PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

HANDOVER REPORT

MAY 2009 TO MARCH 2014

 

INTRODUCTION

1.1        Parliament is established in terms of Chapter 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (“the Constitution”), and comprises the National Assembly (NA) and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). Chapter 4 of the Constitution establishes the National Assembly which comprises public representatives elected to “ensure government by the people” through “choosing the President of the RSA, providing a national forum for public consideration of issues, by passing legislation and by scrutinizing and overseeing executive action.”

 

1.2        Portfolio committees are established, and function in terms of National Assembly Rules 199 to 203, are charged with amongst others, monitoring the financial and non-financial performance of government departments and their entities to ensure that national objectives are met; processing legislation; facilitating public participation in relation to the above-mentioned processes; and maintaining oversight of Executive and Constitutional organs falling within its portfolio.

 

1.3        The NA’s Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, and the NCOP’s Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development are responsible for oversight of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) as well as the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS).

 

1.4        The Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services (the Committee) elected its chairperson on 28 May 2009. At the start of its term the Committee identified seven areas it would focus on during its five-year term.

 

1.5        This report provides an account and assessment of the Committee’s activities between May 2009 and March 2014. It is aimed at informing the incoming Committee of developments relating to key challenges the current Committee had identified during its term, and which should be pursued in the 5th parliamentary term. The report also contains the Committee’s recommendations for the strengthening of the administrative systems that support the committee’s functions and responsibilities.

2.         DEPARTMENTS AND ENTITIES REPORTING TO THE COMMITTEE

Only the DCS, and the JICS report to the Committee. Although established in terms of the Correctional Services Act (No 111 of 1998), correctional supervision and parole boards (CSPBs), the National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS), the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board, and the Medical Parole Advisory Board are not accountable to the Committee.

 

2.1        Department of Correctional Services

2.1.1     According to its mission and vision statements, the DCS provides correctional services, and contributes to a just, peaceful, and safer South Africa through the effective and humane incarceration of inmates, and the rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders.

 

2.1.2     The DCS’s activities are prescribed in the Correctional Services Act (No 111 of 1998) and the Correctional Services Amendment Act (No 5 of 2011). Legislation relevant to the DCS include, the Criminal Procedures Act (No 51 of 1977), Criminal Law (Sexual Offences And Related Matters) Amendment Act (No 32 of 2007), and the Child Justice Act (No 75 of 2008).

 

2.1.3     There are approximately 241 correctional and remand detention facilities across the country that cater to male and female, juvenile and adult, sentenced and unsentenced, as well as medium and maximum security inmates. The management of correctional centres is decentralised to six regions i.e. Free State/Northern Cape; Western Cape; Eastern Cape; Limpopo/Mpumalanga/North West; Gauteng and Kwazulu Natal. In addition to these, the DCS also manages two training colleges in the Free State and Gauteng.

 

2.2        Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services

2.2.1     The JICS was established in terms of section 85 of the Correctional Services legislation, and is charged with inspecting correctional and remand detention centres in order to monitor and report on conditions of incarceration and the treatment of offenders.

 

2.2.2     The JICS’s Head Office is situated in Cape Town, and the Inspecting Judge’s Office in Durban. Its recently established regional offices are situated in Bloemfontein, George. Durban and Centurion.

 

2.2.3     The JICS is headed by the Inspecting Judge who is appointed by the President, on recommendation of the Minister of Correctional Services, and usually serves a three-year term. Its CEO is appointed by the National Commissioner for Correctional Services upon recommendation of the Inspecting Judge. The CEO is accountable to the Inspecting Judge.

 

2.2.4     The JICS has an extensive independent correctional centre visitor (ICCV) system which ensures that it has a presence at most correctional and remand detention centres. The ICCVs are appointed in terms of section 92 of the Correctional Services legislation and are charged with handling inmate complaints. Matters that cannot be resolved by ICCVs are referred to Visitors Committees for resolution or escalation to the Office of the Inspecting Judge.

 

2.3        National Council for Correctional Services

2.3.1     The NCCS was established in terms of sections 83 to 84 of the Correctional Services legislation, and advises the Minister of Correctional Services on matters related to correctional policy, issues related to sentencing as well as on the parole applications of those serving life sentences.

 

2.4        Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards

2.4.1     CSPBs are established in terms of section 75 of the Correctional Services legislation, and are charged with considering parole applications by all offenders who are serving sentences of 24 months or longer, and eligible for parole consideration.

 

2.4.2     Although independent, CSPBs work closely with case management committees (CMCs) to ensure efficient parole administration.

