evaluation of the implementation would continue through other efforts to deliver on the Department’s strategic and operational plans.

Discussion
The Chairperson recalled that Judge Jali might have said that not all the recommendations were included in the Executive Summary. He wondered which recommendations had not been included.

Ms Schreiner explained that the Department had presented only the first part of the interim report to the Portfolio Committee. They felt that since those who had been named in the report had not yet received their letters the Department did not want their names to be released to the public. The second part of the report dealt with recommendations related to systems and policies as well as recommendations around individuals. The document before the Committee that day contained all the recommendations and she did not think that anything had been left out.

The Chairperson expressed the Committee’s dissatisfaction at only being briefed on the Jali Commission’s report at this late stage. In addition the Committee had had to request the briefing. Members hoped that such an oversight would not occur again and that the Committee would, in future receive reports in due time.

Mr Shiceka pointed out that that in the light of the fact that members had not had prior opportunity to engage with what had been presented, their contributions would not be "intelligent" and informed. He suggested that the Department should return to the Committee at a later stage for a longer and more informed interaction. He added that the report offered the Department the opportunity to speed up its transformation.

National Commissioner Linda Mti apologised for the late circulation of the report and implored the Committee to understand that due to the size of the report the Department had had to do quite a bit of preparation. The report had been in the public domain for quite some time and thus received less media coverage because the topical issues had already been discussed in the public. He agreed with Mr Shiceka that that day’s briefing should be seen as the Department’s first interaction with the Committee on the report and that both the Department and the Ministry needed to keep the committees informed of developments. The Department was developing an implementation framework and would report back as they progressed.

Referring to the historical context of the report he pointed out that it dealt with issues that related to a specific period in the life of the Department. Despite the fact that many of the issues investigated took place before 2001, it was treated as though the recommendations and findings related to new cases. It was important to contextualise the report.

Commissioner Mti explained that 60% of the policy-related issues raised in the report had already been addressed. While issues like gangsterism and overcrowding remained a challenge, the Department could no longer be said to be union-run.

Mr Le Roux was pleased that the Committee now had the whole document. It was plain for all to see that the entire Department needed a major overhaul. He was concerned that while it appeared as though hundreds of people had been implicated in serious misconduct, only 13 people had actually been dismissed.

The Commissioner responded that for some the Jali Commission presented the opportunity to report cases that could not necessarily be supported by facts. Some allegations were unfounded while others were malicious. There were a number of cases that the Department found difficult to follow up on.

Ms Schreiner explained that of the 93 officials mentioned in the interim report 47 had been dismissed, 22 had received a final written warning, 13 were acquitted and 11 had either left the Department or had passed away.

Mr Mzizi noted that the 48 investigation reports implicated 109 members and that some cases could not be pursued due to lack of evidence or because witnesses were untraceable or had passed away. He also noted that in terms of procedure the implicated had to be given the opportunity to reply to allegations. As far as he was concerned this meant that the onus rested on the implicated to prove his or her innocence. In addition he understood that the implicated was not obliged to respond and that therefore the case could just be closed.

Ms Schreiner explained that letters had been sent to people against whom allegations had been made. Reports have indicated that the Department intended to proceed towards investigative hearings. Where there was neither evidence nor witnesses a person would not be put in a position in which they would have to defend themselves. The Department was functioning on the basis that people were innocent until proven guilty and had a policy that required that they should be given the opportunity to explain their side of the story. This explanation would then be considered when the Department decided how to proceed.

Mr Mzizi noted that the report spoke of undue union influence in the appointment process and that the Department reported that most of the managers implicated were no longer in the Department. He sought more clarity in this matter.

Mr Shiceka wondered what the roles of unions were in the Department at the moment. He said that unions claimed to be progressive and were supposed to contribute to the transformation process. From a recent Asikhulume interview featuring the Department and Mr Miles Bhudu of the South African Prisoners’ Organisation for Human Rights (SAPOHR) he did however not get the impression that they made a serious contribution to transformation.

The Commissioner admitted that there were still issues related to the manner in which Police and Prisons Civil Right Union (POPCRU) and the Department interacted. He said that he "found more joy" in dealing with Pubic Service Association (PSA) who were merely interested in information so that they could best serve their members. The majority union still found it difficult to interact with the Department without becoming confrontational and thus struggled to make a meaningful contribution.

He said that having naively fought for the awarding of positions to black people regardless of their qualifications and ability, POPCRU struggled to understand its contribution. The Department was trying to manage the situation by setting up a ministerial forum and would probably meet with the Unions on a quarterly basis.

