New Inspecting Judge's Views on Challenges within Correctional Services

Meeting report

The Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP) was represented by Judge Deon Van Zyl ( Inspecting Judge: Inspectorate of Correctional Services), Mr Gideon Morris (Director: JIOP), Ms Pritima Osman (Acting Director: JIOP), Mr Albert Fritz (Deputy Director: JIOP) and Mr Michael Prusent (Support Services Manager).

The Chairperson congratulated the Office of the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP) on doing their level best to exercise their mandate. He saw the biggest challenges to Correctional Services as being the awaiting trial prisoners, overcrowding in prisons and children in prisons. One of the goals of the Portfolio Committee was to see that there were no children in prisons. He understood that children sometimes committed serious offences but there must be an alternative to imprisonment. He stated that more than 52 000 people had been awaiting trial for 5 to 6 or even 7 years. The purpose of this platform was for the Inspecting Judge to meet the Committee and to brief them on his views on tackling these serious challenges. He mentioned the hunger strike in Kroonstad and said that this was about awaiting trial prisoners and this would have to be the first challenge. He made apologies for the absence of some of the Portfolio Committee members and introduced the Committee members present. He outlined the approach that the Portfolio Committee took. They were tackling correctional services as a national issue. The security of the country came first. There were no party political interests, as security could not be a political football. The Judge was welcomed by the Portfolio Committee and it was hoped that they would have as good a relationship with him, as with his predecessors.

Judge Deon Van Zyl opened by saying that he was happy for the opportunity to meet the Portfolio Committee. He referred to the auspicious occasion of his appointment and stated that the event had allowed for interaction with the Department of Correctional Services and the JIOP and he had gained insight from the engagement. He said he has only been in the post for the past six weeks and was acting under the directive of the Minister of Correctional Services, Mr Ngconde Balfour. He would be retiring soon but wanted to carry on as Inspecting Judge. He said that finality, in the form of a permanent appointment, was necessary. As such finality had not been reached. He was restricted to short term planning (for the next month or two). The medium term view would cover the next two years while a long-term plan would cover the next five to ten years. He pointed out the problems that had been inherited and saw the post as an extension of the judicial function. He wanted to be of service to the community and the country. This was one of the reasons he had been a Rotarian for the past 20 years.

Along with the JIOP, he believed they could make a difference in the future. He stated that the Inspectorate's independence was beneficial and added the rider that he believed in teamwork in every sphere. There were many role players and stakeholders. Each must play their roles and pool resources for the best results. The situation in the correctional centres was most unsatisfactory. He had only visited ten, so far, but intended to personally visit the remaining 227 in order to get insight into the world of correctional services. He noted his interest in comparative law and thought it important to take cognisance of what was happening in correctional services in other countries. He used the approach of Britain as an example. He said that they had a new project for prisons every few years on how to improve corrections and said that he would study that in detail.

He highlighted a need to work with criminal justice cluster and the Department of Safety and Security and the South African Police Services (SAPS) as key role players. He was concerned about arrests, and how they were taking place – without sufficient cause. When people were detained without good cause, this was a loss of a basic human right. He would like to speak to the SAPS commissioners to establish the extent of the practice. He referred to an unsubstantiated rumour that it was policy that police had to justify their existence by the number of arrests made and said that if this was true, it was objectionable in the extreme. The law was that arrested persons had to be brought before the court within 48 hours. However, often no charge was made or drawn up in that period. This led to the case being remanded until it suited the courts' schedule. People were then detained, pending further investigation. From experience, he noted that such an investigation often did not happen. The upshot was this became a rolling case from one month to another or even years. This deprived a person of freedom – to which they were entitled.

He said there needed to be a focus on public prosecutors and magistrates. There had to be a far stronger attitude from the bench about investigation delays. Public prosecutors were dependent on the police and if police were unable to progress in the investigation, the matter had to be retracted. They could re-arraign the person when sufficient evidence was gathered. This was not being done and was partly responsible for the number of awaiting trial prisoners.

He wanted to embed a new culture in the criminal justice system and if that could be done there would be no reason why that figure of 52 000 could not be reduced or eradicated. To achieve this, he proposed that workshops be held with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Magistracy. A stronger stance would have to be taken and pressure would have to be placed on role players to prevent the unjustified encroachment on basic human rights.