 

2.5        Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board

2.5.1     The Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board was established in terms of sections 76 and 77 of the Correctional Services Act, and considers parole matters referred to it for review by the Minister, National Commissioner or Inspecting Judge.

 

 

2.6        Medical Parole Advisory Board

2.6.1     The Medical Parole Advisory Board was established in terms of section 3(a) of the Correctional Matters Amendment Act (No 5 of 2011) and provides independent medical reports to the Minister, National Commissioner and/or CSPBs to support medical parole applications.

 

3          MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTION OF COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

 

3.1        Focal Areas

3.1.1     At the start of its term the Committee identified seven focal areas to be pursued during its five-year term. Oversight activities were therefore focussed on ensuring: steady progress towards the DCS’s stability at senior management level, and improved financial management; better management of the inmate population through improved remand detainee-management in particular; appropriate, safe and secure inmate incarceration through improved facilities management and procurement; a reduction in recidivism through improved rehabilitation, care and development programmes; better reintegration through improved community awareness of the DCS’s rehabilitation and reintegration efforts and improved parole administration; that inmate-rights and –privileges contribute to their rehabilitation and reintegration; and ensuring that the DCS met its obligation in terms of the Justice Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) cluster efforts to streamline the justice system.

 

3.2        Committee planning

3.2.1     Although no annual plans were developed, all term programmes were designed to meet the above-mentioned objectives. The Committee did not establish a sub-committee for the planning and management of committee activities. The Committee Secretary and Chairperson were responsible for the planning and coordination of committee activities. Proposed programmes and activities were presented to the Committee for consideration and approval.

 

3.3        Committee meetings

3.3.1     Between May 2009 and March 2014 the Committee held 152 meetings which included quarterly and annual report briefings by the DCS and JICS, stakeholder interactions, briefings by government entities and government departments impacting on the DCS’s effectiveness and institutions supporting constitutional democracy.

 

3.3.2     In exercising its oversight responsibility several meetings were held with the DCS and JICS on its strategic and annual performance plans and budgets, and the execution of these plans.

 

3.3.3     Recognising that other government departments impacted on the DCS’s effectiveness too, the Committee interacted with the departments of Public Works, Health, Basic Education, Higher Education and Training, Justice and Constitutional Development and Police.

 

3.3.4     In addition to the above, the Committee also received reports from other state entities that delivered services to the DCS i.e State Information and Technology Agency (SITA), Independent Development Trust (IDT) and Legal Aid South Africa (Legal Aid SA).

 

3.3.5     To assist it in its oversight duties, the Committee met with institutions established in terms of Chapter 9 of the Constitution and charged with supporting constitutional democracy e.g. the Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA), the South African Human Rights Commission and the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE).

 

3.4        Site visits

3.4.1     The Committee undertook 42 oversight visits, across all nine provinces, in the period under review. These were to the DCS’s correctional and remand detention centres, training colleges, certain correctional centre construction sites, the DCS and JICS’s head office, and to the office of the Inspecting Judge, and the JICS’s regional offices.

 

3.5        Budgetary Review and Recommendation process

3.5.1     The Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act (Act 9 of 2009) provides for, amongst others, a parliamentary procedure to amend Money Bills, thus granting parliamentary committees greater opportunity to influence the allocation of funds to the departments they oversee. Section 5 of the Act compels the NA, through its Committees to submit annual Budgetary Review and Recommendation (BRR) reports on the financial performance of departments accountable to them. Essentially, the BRR report is a committee’s assessment of the efficiency with which a department spent its allocation budget, and whether it succeeded delivering services in line with its strategic and annual plans. The BRR process was introduced in 2009, and the Committee’s first BRR report was published in October 2011.

 

3.5.2     The BRR report must be informed by a Committee’s interrogation of, amongst others, national departments’ estimates of national expenditure, strategic priorities and measurable objectives, National Treasury-published expenditure reports, annual reports and financial statements, and all other oversight activities undertaken in the period under review. BRR reports are adopted after the adoption of the Appropriations Bill, and prior the adoption of reports on the Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS).

 

3.6        International Study Tours

3.6.1     Although the Committee had submitted several applications to undertake a study tour, these were not successful for reasons including changes to the parliamentary programme, countries not being able to host the Committee in its allocated study tour slot, and lack of funding.

 

3.6.2     As the Committee had not been permitted to undertake a study tour in at least two parliamentary terms, it should be treated as a priority in the in 2014-2019 term. It is advised that the incoming Committee should use the first year of its term to acquaint itself with South Africa’s correctional system through consideration of the outgoing Committee’s reports, introductory briefings by the DCS and JICS, and orientation workshops by correctional-services experts, as well as the Committee’s content and research support. It is proposed that a study tour be prioritised as early as possible in its second year in office, so as to ensure that recommendations emanating from it may still be pursued and possibly implemented by the Committee and/or the DCS and/or JICS.

