Briefing by the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons on Its 2006/07 Annual Report

Meeting report

Introduction by Chairperson
The Chairperson welcomed the JIOP delegation as well as the Department of Correctional Services to the meeting. He extended a special welcome to the new Inspecting Judge, Judge Yekiso, who was appearing before the Committee for the first time.

The Chairperson informed the Committee of the passing away of Ms Z Nawa who had been a dedicated Member of the committee and whose absence would be sorely felt. The Committee had a minute of silence in memory of their colleague.

Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP) 2006/07 Annual Report
The Chairperson reminded all present that any entity that received money from the government had to account for how they spent that allocation. Annual reports are the most common means through which that expenditure is reported. The JIOP received about R20 million of the DCS’ budget and therefore the Committee was curious as to why the JIOP’s 2006/07 Annual Report had not yet been tabled before Parliament.

Judge Yekiso explained that he took office on 1 July 2007. Upon taking office he consulted with the former acting inspecting judge, judge Nathan Erasmus on matters relevant to the operation of the JIOP. Judge Yekiso had raised the 2006/07 Annual Report and was informed that the report had been completed, signed and submitted to the President, the Minister as well as the Deputy Minister as per section 90(4) of the Correctional Services Act III of 1998.

Judge Yekiso continued and informed the Committee that that morning he had received a call from the Minister that gave him the impression that the report had in fact reached neither the Minister nor the Committee.

The Chairperson thought it best if the matter of the tabling of the report be left for an occasion where Judge Erasmus would be able to clarify the process that had been followed. The Committee would convene a meeting of the Minister, the JIOP and Judge Erasmus so that the matter could be cleared up before Parliament rose on 26 November.

Minster Balfour reminded the Committee that according to the rules of Parliament an Annual Report could only be discussed and reported on by a Committee once it had been tabled in Parliament and referred to the relevant Committee.

The Chairperson responded that while he was aware of that rule, one had to also bear in mind that the JIOP was an entity falling under the DCS and received R20 million of that Department’s budget. That money was public funds and how it was spent had to be accounted for. The Committee could not allow confusion around the tabling of the report to interfere with its oversight responsibility.

JIOP briefing
The JIOP delegation took the Committee through its presentation as well as the content of the Annual report. The delegation thought it important that the context in which the JIOP reported be understood. From the time of its inception in 1998 to 2007 the JIOP has witnessed a massive improvement in prison conditions. This improvement could be ascribed to a number of reasons including the fact that the parliamentary committee charged with overseeing the Department as well as representatives from the judiciary make many announced and unannounced to correctional centres, unannounced visits from the Minister as well as the JIOP. Officials thus always have to be prepared for a possible visit. The JIOP has n some instances found conditions and official conduct that was inappropriate, reported it to the Department and was please to inform the Committee that corrective action was taken immediately. It was clear that oversight and accountability was not the responsibility of just one sector, but had to be a joint effort between all possible role-players.

Discussion
The Chairperson was very impressed with the improvement in the JIOP’s reporting. It was the first time in the life of the JIOP that the report spoke frankly and clearly about the JIOP’s work. The Committee had many times in the past complained that the Office’s report only spoke of overcrowding. The latest report however gave the Committee a clear overview of all aspects related to inmates’ experience of the correctional environment. The Committee believed that it received value for money because the report gave a clear indication that the JIOP was performing the function for which it had been created. As the Committee had not had an opportunity to engage with the report, which had only been distributed that morning,

Members were requested to restrict their interaction to questions of clarity. Those questions that could not be responded to immediately could be responded to in writing at a later stage.

Ms Chikunga would welcome to at a later stage engage in a more in-depth discussion of the Report. The Department had classified some of their facilities as Centres of Excellence. The JIOP reported that its representatives had in the year in question visited 99,2% of all correctional facilities. Ms Chikunga wondered whether the issues raised in relation to the 99,2% of facilities visited, could safely be assumed to be a reflection of the general state of prisons in South Africa.