Mr Petersen added that the Department had taken the first steps in understanding the different roles the Department and labour unions played. It had a better understanding of the expectations that the Department had of labour as well as of the expectations labour had of management.

This process had culminated in 6 regional relationship objective action plans. A joint session between labour and the Department would be held in the first week of December. The facilitator, acting Judge Edwin Molahlene, would begin to consolidate the action plans into a national programme. This programme would be implemented systematically over a period of time in order to ensure that management began to respect the existing legislative provisions and thus created an environment that would accommodate the dynamic relationship between itself and labour as well as to ensure that labour became more involved in some of the necessary initiatives such as programmes related to the impact of HIV/AIDS and other transformation related programmes. He pointed out that if labour unions resisted them, the Department would not be able to implement some of the initiatives.

Mr Mzizi pointed out that gangsterism within correctional facilities was an extremely old phenomenon and felt that officials who promoted such activities were committing a serious offence. He wondered what progress the Department had been able to make as far as addressing it.

Mr Shiceka thought that gangsterism posed such a serious challenge that it warranted a follow up briefing related to the Department’s strategy for curbing it. He maintained that the prevalence of gang activity in prison made rehabilitation impossible. Gangs undermined the authority of the correctional system, were able to manipulate officials and in his opinion could be linked to the prevalence of sodomy and rape within prison.

Commissioner Mti was also impatient with the slow pace of the progress. A strategy for dealing with gangsterism was provided for within the security policy strategy. He said that the gangs were trying to run "a prison within a prison". In addition to strategies for addressing the special elements of the problem, one also had to provide mechanisms by which one could protect officials and other offenders.

The White Paper on Corrections had very nearly not been approved because it had been silent as far as gangsterism was concerned. The Department had had to include it because Cabinet was adamant that issues related to gangsterism had t be addressed. He lamented that if Government had no policy and procedures to address certain issues, these issues often did not get addressed.

Commissioner Mti added that the fact that some officials colluded with gangs was a big problem. Gangsterism and collusion with officials was rife at facilities such as Douglas and Durban Westville. Officials recognised gangs’ authority and supported their activities. The Department was strengthening the punishment of those who associated with gangs because one could not manage the situation if members themselves associated with the gangs.

Mr Mzizi said that the report spoke of outsourcing some of the Department’s functions and wondered who responsibilities would be outsourced to.

Mr Mzizi wondered in what way officials and inmates were awarded and what these awards were based on.

Mr Shiceka wondered what the comment that internal controls and merit awards had been strengthened meant.

The Commissioner replied that the Department wanted to review the award system because it was being abused by both inmates and officials. Inmates were able to use the policy to negotiate their early release despite not being ready to be reintegrated. At the moment it was subject to abuse by officials because the power to determine by how many days a sentence could be reduced lay with the heads of facilities.

The Department had acknowledged that there had been abuse especially as far as performance assessments and how merit awards were being awarded were concerned. People had been using the system for patronage but the Department was trying to address the matter.

Mr Petersen said that there had been a major overhaul of the award system for members and that there had been systematic improvements. He explained that there were separate reward systems for levels 2-12 and senior management levels. The Department had subjected the level 2-12 process to rigorous auditing process. A centralised national auditing structure did an annual assessment of the performance management system. The Department also ensured that it measured performance and achievements so that they could be linked according to the organisation’s key performance areas. The Department had also benchmarked its system with that of the broader public service.

As far as the senior management award process was concerned he explained that the Department had developed standardised key result areas against which they managed senior managers. The Department had reintroduced a focus on Batho Pele to ensure that officials were aware of the expected outcomes. It had also linked the senior management performance management system to that of the operational staff.

Mr Mzizi wondered what impact the passing of the Civil Union Bill would have on the Department’s policies.

The Commissioner pointed out that the Department had advocated for the removal of sodomy from the sexual offences Bill. Sexual intercourse between males which had been referred to as sodomy would now also be rape. At the time the Sexual Offences Bill was being discussed the Department had not anticipated passing of the Civil Union legislation. He pointed out that the Department had already dealt with cases "where people who felt that they were female" did not want to be incarcerated in male sections. Such inmates were accommodated in the prison hospital or within singe cells.

Mr Mzizi said that it was believed that a person only became eligible for parole once he or she had served half of their sentence. He wondered whether this was still applicable considering that some people served only four months of their sentence before being eligible for parole.

