Precautionary Suspensions & Claims Against Department: Minister’s & Department’s briefing

Correctional Services

12 February 2008
Chairperson: Mr D Bloem (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Correctional Services gave a breakdown of the suspensions made in the 2006/07 financial year, focusing on the financial implications of suspensions. The Department explained the factors that influenced the suspension and gave an account of interventions undertaken to minimise the incidence of such suspensions. There had been a decline in suspensions in 2006/07. Further analysis was required to explain the lower statistics, to determine the salary levels of suspended officials and to account for the trend of prolonged suspensions.

The Committee raised concerns whether the Department was tackling the issue effectively. Full financial implications must be explained pending the budget considerations later in the year. They questioned the sharp decline in suspensions, the reasons for them, why prolonged suspensions were prevalent in some provinces, the policy, the internal procedure and whether there was consistency in the implementation of policy.

The Department began to give a presentation on the claims against the Department, but since the Members did not have the figures before them, it was decided to halt the presentation and defer it to a later meeting. At that meeting the Department would be required to clarify the type of claims, how much had been paid out, how much was outstanding, when claims became payable, and whether officials who were responsible had pay deducted. The Committee urged the Department to consider settling claims rather than embarking upon expensive litigation, wherever possible.

The Minister of Correctional Services apologised that the full presentation had not been available, and noted that during regional visits the Ministry had been concerned in particular about the number of assaults by officials on offenders, which he stressed would not be tolerated, and therefore the Ministry would be acting stringently against such officials.

Meeting report

Precautionary suspensions: Department of Correctional Services (DCS) Briefing
The Chairperson expressed that the Committee had several concerns that they wished to have addressed through the Department’s presentation. As the Department was moving towards the end of the financial year there was a need to attend to expenditure, particularly with regard to the amount spent on suspended officials and claims made against the Department. The Chairperson expressed that the Committee was not satisfied with the report that R 9.7million rand was spent in the last financial year on payouts to officials who were suspended, and were at home doing nothing. The Chairperson required an explanation as to what was being done to save taxpayers’ money.

Mr Vernon Petersen, National Commissioner of Correctional Services, tendered the apology of the Minister, who had been delayed en route from Eastern Cape, and who would try to attend later. 

Comm Petersen enunciated that the Department was working to build trust internally in an attempt to curb suspensions. There was a stakeholders’ meeting held last week and the visiting of DCS facilities across the country was close to completion. He assured the committee that this was the beginning of a solution to the problems facing the Department. He stated that it was necessary for all the Chapter 9 institutions to work together in this time of crisis. He extended an invitation to the Committee to an awards dinner to be held on 7 March to celebrate excellence in the Department.

Mr Alfred Tsetsane, Chief Deputy Commissioner (Corporate Services), DCS, tabled a breakdown of suspensions in the Department across the regions during the previous financial year. He then gave a cost analysis on suspensions for the past four years. He attributed the trend to actions taken by the Department to deal with corruption and maladministration.

Comm Tsetsane explained that due to the nature of the Department’s work, a breakdown in trust necessitated suspension. During the 2003/04 strikes, there was need for suspension of over 500 officials. On a positive note he noted that the sharp decline in statistics in the 2006/07 financial year was due to the effectiveness of the Departmental Investigative Unit that was initiated in 2003.

Comm Tsetsane described the interventions embarked upon to manage suspensions. He explained that a barrier the DCS had previously faced was the Labour Relations Act (LRA), which did not permit the DCS to suspend employees as a precautionary measure without remuneration. He showed how this could be overcome by imposing a sanction of suspension without pay following a guilty verdict in a disciplinary hearing.

Another intervention that the Department had embarked upon was the Training on Disciplinary Code and Procedure. Comm Tsetsane admitted that many DCS employees did not display the same professional conduct that graduates possessed, which he attributed to the minimal training they acquired on entry into the Department.

Comm Tsetsane concluded by saying that a monitoring tool had been developed to monitor suspensions in the different regions. This monitoring tool involved the maintenance and monthly submission of Employee Relations Management Information System (ER MIS) information to Head Office by region. This information included statistics on suspensions and time frames of suspensions per management area.

The Chairperson interjected at this point to ask two questions. The first question related to the appointment of a new parliamentary liaison officer. He then noted that senior officials should have nametags to make them recognisable at first sight.