 

3.7        Stakeholder/Public participation

3.7.1     The Committee established close working relationships with research, non-governmental and academic institutions as well as labour organisations. These institutions regularly commented on annual reports, strategic plans, policy developments, legislation and any other matters the Committee sought more information on. This did not only ensure that the Committee received views from a broad a spectrum of commentators as possible, but also served to supplement its research support.

 

3.7.2     The following stakeholders were regular contributors during public hearings, and other interactions: Public Service Association; Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union; Institute for Security Studies; Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative; Wits Justice Project; National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders; Just Detention; and Sonke Gender Justice Network.

 

3.7.3     The public participation process should be reconsidered and broadened to ensure that all those likely to be affected by legislative and policy developments especially, are adequately informed of their impact, and afforded opportunity to participate in the relevant processes. Given the DCS and JICS’s commitment to corrections being a societal responsibility, more should be done to involve ordinary citizens so as to ensure that challenges they experience in relation to the correctional system are taken into consideration when decisions are taken.

 

3.8        Complaints processing

3.8.1     In the period under review the Committee processed in excess of 400 complaints/queries from inmates and their families, as well as from DCS officials. In the majority of cases matters were referred to the JICS for further handling, or to the DCS for response. Complaints were handled almost exclusively by the Committee Secretary, who consulted with the Chairperson where necessary.

 

3.8.2     Although the Committee had attempted to establish formal processes for the handling of complaints, the volume of complaints received combined with the Secretariat’s capacity constraints made it difficult to do so.

 

4.         NOTEWORTHY ACTIVITIES

 

4.1        Policy Reforms

            White Paper on Remand Detention

4.1.1     The legislative provisions relating to the management of the remand population which are mentioned in paragraph 4.2.1 are outlined in the White Paper on Remand Detention which was presented to the Committee for its consideration in February 2014.

 

4.1.2     Although the Committee welcomes and supports the policy, concerns were raised about the fact that the legislation was amended prior to the finalisation of the policy underpinning it.

 

4.1.3     The implementation of the White Paper on Remand Detention, and the sections of the principal legislation which is informed by it, should be closely monitored.

 

White Paper on Corrections in South Africa: Review

4.1.4     In February 2013 the Committee, DCS and stakeholders agreed that the 2005 White Paper on Corrections in South Africa should be reviewed to assess its effectiveness in the approximately 10 years since its introduction, to determine whether it was still relevant and whether implementation was financially viable. The review was to take into consideration too whether the policy provided for the impact of sentencing reforms that took place after 2005.

 

4.1.5     The DCS had intended for the review to have been completed by the end of 2013, but at the time of reporting no outcome was available yet, largely owing to the service providers employed to perform the review not having adhered to the terms of reference provided by the DCS.

 

4.1.6     The incoming Committee is advised to scrutinize the reasons for the delay in the completion of the review, and to emphasise the need for its finalisation. The DCS should provide clarity on how much the review has cost, and how the losses incurred would be recouped.

 

4.2        Legislation

4.2.1     The Correctional Matters Amendment Bill [B41-2010] was referred to in late 2010. The bill was aimed at firstly amending the Correctional Services Amendment Act of 2008 in order to repeal provisions establishing an incarceration framework; and secondly amending the Correctional Services Act (1998) in order to insert new definitions; provide for a new medical parole system; strengthen the parole system; provide for the management and detention of remand detainees; and provide for matters connected therewith. The Committee completed its processing of the bill which included public hearings, and several briefings by the DCS, in March 2011.

 

4.2.2     The legislative amendments necessitated amendments to the Correctional Services Regulations of 2004; amendments were tabled on 15 August 2011. Although the Committee considered all the amendments to the regulations, it was only required to approve regulations 29A and 29B which related to the medical parole process, and the establishment and composition of the medical advisory board.

 

4.3        Statutory appointments

4.3.1     Section 83(2)(h) of the Correctional Services Act requires that the relevant parliamentary committees should be consulted in the appointment of the four or more persons not in full-time service of the State, and who will represent the public on the NCCS.

 

4.3.2     The Committee considered the shortlist of candidates on 28 January 2010, and approved the appointment of eight public representatives on 9 February 2010.

 

4.4        Recommendation

4.4.1     It is strongly advised that as soon as possible upon taking office, the incoming Committee should undertake a workshop to familiarise itself with the DCS’s principal legislation, the Correctional Services Regulations, and all other pieces of legislation relevant to the DCS.

