Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons Annual 2006/07 Report on Prisoners and Prisons: discussion

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
16 November 2006
JUDICIAL INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS ANNUAL REPORT 2006/07 ON PRISONERS AND PRISONS: DISCUSSION

Chairperson: Mr D Bloem (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons Annual Report 2006/07 presentation
Annual Report 2006/07 on Prisoners and Prisons

Audio recording of meeting

SUMMARY
The Committee questioned the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons delegation on its Annual Report 2006/07. A primary concern of the Committee was the matter of Independent Prison Visitors. Apprehension regarding IPV appointment procedures, IPV vacancies, as well as their duties and performance evaluations was discussed. The lack of prison capacity to accommodate mentally ill prisoners was raised, where it was concluded that collaboration between the Department of Correctional Services and Department of Health was required to solve the problem. The reason for a general trend in inadequate completion of admission procedures was explained by the JIOP as a result of a lack of admission staff. The Committee raised the issue of unnatural deaths and requested copies of the investigation reports for those deaths. The Committee complained about the lack of detail on its financial expenditure for 2006/07. They also urged the JIOP to increase its communication and collaboration with the community.

MINUTES:
The Chairperson welcomed the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP) delegation by apologizing for the late tabling of their Annual 2006/07 Report on Prisons and Prisoners. There had been a delay in receiving copies of the report, which was neither the shortcoming of Department for Correctional Services (DCS) nor of the JIOP. The protracted wait was a result of parliamentary document handlers’ failure to convey the arrival of the documents on 19 June. He added that he would report the officials responsible for this negligence to the Speaker.

The Chairperson said that following the JIOP’s briefing on 6 November, this meeting would serve as an opportunity for the Committee to ask questions on their report.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) congratulated the JIOP on their inclusive report and noted that their observations were similar to the Committee’s findings. He asked how it would ensure that its recommendations would be implemented. He expressed his concern about the lack of accommodation for prisoners who were mentally ill. Since mental health institutions were currently oversubscribed with patients, many families were unable to commit their psychologically ill relatives. Those who faced these circumstances, were often forced to place a court order on their mentally unstable family members, meaning that many people who should be institutionalized in a mental hospital, were sent to prison instead, where the mechanisms for catering to their needs and problems were not available.

Ms P Osman (JIOP Director of Functional Services) reported that in the following year, the JIOP planned to submit quarterly reports to the DCS on the progress made concerning the fulfillment of the JIOP’s recommendations. She added that it was the JIOP’s aim to ensure that other departments, such as the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, would take note of their suggestions.

Mr Albert Fritz (JIOP Assistant Regional Manager) remarked that on the issue of mentally ill prisoners, it was important for the JIOP and DCS to collaborate with the Department of Health. A potential solution to that particular problem could be enforcing that clinical psychologists visit mentally ill prisoners on a weekly basis.

Ms L Chikunga (ANC) noted that according to the report, there was a decline in Independent Prison Visitors (IPVs) in both 2005/06 and 2006/07. She asked what was the cause for the decline in IPV staff. She inquired about the challenges that the JIOP faced in the appointing IPVs.

Mr Gideon Morris (JIOP) answered that the JIOP had recently restructured its system, as under the old JIOP configuration, workers were separated into units according to their function, which resulted in isolation and lack of communication. Under the old system, IPVs did not receive adequate support, which is why the organizational reshuffling under the leadership of Judge Erasmus led to the creation of Visitors Committees (VCs). Many of the IPVs have been promoted to the position of VCs Coordinators, which may be identified as the primary reason for the decline in IPV staff. Mr Morris added that the duties of an IPV were very demanding, and throughout their three-year contracts with the JIOP they did not receive increases, which might account for the low levels of IPVs reapplying for another contract after their term ended. It was reported that filling IPV vacancies would be a top priority for the JIOP in the coming year.

Ms Osman agreed with Mr Morris, and added that the JIOP held IPVs and VCs in the highest regard, as they were a means for the JIOP to ensure that oversight was carried out for the community by the community. She added that the process of electing IPVs was lengthy, as community members had to be nominated by the public, after which the nominees needed to be authenticated, and once elected, the IPVs required training.

The Chairperson asked the JIOP to elaborate on the process of appointing IPVs.

Mr Michael Prusent (JIOP Support Services Manager) explained that once the public nominated candidates for IPV positions, the nominees had to complete application forms, which would then be captured on computer. The computer was programmed to categorize the best candidates, which provided the JIOP selection committee with a shortlist. The shortlist candidates were then interviewed and they were checked for criminal records as a screening mechanism.

Mr Morris added that before IPVs began their duties, they were required to undergo training in the areas of procedures and constitutional rights of prisoners, and then they were obligated to write a compulsory exam in order to qualify as IPVs.

The Chairperson responded that merely checking if IPV candidates had criminal records was not enough. The JIOP needed to adopt a more comprehensive approach with regards to applicant screening

Mr S Mahote (ANC) requested that the JIOP clarify how IPVs were evaluated.