Comm Petersen replied that the Minister was due to appoint a new parliamentary liaison officer in a matter of days. He explained that the previous incumbent had been transferred by the Ministry itself. On the topic of nametags he explained that although DCS had stopped producing nametags, the issue was under review and would be resolved soon.

Claims submitted against the Department: DCS Briefing
Ms Mary Magoro, Deputy Commissioner: Policy, Co-ordination and Research, DCS, noted and explained statistics relating to the claims made against the Department. She explained that numerous claims were made against the Department each year. There were several categories of claims, ranging from assault to motor vehicle accidents. She then attempted to give the breakdown of claims made across the regions.

The Chairperson interjected to ask Comm Magoro to halt the presentation, as the Committee was not privy to the document that was the centre of the presentation, the Chairperson asked Ms Magoro to halt the presentation. He established that it was necessary for the Committee to meet again before Easter. He suggested that the Department should prepare a comprehensive presentation with the statistics on claims made against the DCS and they should come prepared to explain these statistics to the Committee at the next meeting.

Commissioner Petersen apologised for the inconvenience caused and intimated that the appropriate document had been copied, but he had no explanation as to what had happened to the document. 

Discussion
The Chairperson opened the discussion by saying that he did not feel that the DCS presentation had dealt sufficiently with the issue of prolonged suspensions.

Comm Tsetsane said that the Department could not answer the Committee at this stage, as the Department had not focused on this issue in preparation for the presentation.

The Chairperson expressed disappointment at this response and added that it troubled him that the DCS had not seen the issue of prolonged suspensions as imperative when compiling their presentation.

Mrs W Ngwenya (ANC) questioned whether the Training on Disciplinary Code and Procedure was established as a response to the Committee’s concerns regarding prolonged suspensions. She asked whether the training was initiated to appease the Committee and expressed concern that the Department had done nothing prior to the Committee raising the issue.

The Department did not comment on this.

Mr M Sayed Ali-Shah (DA) asked whether it was accurate to attribute the decline in the number of suspensions on the efficiency of the Departmental Investigative Unit (DIU).  He asked what the correlation was between the establishment of the unit and the decline of suspensions, as the unit was started in 2004 and the decline in suspension only became evident in 2006/7. He asked the DCS to explain how the unit managed to work so swiftly to reduce the incidence of suspensions considering the previous upward trend.

Comm Petersen admitted that there could be an inconsistency in the argument that the DIU’s efficiency led to the decline in statistics. He explained that the initiation of the DIU should in effect have led to a rise in statistics; if the DIU effectively pursued people who were guilty of corruption and maladministration this would have inevitably led to a rise in the numbers of suspended officials.

Mr L Tolo (ANC) enquired as to whether any disciplinary action was taken against managers who did not follow suspension procedures. In addition he asked whether the imposition of sanctions as an alternative route to suspension with remuneration had led to the decline in statistics.

Comm Petersen explained that the Department had been measuring compliance with regards to suspension procedures. He said that those senior managers who were not supervising suspensions effectively would be seen as not complying with departmental regulations. At the moment he said that the senior managers were required to review people on suspension on a weekly basis.

Comm Tsetsane commented on the imposition of sanctions. He said that effectively that meant that the official found guilty by the disciplinary tribunal would be demoted and suspended without pay.

Comm Petersen noted that suspension without pay was a lesser punishment than dismissal. However he assured the Committee that the verdict of guilty could be used against the perpetrator in the event of recidivism. He said that recidivism by Department officials was not as high as that of inmates, and as such it could be deduced that the sanctions did serve to deter further misconduct.

Mr J Selfe (DA) highlighted that there seemed to be an inconsistency across the regions when it came to the decline in statistics. He said that it seemed as though the issue of prolonged suspensions was prevalent in certain provinces, which would indicate that some provinces dealt effectively with suspensions while others did not. He gave the example that while Gauteng and Kwazulu Natal had more suspensions extending over 30days; Free State seemed to have fewer proportions of suspensions extending over 30days. He asked the Department to explain why sharp declines in suspensions were seen only in some provinces and not across the board.

The Chairperson interjected at this point and said that it might help if the DCS clarified what their policy was with regards to suspensions.

Mr S Mahote (ANC) asked whether the DCS had faced any difficulties when proceeding with disciplinary matters and what steps were being taken to rectify these. He also asked if there were any suspension matters dealt with by external institutions.