 

4.4.2     The workshop could also include a session on international norms and standards governing the humane detention.

 

4.4.3     The medical parole, and remand detention management processes which were first introduced in 2011, should be closely monitored.

 

5.         PROGRESS MADE IN RESOLVING KEY CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED BETWEEN MAY 2009 AND MARCH 2014

 

5.1        Administration

5.1.1     In the 2008/09 financial year the DCS received its 11th qualified audit report. At that time the DCS was heavily reliant on external service providers for its internal audit and IT functions in particular. At that time it had no chief financial officer (CFO), no chief audit executive (CAE) and the National Commissioner appointed in 2008 was its third in a four-year period. By the end of the 2009/10 financial year she too had resigned.

 

5.1.2     In that year the Auditor General concluded that although the DCS had reached a level of maturity in terms of its financial management, focus had to shift to the implementation of adequate financial reporting systems and the drafting, approval and implementation of policies and procedures if the DCS were to continue its progress towards adequate financial management and internal controls.

 

Organisational restructuring

5.1.3       In November 2013 the DCS reported that it was in the process of finalising its organogram, which now provided for three core units. Given the inmate population, staffing ratios had to be amended to ensure safe incarceration, and safe working conditions. Organised labour had been invited to provide input, and would have done so by the end of December 2013.

 

Financial management and internal controls

5.1.4     At the time of reporting the CFO and Chief Deputy Commissioner: Strategic Management posts had been vacant for longer than 12 months.

 

5.1.5     Towards the end of the 2013/14 financial year, and despite concerted efforts by the Committee to increase the monitoring of financial and administrative performance through the introduction of quarterly reports, the DCS has made little progress as far as its financial management and internal controls.

 

5.1.6     At the time of reporting the DCS’s internal audit unit was still under-resourced, and largely managed by an external service provider. Little evidence could be found that the service provider was compelled to ensure that the necessary skills were transferred to officials, or that the DCS had a long-term plan for reducing its reliance on consultants. In February 2014 the acting CFO confirmed that the DCS’s internal audit capacity did not meet minimum standards.

 

5.1.7     The Committee had welcomed the appointment in 2011 of a Chief Audit Executive, but his resignation less than a year later, and the sudden termination of the audit committee chairperson, and two other audit committee members’ contracts at more or less the same time, imply that the internal audit environment had not yet stabilised.

 

5.1.8     As stated in our most recent BRR report, the Committee remains concerned about the integrity of the information contained in the DCS’ planning documents. We agree with the Auditor General that the lack of proper risk assessment processes resulted in poor internal controls, which in turn compromises the integrity of performance information.

 

5.1.9     In its most recent BRR report, the Committee states that an urgent intervention was required to ensure that combined efforts to create a correctional environment built on good governance, accountability and a shared commitment to rehabilitating offenders, are successful.

 

5.1.10   The incoming Committee is encouraged to meet with the DCS’s National Commissioner and Executive Authority as soon as it takes office, to clarify its expectations, and agree on the manner in which its oversight responsibility should be executed e.g. preparation for interactions, and honouring scheduled activities.

 

Information Technology management

5.1.11   The Committee had at the start of its term emphasised the important role IT-infrastructure would play in the management of the inmate population, in ensuring that the DCS would contribute to the overall more efficient management of the criminal justice system, and especially in improved performance monitoring and reporting.

 

5.1.12   Having taken heed of the Committee’s concerns, the DCS appointed a Government Information Technology Officer (GITO) at deputy-director general level in 2012. By February 2014 it reported that it had reduced its IT-consultants from 180 in 2008/9 to 31, and only in areas requiring specialist skills. The IT-related shortcomings reported in the 2012/13 financial year, related to transversal systems mainly, and could therefore not be ascribed to the DCS entirely.

 

5.1.13   Although the relationship between the SITA and DCS is not yet ideal, the Committee’s focussed attention on the challenges in the relationship had resulted the development of a service level agreement being accelerated, and unresolved billing-related challenges receiving the necessary attention. The agreement that the DCS could henceforth procure IT-services itself, provided that the Minister of Public Services and Administration’s approval was sought in each instance, is welcomed and we hope that this will alleviate some of the challenges that could not be resolved.

 

5.1.14   It is believed that the weaknesses associated with offender management, as well as with performance reporting and monitoring will be addressed should the DCS’ long-standing IT-related challenges be resolved, therefore the Committee welcomes that over the medium term, much focus will be on providing ICT services.