Mr Prusent replied that the main function of IPVs was independent oversight. He said that IPVs were not a part of the JIOP, but were subcontracted, meaning that there would be a higher degree of objectivity. On the issue of their duties, Mr Prusent reported that once an IPV was elected, he or she would be required to sign a contract stating a minimum standard of service delivery, which outlined the amount of required visits and interviews to be conducted per month. The primary function of the IPV was to interview prisoners and make sure that their grievances were attended to, which was the main means for understanding what improvements need to be made in prisons. The VCs Coordinators provided oversight of the IPVs, as their responsibility was to check the authenticity of IPVs monthly report information. VC Coordinators also had the power to recommend suspension and termination of IPV contracts to the JIOP.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) asked for the number of IPV contracts that had been terminated during that year.

Mr Morris estimated that there were about 12 IPVs who had been dismissed as a result of an inadequate number of visits to prisons and interviews with prisoners.

The Chairperson asserted that although the JIOP had spent R6, 4 million on IPVs during that year, upon their visits to prisons, the Portfolio Committee found IPVs to be unaware of prisoner grievances and problems. This was why the Portfolio Committee had raised so much concern about IPVs, as although the JIOP noted that IPVs ought to be fulfilling their roles, there must be mechanisms installed to ensure that IPVs actually complete their duties. He added that hoping for IPV success was completely different from guaranteeing IPV success.

Ms Chikunga asked the JIOP why there had been an increase in unnatural deaths of prisoners.

Mr Umesh Raga (Mandatory Manager: JIOP) reported that the number of unnatural deaths increased from 64 in 2005/06 to 66 in 2006/07. The majority of these deaths were from suicide by hanging. Once an unnatural death was reported, the JIOP reviewed the report published by the DCS in order to determine whether further investigation would be necessary. He highlighted the problem where DCS officials often categorized as “Other”, which meant that the JIOP often had to follow up on some cases that did not necessitate additional investigation. He added that the JIOP was prepared to share any further information regarding deaths in prison.

The Chairperson requested that the JIOP send the unnatural death investigation reports to the Portfolio Committee.

Ms Chikunga asked if there was a relationship between prisoners who commit suicide and the type of crime the prisoners committed.

Ms Osman explained that the matter fell outside of their expertise, but noted that they often recruited Harvard Law students to conduct research within prisons. She would ask the law students to investigate the relationship between suicide and the type of crime committed.

Mr Mahote asked why there had been a 9% decline in natural deaths of prisoners.

Mr Raga replied that the causality for lower natural death figures could be attributed to a multiple number of variables, such as increased prisoner access to ARVs, or because of the decreased number of people imprisoned in 2006/07.

Mr H Cupido (ACDP) asked if there were any prisoners sentenced to the death penalty, who were still waiting to be re-sentenced.

Mr Raga noted that he was unaware of any death row prisoners still waiting for a retrial, and that the JIOP would conduct a national survey amongst prisoners to ascertain that information.

Mr Mahote questioned the JIOP on the reason that prison staff neglected to adequately complete prisoner admission procedures.

Mr Morris agreed that prisoner admission was one the most important processes that was constantly undervalued, as during the procedure, prisoners were told the prison rules, made aware of their rights, underwent medical screening, and were searched and stripped of personal property by prison officers. He asserted that the admission process was pivotal in facilitating smooth prison management. He explained that in many cases prisons were understaffed, such as Pollsmoor, where there were only five admissions officers to admit an estimated 300 prisoners in the morning and a further 460 offenders on average in the afternoon. He suggested that either staff be reassigned to admission positions, or that more positions should be created for prisoner admissions.

Mr L Tolo (ANC) asked what the JIOP was doing in order to strengthen its role in the community.

Ms L Albertse (JIOP Assistant Regional Manager) replied that in order for IPVs to be elected, they needed to be part of a regional community organization. Currently meetings were being held with stakeholders and DCS officials that was part of the process of formulating reintegration programmes for prisoners. Programmes such as welding and furniture making were potential sources of employment for released prisoners. She added that in the cases of Craddock and Kimberly, IPVs were visiting schools and churches to inform the community about what was happening in prisons.

Mr Mahote urged the delegates to ensure that the JIOP’s community initiatives take place in areas such as Khayelitsha, from where the majority of inmates came.

Mr Fritz noted with disappointment that not enough had been done by the JIOP to incorporate the community and public. He stated that the JIOP and DCS needed to eliminate people’s misguided perceptions about prisons being luxury retreats.

Mr Morris noted that in the following year the JIOP would place greater emphasis on communication and collaboration with the community.

Ms Chikunga expressed her dissatisfaction with the financial breakdown in the JIOP Annual Report. The JIOP’s published expenditure was extremely broad and needed greater detail, as it was impossible to ascertain whether the JIOP underspent on their budget. She added that in the JIOP’s 2005/06 Annual Report there were statistics for prisoner complaints, yet in 2006/07 those figures have been omitted. She asked why the JIOP had neglected to publish the number of prisoner complaints in the current report.

Mr Morris replied that he would gladly forward the financial details to the Committee. On the matter of not issuing the number of prisoner complaints, Mr Morris noted that they were omitted due to the dramatic decrease in IPVs, as there would have been a potentially inaccurate decrease in the number of prisoner complaints, as a result of reduced staff.

The Chairperson closed the meeting by congratulating the JIOP on the visible improvements in its structure, and added that it was the Committee’s job to ensure that the JIOP spent its budget well and did its job objectively and independently. He looked forward to future quarterly reports.

The meeting was adjourned.