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.