 

5.1.15   The DCS has a long history of procurement irregularities, and the incoming Committee may wish to pay special attention to monitoring the DCS’ adherence to the applicable processes when procuring the services and equipment necessary to improve its IT environment.

 

Seven Day Establishment

5.1.16   Given the nature of the DCS’ work it was impractical and costly for it to operate on a five-day work week, relying on skeleton staff at weekends and on public holidays. The implementation of the Seven Day Establishment in 2007 (7DE) was intended to ensure that the DCS would be able to guarantee delivery of services to inmates at all times. The DCS’ severe challenges as far as determining suitable shift systems that could address centres’ specific needs, has proven a major stumbling block. The challenges have resulted in shortcomings of both security and service delivery.

 

5.1.17   The Committee in its most recent BRR report expressed concern that the DCS’ senior management appeared unable to develop strategies to ensure the effective implementation of the 7DE, whereby to improve both the working conditions of officials, and the treatment of offenders.

 

Ministerial Task Team established in 2013

5.1.18   The focus the Committee had placed on human-resource related matters and quarterly performance reports, contributed to the decision to establish a ministerial task team (MTT) in 2013 to find mutually agreed upon solutions to the human resource-related challenges that have plagued the DCS, and are well-documented in the Committee’s oversight reports. The Committee is concerned however that in the absence of agreements formalising them, the decisions taken by the MTT might not be implemented.

 

5.1.19   The incoming Committee is advised to request the DCS to update it on progress made in the development of implementation plans for those matters that had been reported, and updates on those matters that at the time of reporting were still subject to negotiations.

 

Leadership instability

5.1.20   The above-mentioned concerns are intensified by the DCS’s high staff turnover at its senior management level, and the impact this has had on leadership stability. At the time of reporting, and despite commitments to fill critical vacancies by January 2014, a key deputy director general-, the chief financial officer-, and the national commissioner-posts were vacant.

 

5.1.21   Between 2009 and 2013 the DCS pursued several initiatives which were aimed at, for example, establishing appropriate conditions of incarceration for women offenders, the establishment of a DCS trading entity, the implementation of a more efficient organisational structure, and better asset management and internal controls. The Committee has however noted with concern that many of these appeared to have been abandoned when the individuals who had driven them left office. The DCS should be held to ensuring that all activities undertaken are aligned to what is contained in its strategic and annual performance plans.

 

5.1.22   The incoming Committee is advised to follow up on the filling of all critical senior management posts, and to ensure that if not yet filled, the relevant authorities act with the necessary urgency to fill vacant posts, preferably with candidates with proven track-records for turning-around departments/institutions facing the challenges the DCS has been faced with for several years.

 

5.2    Inmate Management

            Inmate population

5.2.1     South Africa’s correctional centres can accommodate just under 120 000 inmates, and according to International Centre for Prison Studies statistics accommodated 156 370 in August 2013.

 

5.2.2     In 2009/10 the JICS reported that although the level of incarceration had dropped to 139%, considerably lower than the 170% recorded at the end of the 2002/03 financial year, South Africa’s incarceration rate remained the highest in Africa and one of the highest in the world. At that time nineteen of South Africa’s 239 operational correctional centres recorded levels of overcrowding greater than 200%. The JICS reported that, as is to be expected, conditions of incarceration at these centres were inhumane and did not comply with constitutional requirements governing detention.

 

            Remand Detention management

5.2.3     The Committee had from the start of its term emphasised that the inmate population had to be reduced through better management of the remand detainee-population especially. It therefore welcomed the above-mentioned amendments to the Correctional Services legislation which introduced a system for managing remand detention, that is aimed at, amongst others, ensuring shorter periods in remand.

 

5.2.4     By the end of the Committee’s term the DCS reported that cooperation between JCPS cluster departments under the coordination of the Criminal Justice Review Committee had already resulted in improvements in the  management of the remand population: between 2007/08 and 4 February 2014 the population had been reduced from 54 000 to 46 000. It is hoped that the White Paper on Remand Detention will result in greater efficiency, and consistent improvements.

 

5.2.5     The Committee had placed much focus on the need for the finalisation of the remand detention and offender management system (RDOMS) project which was introduced as early as 2006, but which at the time of the Committee’s coming into office had grinded to a halt. At the time of reporting the DCS was able to confirm that the system would be implemented in November 2014 at the latest.

 

5.2.6     During all the Committee’s oversight activities inmates complained about the services provided by Legal Aid SA. Although Legal Aid SA had during previous interactions vehemently denied allegations of poor service delivery, the Committee believes that the volume of complaints received at every visit, suggests challenges in the manner in which services were being delivered.