He reported that most centres were overcrowded due to the problems that preceded imprisonment and he would be focusing on that. He was of the opinion that the minimum sentencing legislation was a most unfortunate piece of legislation. He had addressed the President on this and lobbied for increased jurisdiction for magistrates and succeeded in this. Before, people simply had to await sentencing by the High Court and it could take two to four years between conviction and sentencing.

Unreasonable bail conditions were another thorny issue. There were many people in prison simply because they could not afford the bail. The setting of bail needed reform and judges had to be reminded that they did have the option of setting bail with no monetary amount attached. This was a major injustice for the impoverished of the country.

He agreed with the view that there were too many children in prisons and no child should be in a prison. Even though they were supposed to be housed separately, children had to move through the general population some of the time. In this way there were exposed and traumatised by being in correctional centres. He said there had to be an alternative arrangement. These children were often impoverished and came from homes that were destroyed by HIV/AIDS, meaning they had no homes or parents to return to while awaiting trial. He believed that the Department of Social Development had a role to play here. Education and Health were also very important. Prisons had huge health problems and did not have the facilities to treat prisoners. Intervention on this front would not change the numbers but would make a difference to the individual detainee. He believed that he had a duty to each one of them. That was how the Inspectorate would approach matters under his leadership.

Discussion
Mr S Mahote (ANC) thanked Judge Van Zyl for his presence and said that he was impressed with his comments. He pointed out that dealing with the police was a problem on the matter of unlawful arrests. He referred to a recent interaction the Portfolio Committee had with the Department of Justice, among others. He said it was a very disappointing as the Department of Justice had not told the Committee what they were doing to do improve matters in correctional services.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) thanked the Judge for his input. He said that South Africa had one of the best constitutions in the world. However, questions around correctional services and treatment in prisons did not augur well. They were still a long way from fulfilling the provisions of the Constitution. The stumbling block for a smooth judicial process lay at magistrate court level. Magistrates were of the opinion that they were doing their job by sentencing people. Magistrates were reluctant to give people alternatives. This led to a situation where people were in prison for minor offences. Approximately 70 000 prisoners were serving sentences for serious offences. However, the majority of the prison population were guilty of minor offences. Imprisonment did not mean that the work was done. This was a problem. He commented that a person was only given bail if they were not a threat to society. This issue must be sorted out by the JIOP. Along with diverting minor sentences, this would be the first line in decreasing the numbers and to this end the Inspectorate should hold workshops with the magistrates.

Judge Van Zyl replied that it seemed that creating alternatives were too much trouble for criminal justice. It was simple to imprison someone. Correctional supervision was far more complex as there was planning and reporting involved. Sometimes, it was pure laziness and at other times it was a case of the pressure of the workload that lead to judges not using alternatives. Alternative punishment had also not been properly thought out.

Ms L Chikunga (ANC) was pleased at the comprehensive approach outlined. She noted that the problem magistrates faced was that they were overwhelmed by the workload. She appreciated the independence of the inspectorate being highlighted because it was a cornerstone of their functioning – so that they could do what was objectively correct. She asked the Judge for his opinion on the fact that JIOP funding came from the Department of Correctional Services.

Mr Bloem commented that the Portfolio Committee would deal with that matter when the Annual Report was presented.

Ms Chikunga welcomed the idea of short, medium and long term plans. She remarked that the instability caused by changing Inspecting Judges was worrying. It was important to find people who were willing to stay.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) welcomed Judge Van Zyl on behalf of the Portfolio Committee. She said it was a pity his term was so short and she hoped he would apply again. She expected more focus on the problem of bail for minor offences. Exorbitant bail was a challenge. Overcrowding came from this and also from people who could not pay fines. She noted that it cost the state more to imprison and care for these detainees than it would to waive the bail or fine amount. The law did not take cognisance of how long a person was awaiting trial. It was crazy that a person could be awaiting trial for seven years and was then sentenced to only one year's imprisonment.

Judge Van Zyl responded that the magistrate had to take the period of detention into account, upon sentencing.

The Chairperson made a brief summary of the comments made by members. He thanked all in attendance and said that it had been a very good first meeting. He also noted that the matter of JIOP funding would have to be discussed in a following meeting as there was a possible conflict of interest. He said that correctional services needed people of the Judge's experience and he would have the support of the Portfolio Committee.
 
The meeting was adjourned.