Mr Shiceka said that after their visit to facilities in the Free State and Limpopo the Committee had made certain recommendations. He was curious as to whether the Department had taken these recommendations into consideration when developing the implementation plan. He pointed out that this would be a useful approach since the Commission had focused its investigations on certain issues at certain facilities, while the Committee might have identified other issues in different areas. Taking all recommendations into account might speed up transformation.

Commissioner Mti said that while the Department did not necessarily integrate the Committee’s observations in this particular report, the Department always took the recommendations of both the Select and the Portfolio committees into consideration.

Mr Shiceka felt there were a number of issues that the Department should include in a follow up presentation. These issues related primarily to policies that were completed and/or were being developed so that the Committee would be better able to do its oversight.

The Commissioner agreed and the Department could do a follow up presentation and added that if they felt that they did not have the committees’ support Management often felt "unsupported and paralysed".

Mr Z Ntuli (ANC KwaZulu Natal) sympathised with the Department who was faced with the mammoth task of addressing the impact Apartheid had had on the correctional services. There was much work to be done particularly in the area of transformation. He wondered whether there was a psychologist who could assess offenders upon their arrest to determine why they had committed their offences.

Commissioner Mti confirmed that the Department had psychologists but that they needed many more. The scarcity of psychologists and social workers remained a challenge in Government departments. At the moment inmates might be admitted without being assessed by a psychologist. Sometimes psychologists were only used as the offender’s date of release neared in order to facilitate the reintegration process. The Department had clustered itself along area management lines so that psychologists could move around in order to reach more inmates. He felt that such counseling was necessary especially in the case of first-time inmates for whom prison could be quite a traumatic experience.

Mr Ntuli assumed that the implementation of the recommendations would absorb much of the Department’s time and wondered whether the Department had the capacity to perform the task.

Mr D Worth (DA Free State) thought that the Commission was the result of a film made of the corruption that went on at the Grootvlei Prison. He agreed that much of what was contained in the report did not go on at all prisons. Many of the recommendations would require a long term implementation strategy. He felt that it was very easy for a commission to make recommendations but pointer out that implementing them was another matter altogether.

Mr Petersen assured members that the implementation of the recommendations would be a long term process. The Department had decided that the recommendations called for interventions on a number of different levels.

It had identified that there was a need for a change in the organisational culture of Correctional Services. Many of the problems that had led to the Jali investigations resulted because the demilitarization of the Department had happened overnight and because there had been no change management strategy in place. He reminded members that the public service required a very different mindset to the militirised one that had dominated the correctional service. In addressing this challenge the Department had taken a few steps back and introduced a programme called "Harnessing organizational culture in support of the White Paper" through which they tried to address various work streams. Much work was being done in this regard.

Mr Petersen continued saying that moving into the seven-day four-shift establishment meant that the Department had to take over overtime payments which resulted in a significant reduction in officials’ salaries. The savings had had positive and negative implications. On the one hand it had been used to create 8311 entry level posts. On the other reducing the income of the officials had made them more prone to corrupt activity in an environment very conducive to it.

The negative impacted thus had to be counteracted. The Department developed an integrated wellness plan. It also engaged with National Treasury to look at improving salaries in the light of the fact that the Department was moving towards professionalising correctional services and expected officials to deliver differently. Progress was being made on this front; 2005 the Department had introduced the interim promotion arrangement which, in an attempt to strengthen supervisory functions, lifted a number of officials.

Currently the Department and National Treasury were working on a project called "Job Refinement and Enhancement" to see how they could get officials to begin to work differently so that they could contribute positively to the whole rehabilitation process. The Department’s Integrated Human Resource Strategy focused mainly on very strong human resource development components. Mr Petersen looked forward to the day when a body would be established that would require officials to register with it and would be able to strike officials who misbehaved off the roll.

Mr Ntuli realised that the Department’s core function was to rehabilitate offenders and was curious as to whether given the massive overcrowding, any progress was made in terms of rehabilitation.

Commissioner Mti agreed that it was quite difficult to, in the light of the massive overcrowding the Department was faced with, talk of an effective rehabilitation programme. The Department had therefore identified some centres that were less overcrowded and in which the rehabilitation programme could successfully be implemented.

Mr Worth felt that it was necessary to interrogate some of the recommendations. The Commission’s report stated for example that because catering was a well established industry in the South Africa the Department should outsource this function. This would then leave it free to focus on its main task which was rehabilitation. He recalled that when the Committee visited Goodwood Prison they saw that inmates enjoyed being involved in the preparation of their own food. He thought that helping in the preparation of meals and even growing it where possible could also form part of the rehabilitation process.