 

5.2.7     In our most recent oversight visit report the Committee recommended that the DCS and Legal Aid SA should collaborate to ensure that consultation times were maximised. General information about legal processes should be made accessible in the form of pamphlets, posters etc.

 

5.2.8     The incoming Committee is advised to, as early as possible in its term, meet with the Criminal Justice Review Committee, and the National Efficiency Enhancement Committee to ensure that it is abreast of the latest developments in relation to efforts to streamline the criminal justice system especially in relation to those areas that impact on the DCS. Per the Chairperson of the Criminal Justice Review Committee’s suggestion the incoming Committee should ensure that provincial efficiency enhancement committees participate in oversight visits to remand detention centres in particular.

 

Facilities

5.2.9     Paragraph 5.1.1 of the White Paper on Corrections states that offender management is based on “the principles of restoration or corrections, unit management, and secure, safe and humane custody and supervision”. The vast majority of correctional centres date back to the Apartheid-era, and therefore their outdated infrastructure made it impossible to adhere to the above-mentioned principles.

 

5.2.10   With the Committee’s encouragement and consistent monitoring the DCS and DPW made steady progress towards the conclusion of a service level agreement, formalising their working relationship.

 

5.2.11   The Committee’s concerns about the DCS and DPW’s working relationship remain however, mainly because there appears to be little improvement in the DPW’s ability to respond to the DCS’s needs. The Committee acknowledges that slow progress in addressing major maintenance work was beyond the DCS’s control, but is of the view that more should be done to ensure that centre managers responded better to minor maintenance needs.

 

5.2.12   The Committee consistently highlighted the impact continued weaknesses in the DPW tender processes, and project management has had on projects. Three projects in the Western Cape suffered major delays for this reason. At the time of reporting the DPW was in the process of appointing a new contractor to complete the two of the projects because the original service provider had been liquidated. The DPW’s failure to appoint qualified contractors and to manage projects in such a manner that potential risks were identified early, have resulted in already poor conditions of incarceration, becoming worse.

 

5.2.13   The Committee had recommended that, as inmate-labour was being utilised in large construction and maintenance projects forming part of the DCS’s community outreach efforts, alternatives to the DPW being solely responsible for major repair and maintenance projects could be explored. The incoming Committee is advised to follow-up on the feasibility of the recommendation.

 

Public Private Partnership Correctional Centres

5.2.14   The Committee had from the start of its term voiced its concerns about the appropriateness of outsourcing security operations to private companies, and called for a review of the PPP funding model through which the Mangaung and Kutama Sinthumule correctional centres were procured. It welcomed the 2010 Cabinet decision that the four correctional centres that would have been procured via this model had been abandoned.

 

5.2.15   Unrest and security breaches have been reported at both centres. The most recent incidents at Mangaung Correctional Centre had resulted in the DCS having to take over security operations at the centre. The serious allegations of ill-treatment of inmates had been investigated, but the Committee had not yet been provided with the findings at the time of reporting.

 

5.2.16   The incoming Committee is advised to establish how it will manage oversight of the two PPP correctional centres for the remainder of their contracts. This would be essential as far as ensuring that the rights of those incarcerated at these semi-private institutions are not violated, and to ensure that the relevant legislation and regulations are adhered to.

 

5.3        Security operations

5.3.1     Although much success could be reported as far as the management of remand detainees, much more needs to be done to improve the management of the sentenced inmate population, and to ensure their safe and secure incarceration.

           

            Abuse of authority

5.3.2     The correctional environment should be safe for both inmates, and the officials working in correctional centres. In Paragraph 5.4.5 of the White Paper on Corrections the DCS acknowledges that because correctional centres operated within a “closed” system, they were more vulnerable to abuses of authority. Although the nature of the environment necessitated its occasional use, the use of force should be governed by clear and transparent procedures, and should only be resorted to “when order has completely broken down”. The security breaches reported, specifically those in which officials have been implicated, were of serious concern. They point not only to centre-level officials’ failure to understand their roles and the limitations to their powers, but also to the culture of inappropriately responding to blatant abuses of power. The DCS’s staff shortages and inappropriate shift systems led to increased opportunities to abuse authority, and increased security breaches. These placed both officials and inmates at risk.

 

5.3.3     Although the Committee recognises the risk the environment poses to officials, it has and continues to emphasise that the regulations and provisions governing the use of necessary force must be adhered to at all times. The DCS’s apparent lack of cooperation to ensure that inmates who have been assaulted by officials laid criminal charges, and the often too sporadic, and often too lenient outcome of internal disciplinary proceedings, draw into question the DCS’s ability to ensure humane incarceration.