Comm Petersen explained that the procedure with regards to suspensions took the form of a formal hearing by the Disciplinary Tribunal. He said that an alternative route to this formal hearing was the written option. This process required the perpetrator to fill out statements, and these were then considered by the necessary body. He said that this informal procedure was introduced at the training sessions on the Disciplinary Code and Procedure.

Comm Petersen admitted that the introduction of the informal procedure had resulted in a reduction in the backlog of suspension cases. He also explained that the informal procedure shortened the length of suspension as the incidents were now dealt with more quickly and more effectively.

On the issue of whether disciplinary matters could be dealt with by external institutions, the Commissioner explained that in event of criminal charges being instituted then the Courts would deal with such charges. He noted that essentially the disciplinary tribunal deals with misconduct in the department.

Comm Petersen also admitted that there was some inconsistency with suspensions in the Department, as some managers were seen to use suspension as a tool to effect revenge on their colleagues. However he did note that in some cases it was necessary to suspend officials when the issue of trust was raised. The Commissioner gave the example of the Qalakabusha facility’s incident. He said that in that instance it was evident that there had been an exchange of money that was improper, and as such it had been necessary to suspend the officials involved even though they had not yet been criminally charged.

Comm Petersen assured the Committee that the Department had taken note of the concerns regarding prolonged suspensions and would look into the matter. He explained that the DCS policy on suspensions did not stipulate the time frame for suspensions but did note the procedure to be followed. He admitted that although in some instances the time frame depends on the DCS; it did sometimes depend on the reconciliation process.

The Chairperson acknowledged the admissions made by the Commissioner but reminded him that Qalakabusha was to be discussed at a later stage. He also said that he still needed to hear more regarding the DCS policy on suspensions, and suggested that at this could be discussed at the proposed meeting before Easter.

The Minister of Correctional Services, Hon Ngconde Balfour, joined the meeting at this stage.

Minister of Correctional Services: address to Committee
The Chairperson accepted the Department's apology for the mix-up that occurred with the statistics regarding claims made against DCS, but noted that this was unacceptable and would not be tolerated in future. He then asked the Department if they could explain why the Eastern Cape office had a high number of claims made against it, and why such claims included two rape complaints.

The Minister interjected at this point. He said that although he had not been present during the entirety of the meeting he felt he should communicate his feelings regarding the mix-up with the second presentation. He said that the DCS should in future take care when preparing presentations and ensure that the presentations were easy to comprehend. He emphasised that full disclosure was required as this information would be instrumental in the budget discussions to be held later in the year.

The Minister explained to the Committee that during the regional visits made to the various departments of the DCS it became evident to the Ministry that there were a lot of assault claims made against the Department. He said that there was proof of officials assaulting offenders and that the Ministry did not approve of this. Those involved in the assaults had been chastised. The Ministry would continue with its visits and would deal accordingly with those found to be using brutal force against offenders.

The Minister said that officials were required to use minimal force and that the use of brutal force and assault by any official against an offender would not be tolerated. He went on to say that there had been instances where offenders had lost their lives after being brutally assaulted by officials. He said that consequently the Minister would be clamping down hard on those found to be using brutal force.

Discussion
Ms L Chikunga (ANC), referring back to the statistics on claims still to be presented, said that when making the presentation the Department must include information about the claims, such as how much has been paid out, how much was outstanding and when such claim became payable. She also asked whether the officials who were offenders had pay docked to cover the cost of the claims made against them. Finally she enquired whether those in management could also be charged. 

The Chairperson added that it was necessary for the DCS to explain what it meant by claims made against the department. In particular, he did not understand what the motor vehicle accident claims entailed, considering that offenders did not drive vehicles. In addition he said that he did not understand how rape charges had been brought against the Department.

Dr R Mbuli, Director: Legal Services, DCS, explained that claims made against the DCS were claims made by civilians against the Department. With regard to the rape charges he explained that two nurses had been raped by offenders, and the nurses were now suing the Department for negligence.

The Minister interrupted at this point, saying that the Ministry felt that it was best to settle this issue soon. He said that clearly the rape had occurred. Therefore the Department was not seeking to prolong litigation but to settle favourably and thus show its concern for the victims.

The Chairperson reiterated that it was necessary for the Department to be cautious when litigating around such matters as rape. He cautioned that the Department should be aware of the high legal costs, and should attempt to settle when it was clear that it would not be successful in defending litigation.

The Chairperson reminded everyone that there would be another meeting before the new budget to deal with all the outstanding issues.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: