Questions and Replies

Reply:

1. In terms of sections 29 and 31 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965, all claims against Deceased Estates must be lodged with the appointed executor, and not the Master.

In terms of sections 32 and 33 of the Act, the Executor can dispute or accept these claims against the estate and any party aggrieved by such decision of the executor can either proceed to proof his/her claim in court. Alternatively, the claimant may wait until the executor lodge the Liquidation and Distribution Account and then formally, in terms of section 35(7) of the Act, object to the Liquidation and Distribution account to include his/her claim.

It is the duty of the executor to ensure that all heirs and creditors specified in the approved Liquidation and Distribution account are paid accordingly.

The Master does not receive or decide on the validity of claims against Deceased Estates and does not keep record of such information. This information can be obtained from the lodged Liquidation and Distribution Account in each estate above the value of R250 000.

 

2. In terms of Section 29 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965, every executor shall, as soon as may be after letters of executorship have been granted, cause a notice to be published in the Gazette and in one or more newspapers circulating in the district in which the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his death and, if at any time within the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of his death he so resided in any other district, also in one or more newspapers circulating in that other district, or if he was not ordinarily so resident in any district in the Republic, in one or more newspapers circulating in a district where the deceased owned property, calling upon all persons having claims against his estate to lodge such claims with the executor within such period (not being less than thirty days or more than three months) from the date of the latest publication of the notice as may be specified therein.

In terms of section 32, if an executor disputes any claim against the estate, he may by notice in writing:

a) Require the claimant to lodge, in support of his claim, within a period specified in the notice, an affidavit setting forth such details of the claim as the executor may indicate in the notice; and

b) With the consent of the Master, require the claimant or any other person who may in the opinion of the Master be able to give material information in connection with the claim, to appear before the Master or any Magistrate or Master nominated by the Master, material information in connection with the claim, to appear before the Master or any Magistrate or Master nominated by the Master, at a place and time stated in the notice, to be examined under oath in connection with the claim.

Reply:

a) As at 11 May 2021 a total of 12 542 persons between the age of 16 and 25 were incarcerated in Correctional services facilities. The breakdown per region is as follows:

Total Number Of Persons Between The Age Of 16 And 25 Incarcerated In Correctional Services Facilities
Region	Age group 16 to 25 years incarcerated
Eastern Cape	2 238
Gauteng	1 226
KwaZulu-Natal	1 763
Limpopo, Mpumalanga & North West	1 776
Northern Cape & Free State	2 219
Western Cape	3 320
Grand Total	12 542

(b)(i) Murder

Number of the specified persons between the age of 16 and 25 incarcerated for murder
Region	Murder
Eastern Cape	440
Gauteng	218
KwaZulu-Natal	402
Limpopo, Mpumalanga & North West	347
Northern Cape & Free State	430
Western Cape	616
Total	2 453

(b)(ii) Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH)

Number of the specified persons between the age of 16 and 25 incarcerated for grievous bodily harm
Region	Grievous Bodily Harm
Eastern Cape	153
Gauteng	58
Kwazulu-Natal	61
Limpopo, Mpumalanga & North West	100
Northern Cape & Free State	130
Western Cape	193
Total	695

END.

Reply:

a) Imprisoned

REGIONS (In prison Schedule 08 offenders)	Imprisoned 2016/17	Imprisoned 2017/18	Imprisoned 2018/19	Imprisoned 2019/20	Imprisoned 2020/2	Grand Total
RC EASTERN CAPE	18 955	18 588	17 663	17 074	14 090	22 821
RC GAUTENG	32 978	32 373	31 600	29 944	23 309	41 462
RC KWAZULU-NATAL	26 663	26 038	25 094	23 563	18 894	32 366
RC LIMPOPO MPUMALANGA & NW	21 963	21 708	21 856	21 518	17 551	27 007
RC NORTHERN CAPE & FREE STATE	19 032	19 078	18 934	17 971	14 440	22 465
RC WESTERN CAPE	25 537	24 885	24 318	23 434	17 827	36 179
Grand Total	145 128	142 670	139 465	133 504	106 111	182 300