 

5.3.4     The ease with which prohibited items such as cellphones, drugs and cash enter and circulate within facilities, suggests official-collusion and poor implementation of search procedures.

 

            Sexual assault

5.3.5     In 2013/14 the DCS intended to reduce the number of inmates assaulted in its centres to 2%. The DCS had ignored previous recommendations that “assaults” should be disaggregated to differentiate between general cases of assault and sexual assault. The DCS did not deny that sexual assaults took place in correctional centres, but stated that such incidents were under-reported. At the time of reporting the DCS had not yet given any indication of efforts to create awareness of sexual assault in correctional centre so as to address the stigma associated with it and thereby hopefully encourage victims to report such incidents.

 

5.3.6     The DCS had reported that it had, in partnership with stakeholders, developed a policy framework for creating awareness of, and managing sexual assaults. At the time of reporting the policy was in the final stages of approval. Although the policy had not been referred to in planning documents, it is hoped that the strategy, to be implemented with the assistance of stakeholders, will result in victims’ increased reporting of sexual assaults, the DCS’ improved monitoring and reporting on the prevalence of sexual assaults, and ultimately, in a reduction in sexual assaults. The incoming Committee may wish to receive a briefing on its finalisation, content and implementation.

 

Vetting

5.3.7     The numerous allegations of violence, assault, failure to act when inmates’ safety was in danger, and other abuses of power by officials illustrate just how vulnerable the entire inmate population, and those working within correctional centres became when officials were not vetted, and adequately assessed and/or trained to ensure their suitability to work in the correctional environment.

 

5.3.8     The incoming Committee is advised to follow-up on the implementation of previous recommendations related to the vetting of officials, as well as on progress made by the DCS and National Intelligence Agency (NIA) as far as solving challenges impeding efforts to vet officials.

 

            Technological interventions to curb security breaches

5.3.9     Although the suggestion had initially met with resistance, the Committee remains steadfast in its belief that technology such as cellphone signal blocking devices, and CCTV-cameras should be more extensively employed to ensure a secure incarceration. Every effort should also be made to ensure that an electronic access control system be implemented across all correctional centres.

 

5.3.10   Although little success has been reported in relation to this objective, the Committee is confident that the restructuring of the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services, and the recommendations it has made with regard to its strengthening will lead to greater monitoring.

 

 

 

5.4        Rehabilitation and Reintegration

5.4.1     As all committee reports revealed, the small budgets allocated to rehabilitation and reintegration-focussed programmes, and the DCS’s perennial under-spending in relation to rehabilitation efforts in particular, remain a cause for concern. Focussed attempts to attract and retain relevant professionals remain inadequate and/or non-existent. Given the Committee’s position regarding who should qualify for parole consideration, much more should be done to ensure that the DCS is able to provide the rehabilitation and reintegration services that would reduce recidivism.

 

Parole Administration

5.4.2       The Committee in all its oversight reports highlighted that much of the frustration surrounding parole was the result of a lack of information, poor public awareness and inefficient administration. Unfortunately it had not had sufficient time to conduct a review of the parole system so as to assess the effectiveness with which it was administered, and to propose specific recommendations for its improvements.

 

5.4.3       The Committee had at the beginning of its term met with a cross section of CSPB chair- and vice-chairpersons. During the interaction the representatives raised a series of challenges impacting on their efficiency e.g. slow filling of vacancies, poor attendance by members, ineffective and poorly-resourced case management committees, and the impact of the social worker and psychologist-shortage.

 

5.4.4       The Committee had consistently advocated that parole should only be granted to those offenders who, in addition to the compulsory rehabilitation programmes, have participated in development and/or education programmes. It welcomed the introduction in 2013/14 of compulsory education services to inmates with only a very low level of basic education.

 

5.4.5       Stakeholders had during recent interactions highlighted challenges associated with the manner in which the DCS involved victims in the parole process. Concerns were raised about the criminal justice system’s inadequate implementation of the Victims Charter, and poor management of the Victim’s Roll.  While the DCS could not be held responsible for these efficiencies, care should be taken that its efforts to allow victim participation in the parole process were in line with international best practices, and did not unfairly disadvantage offenders, or traumatise victims.

 

5.4.6       The incoming Committee may consider prioritising a review of the parole system so as to establish its effectiveness and suitability. If necessary legislative amendments should be considered to ensure greater efficiency.

 

5.5        Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services

5.5.1     The Committee considered the effectiveness of the JICS in 2012 and 2013, and have reported that certain legislative amendments may be required to ensure the JICS’s independence and effectiveness. The Committee’s recommendations should be considered, and if necessary further consultation may be undertaken, and amendments to the legislation effected as soon as possible. The Report on the Strengthening of the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services may be referred to for the detail of the Committee’s observations, concerns and recommendations.