The Chairperson found it worrying that despite the White Paper on Corrections’ assertion that rehabilitation was the DCS’ core business, the JIOP reported that only 11% of the sentenced prisoners were actively involved in rehabilitation and vocational activities.

Mr Morris explained that the report aims to highlight the systemic problems that can to different degrees be found at all centres. At centres of excellence and some of the private prisons up to 80% of the inmate population participated in rehabilitation programmes. The 11% reflected in the report was a percentage of the total prison population. He agreed that 11% was not nearly enough and the JIOP has identified the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes as a key performance indicator on which it could report to the Committee when it became time to debate the Department’s budget vote so that more funds could be allocated to that area.

Ms Osman reminded the Committee that the scope of the report did not allow the JIOP to report on the success stories. At one centre the Head ran programmes in the corridors and the effort was commendable it was not ideal. The 11% was the overall generalised view that came from the audit. Mr Fritz reminded Members that at some point overall participation stood at 5%! There has thus been an improvement that should be built upon.

Mr Mahote wondered whether overcrowding could be linked to the long sentences offenders received.

Mr Morris responded that the JIOP in its report was not making a case for or against long sentences. The statistical information only demonstrates that at present overcrowding was caused by long sentences. He reminded members that if the number of offenders entering a facility was not complemented by an equal outflow, correctional centres would always be overcrowded.

Mr Cupido echoed the Chairperson’s praise for the report which contained very useful information. He was particularly interested in getting clarification on what the sharp increase in unnatural deaths could be ascribed to, whether gangsterism was still rife in prisons and whether officials have been implicated in gang activity, as well as whether the JIOP has ever received complaints of officials being mistreated by inmates.

Mr Xolo was also concerned about the sharp increase in the number of unnatural deaths and asked what measures have been put in place to reduce the number of such deaths.

Mr Raga explained that the majority of unnatural deaths (21) was as a result of suicide (death by hanging), and not due to inmate-on-inmate violence or murder.

Mr Tolo pointed to the importance of Members of the Committee making unannounced visits to prisons and was concerned about the fact that even if Members of the Committee presented their DCS-issued permits, some facilities refused to allow them access.

National Commissioner Petersen said that it was distressing that Members of the Committee are sometimes denied access. He emphasised that the DSC-issued permit did not guarantee access. Members should also carry additional identification such as identity document or a drivers’ licence. He emphasised that Members of Parliament had the right and obligation to visit correctional centres and urged Members to report any denial of access directly to him.

The Chairperson agreed that officials had to ensure the security of centres and thus had to be absolutely sure of who they let into the centres. He suggested that the DCS could perhaps look into the possibility of posting Members of the Committee’s photos around correctional centres so that their faces could be easily recognised and identities easily verified by officials.

The Chairperson thanked the JIOP for its briefing and assured them that the Committee would now interact with the contents of the report and that an additional meeting where detailed discussions could take place would be called. A meeting would also be called with Judge Erasmus so that the matter of the tabling of the JIOP’s Annual report could be discussed.

Judge Yekiso thanked the Committee for the opportunity to have appeared before it. The spirit exhibited in the meeting would bode well for the development of the democracy. He had that morning witnessed participatory democracy in action. He hoped that the relationship between the Committee and the JIOP would grow from strength to strength.

Committee Report on Pollsmoor oversight visit
The Committee sought an explanation on why Members only received the Pollsmoor report that morning. The report was scheduled for consideration but Members could not be expected tom meaningfully interact with it, if they have not had opportunity to read it.

The Committee Secretary explained that the documents had been prepared and sent for distribution on the previous day. The fact that they had not reached Members’ pigeon holes on time might be due to late distribution by service officers. She would in future distribute documents to the pigeonholes herself.

The Chairperson advised that when documents are sent for distribution the name and details of the receiving service officer should be taken so that he or she could be held to account.

The report would be considered at a later meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.