The recommendations also indicated that the State President’s granting of amnesty to sentenced prisoners could help to reduce overcrowding in prison. While he agreed that this was one way of reducing the numbers in prison, he felt that the recommendation should also acknowledge the importance of only rehabilitated offenders being granted such amnesty.

The report also appeared to indicate that administrative weaknesses could have contributed to the overcrowding: while one prison was 400% overcrowded, another not far from it was only 25% full.

Mr Worth wondered how much responsibility the state took when offenders who had been given amnesty committee serious offences again. He again emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and felt that while the report acknowledged the importance of rehabilitation it failed to indicate how this could be achieved especially considering the Department’s human resource challenges.

Lastly Mr Worth criticised the report’s recommendation that facilities such as C-Max were not suitable for the incarceration of inmates. The Commission thought it inhumane to detain inmates in isolation. He pointed put that these prisons could not simply be demolished. There had to be away that inmates could be allowed to exercise and felt that these challenges could be easily overcome.

Commissioner Mti felt that Mr Worth raised a valid point as far as the adequate consideration of the recommendations was concerned. E said that while the recommendations had o be respected some were so "vulgar" that if they were to be taken literally it would create problems.

The appointment of external people for disciplinary hearings was against the Department’s procedures and could not be done. Similarly the C-Max facility could not be done away with because there were so many dangerous criminals who needed to be kept there. He agreed that one had to ensure that inmates could exercise but was adamant that the facility could not simply be closed.

The Commission observed that the Bizana facility was 120% full, while Kokstad, which was 70 km away, was just a quarter full. It found that inmates from Bizana could thus be transferred to Kokstad. Commissioner Mti explained that while Bizana accommodated those who had committed less serious offences, Kokstad had been designed to accommodate specific dangerous offenders and was a "super maximum prison". Moving inmates from Bizana to this high security facility would also be in violation of their rights. In addition offenders were classified in a specific way and that classification played a role in where they would be incarcerated.

The Department had had to outsource some functions in the main centres, especially at those where there were unpredictable numbers of awaiting trial detainees (e.g. Johannesburg). This was however not a permanent arrangement but was an interim measure aimed partly at ensuring that facilities became more self sufficient.

The Department was at present outsourcing its recruitment in an attempt to improve human resource capacity. Under normal circumstances the Department should be able to recruit members. This outsourcing was also an interim measure because it was not a cost effective long term solution.

Commissioner Mti explained that Grootvlei had not been the reason for the investigations which originally focused on sox facilities excluding Grootvlei. When prisoners at Grootvlei heard that there would be a commission of investigation they made the video that showed the level of corruption at their facility. Grootvlei was only then included in the investigations.

Commissioner Mti said that amnesty could not be granted all the time because it had political implications. He added that one could not use amnesty to resolve overcrowding and not expect a "political backlash".

Dr van Heerden said that people on parole unfortunately often committed the same serious offences again. He wondered whether it was at all possible to minimise these incidents.

Commissioner Mti was sure that there were many such cases but said as long as adequate rehabilitation programmes were not in place one would fail to deal with the nature of the crime they had committed thus they were often release while not yet rehabilitated. He said that at the moment rapist were sent to "religious lessons and workshops" that did not address the reason for them having committed their crimes. Often they re-offended. The Department was making an effort to develop a pool of expertise to assess inmates upon their arrival, determine the nature and cause of their criminal activity and to then rehabilitate them accordingly. He felt that educational achievements during the imprisonment were not adequate proof of rehabilitation.

Dr van Heerden noted that there was now also a parole review board and wondered whether this was a new institution.

Commissioner Mti explained that the Parole Review Board was a new body that included members of the National Council of Correctional Services (NCCS) and dealt especially with difficult parole cases and life sentences. Judge Siraj Desai, who chaired the NCCS also chaired the parole review board.

Dr van Heerden said that he executive summary spoke of the conversion of prison sentences to correctional supervision. He thought this was a good practice. The report recommended that a survey be conducted to determine how many inmates qualified for their sentences to be converted to correctional supervision.

Commissioner Mti agreed that conversion was a good idea but added that the Criminal justice system and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Affairs in particular were not convinced that the Department of Correctional Services had the capacity to manage correctional supervision effectively. He could not blame them because some of the officials who had been deployed to correctional supervision had been involved in prohibited activities. In this way one ended up having the most corrupt officials within community corrections and undoubtedly resulted in the justice system not having faith in the Department’s ability to manage the conversion.

The Department was in the process of overhauling the system and would do an audit of who was managing community corrections. He said that one needed activist who could ensure that communities themselves would do the supervision while the Department’s officials would only be used for reporting purposes. He emphasised that for community corrections to work one needed a "different officer cadre".

Dr van Heerden noted that the Commission found that offenders who had failed to adhere to disciplinary codes should be detained in single cells under humane conditions. He imagined that being held in a single cell was a reward rather than punishment and wondered whether this was an error.

Commissioner Mti said that there were prisoners who did not want to be confined to a single cell – some went to the extent of burning themselves once confined in such a manner. Some doubted whether they would be able to survive if held in a single cell. It was seen as a punishment because they had access to things like cigarettes and protection in communal cells. While the thought of being in a single cell rather than an overcrowded communal cell was appealing to ordinary citizens who were free, inmates saw it differently.

Dr van Heerden failed to comprehend how Section 276A (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act addressed the concerns of victims of crime such as indicated in Chapter 6.8.4 of the report.

Ms Schreiner said that the recommendation proposed an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act so that the complainant could be involved in the conversion of sentences or parole proceedings. The Department’s assessment was that there was no need to amend the Criminal Procedure Act because the new parole boards allowed for complainants to be present at parole board hearings.

Ms F Nyanda (ANC Mpumalanga) noted that according to the report all the implicated nurses resigned before their disciplinary hearings. She wondered whether the nursing council followed up on their cases. One might find that these nurses were still registered with the nursing council.

The Commissioner said that he could not with certainty confirm that the Department had followed up with the council and determined whether they had indeed been struck off the role. He knew that doctors, especially those who had defrauded Medcor were struck off the roll. He felt that it was an important question and said that the Department would do a follow up and respond at a later stage.

The Chairperson seconded Mr Shiceka’s earlier proposal that the Department should return to do another presentation at a later stage. He added that the Committee needed a day-long workshop with the Department to gain more knowledge related to specific issues such as gangsterism, the advantages and disadvantages of outsourcing some functions, discipline, the role of the unions in the Department as well as policy issues and their implementation within the Department.

Mr Ntuli felt that the interrogation of the Jali Commission’s recommendations should perhaps also feature on the agenda for the workshop.

Mr Shiceka felt that since overcrowding remained a major concern, mechanisms of reducing overcrowding should probably also be discussed. He also recalled that on an oversight visit to Welkom the Committee had discovered that officials were not familiar with legislation pertaining to alternative sentencing. He also reminded the Committee of the magistrate who had been against the legislation entirely and felt that the conversion of sentences and alternative sentencing should thus also be discussed at the proposed workshop. He suggested that the Chairperson and the Minister should discuss the finer details of such a workshop and then determine the date on which it should be held. He then continued to thank the Department for presenting the briefing despite the challenges it was faced with at the moment. He urged Members to engage the issues raised at the meeting in their provinces too.

Mr Mzizi thought it crucial that for inmates interacted with their communities and families before they were released. He remembered that the Committee on a visit to Canada saw a house that was used to accommodate inmates who were about to released and served to ease their reintegration. He wondered whether this would be possible in South Africa too. He thought that if one could find the facilities such a system might work well. It could also serve as a test to see if they were ready for reintegrated. This could also be discussed at the aforementioned workshop.

The Chairperson pointed out that in the light of recent developments Members would be confronted with many questions related to the parole system during the upcoming constituency period. He said that the workshop would be scheduled for early 2007. The Committee would then also address issues related to the political issues around recent allegations of preferential treatment.

Ms Schreiner said that the proposed workshop was a very exciting idea. She said that the Department would also use that opportunity to bring the Committee up to speed as far as some of the other initiatives it had been working on. They might then also be able to discuss ways in which the working relationship between the Department and the Committee could be improved. She said that the questions Members had raised, added value to the manner in which the Department would approach the implementation of the recommendations.

Mr Shiceka thanked the Department for making the presentation and extended a special thanks to Ms Schreiner for the manner in which she had handled the recent Asikhulume interview. She had managed to give the people for South Africa hoped that the system was changing. He said that the Department and the Committee should work together as partners that worked together in an effective manner.

Other Committee Business
The Committee discussed the draft programme for their visit to the North West Province, which was to scheduled for the following week.

Mr Shiceka said that it was important that on the first day of such a visit the Committee be briefed by the leaders of the province on the issues in that area. The Committee would then be alert to specific concerns during their visit. On the last day Members would then be able to compare what they had been told and what they had experienced on the ground.

The Chairperson agreed that that would be the route to follow and invited Members to communicate any further suggestions to the Committee’s secretary.

The meeting was adjourned.