 

6          CHALLENGES EXPERIENCED WITH REGARD TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM SUPPORTING COMMITTEES

6.1.1     The Minister in the Presidency, Mr Trevor Manuel, in a debate on the 2013 State of the Nation Address (SONA) emphasised the importance of accountability in a democracy, stating that “it is crucial that society is able to look to the skills and competencies of Parliament to safeguard their interests. Good technical skills of parliamentarians backed by solid research teams are critical to stronger parliamentary oversight”. In May of the same year he elaborated on this theme in a speech on the role of parliaments in long term sustainable growth. The Minister then identified “vigilant Members and a strong administrative system” as essential to parliamentary oversight that took a broad, long-term view of the impact of Executive actions especially in relation to planning and budgeting.

 

6.1.2     Paragraphs 6.1.3 to 6.1.12 below highlight challenges the Committee had experienced in relation to administrative systems and support, as well as suggestions for how they may be addressed.

 

Parliamentary programme and the scheduling of committee activities

6.1.3     Frequent changes to the parliamentary programme, and the overly bureaucratic management of committees impacted negatively on the Committee’s activities. The processes that have to be followed to be granted permission to undertake oversight activities should be developed in consultation with committee chairpersons, should be more efficient and should be consistently applied.

 

Study Tours

6.1.4     As the Committee had not been permitted to undertake a study tour in at least two parliamentary terms, it should be treated as a priority in the in 2014-2019 term. It is advised that the incoming Committee should use the first year of its term to acquaint itself with South Africa’s correctional system through consideration of the outgoing Committee’s reports, introductory briefings by the DCS and JICS, and orientation workshops by correctional-services experts, as well as the Committee’s content and research support. It is proposed that a study tour be prioritised as early as possible in its second year in office, so as to ensure that recommendations emanating from it may still be pursued and possibly implemented by the Committee and/or the DCS and/or JICS.

 

            Secretariat

6.1.5     Although its Secretariat attempted to ensure that the Committee was adequately prepared for all its oversight activities, more focussed support is required.

 

6.1.6     It is essential that each committee support staff member’s role is adequately explained to ensure their individual accountability to the Committee, in relation to their different areas of responsibility i.e the coordination/facilitation of the Committee’s activities, and procedural support (Committee Secretary), content and research support (Content Advisor and Researcher), logistical support (Committee Assistant), and administrative support in the office of the Committee Chairperson (Executive Secretary).

 

6.1.7     The Committee adopted minutes and reports as and when they were provided by the Committee Secretary. The Committee Secretary should be held to distributing draft minutes and reports within seven days of a committee meeting, and committee reports within a period not exceeding 30 days after the end of an oversight visit.

 

6.1.8     The Committee had little success in receiving formal responses to recommendations contained in reports adopted by the National Assembly (NA). The Committee Secretary, as the co-ordinator of the Committee’s activities and the official person responsible for maintaining a reliable and up to date commitment register and Committee records, should establish a sound working relationship with the relevant officials in the Office of the Speaker as well as the relevant Parliamentary Liaison Officers, aimed at improving mechanisms whereby responses to recommendations may be monitored followed-up on.

 

6.1.9     The Committee has had little success in receiving written responses to questions which could not be responded to during oversight activities committee briefing. Where responses were received the Committee’s programme, and inadequate support made the consideration of the written responses challenging at best. It is recommended that, instead of requesting written responses, the incoming Committee should, at the end of each term, schedule a separate feedback session during which those who are required to do so must is provided with an opportunity to respond to outstanding matters.

 

6.1.10   The incoming Committee should consider establishing a standard for content and research support. Content and research support should enhance Members’ scrutiny of department-produced and other documents/information. It is essential that Members are given an opportunity to scrutinise research documents to ensure that research papers are useful, enhance the Committee’s preparation, and contribute to the Committee’s greater body of knowledge.

 

6.1.11   Reliance on information submitted to the Committee by those appearing before it, and accounting to it by the Department should be reduced, and officials responsible for research and content support should ensure that a database of credible and current sources of information and expertise is maintained.

 

6.1.12   While summaries of presentations are useful, especially given the volume of information provided to committees, summaries of presentations and documents referred to the Committee should not be a substitute for critical analysis.

 

7.         ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Committee wishes to express its appreciation to the all those who have participated, and supported us in the execution of our activities. Special mention goes to our regular stakeholders whom we could rely on for independent input, and insight into the correctional system.