(b) Released

REGIONS (Released Sch 08 Offenders)	FY 2016/17	FY 2017/18	FY 2018/19	FY 2019/20	FY 2020/21	Grand Total
RC EASTERN CAPE	4 799	4 710	4 515	5 112	3 685	22 821
RC GAUTENG	8 242	7 917	8 294	10 209	6 800	41 462
RC KWAZULU-NATAL	6 643	6 351	6 249	7 394	5 729	32 366
RC LIMPOPO MPUMALANGA & N.W.	5 263	4 817	4 999	6 728	5 200	27 007
RC NORTHERN CAPE & FREE STATE	4 328	4 211	4 272	5 320	4 334	22 465
RC WESTERN CAPE	7 729	7 066	6 848	9 163	5 373	36 179
Grand Total ALL types of releases	37 004	35 072	35 177	43 926	31 121	182 300
Number of convicted Schedule 8 not added to the National Forensic DNA Data base (Released on parole without DNA) PQ 1660 - NW1806E	22 325	18 470	19 556	20 772	15 752	96,875
Number of other release types other than parole release E.g. Sentence Expiry Date (SED)	14 679	16 602	15 621	23 154	15 369	85 425
Grand Total ALL types of releases	37 004	35 072	35 177	43 926	31 121	182 300

END

Reply:

It should be noted that both offenders are serving sentences of life imprisonment. They have benefitted from Phaahla judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court on
03 May 2019, since they were sentenced after 01 October 2004 for offences committed before 01 October 2004.

The mentioned offenders have been assessed for placement by the Case Management Committee and Correctional Supervision and Parole Board, their profiles are yet to be considered by the National Council of Correctional Services (NCCS) before being forwarded to the Minister for a decision.

The possible placement of offenders serving life sentences (lifers) are considered by the Minister in line with section 78 of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998. Therefore, the Minister will consider each case on its merit and will approve or disapprove parole placement once he is satisfied that offenders are indeed rehabilitated based on the information presented.

END

Reply:

Yes, the Office of the State Attorney in Cape Town has been instructed by the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure, through the Legal Services’ Office in Cape Town, to initiate eviction proceedings as the contractor was appointed to renovate the property in question needed for identified purpose and following complaints from nearby property owners as well as residents.

a) Instructions were received on 19 February 2018, and subsequently thereto as per the client’s instructions, a notice to vacate the premises was served on the unlawful occupants.

b) When the unlawful occupants refused to vacate the property, the State Attorney appointed Counsel to draft necessary papers to move the application for eviction.

c) At this stage, it is not clear when the application for eviction will be moved and all that we can say is that such depends on when the State Attorney will be receiving full and proper instruction from the client department as outlined in the advice of the legal team following consultation with the client, namely: the full and updated details of the people unlawfully occupying the property that they are sought to be evicted from, alternative accommodation and any other special circumstances of the occupants that a court might require explanation on, and lastly the attitude of the municipality regarding alternative accommodation.

Reply:

(a) In October 2016, the 5th administration of South Africa took a decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (“Rome Statute”). Following this decision, South Africa sent a written notice to withdraw from the Rome Statute to the Secretary General of the United Nations. In January 2017, the African Union (AU) took a decision followed by a resolution issued in February 2017 encouraging member nations to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC). In addition to South Africa, two other AU members, Burundi and Gambia, also indicated their intentions to withdraw from the Rome Statute in 2016. However, Gambia reversed its decision immediately after a newly elected government assumed power in February 2017. Burundi, on the other hand, has become the first country to withdraw its membership from the ICC.

(b) In February 2017, the North Gauteng High Court unanimously ruled that the withdrawal notification sent by South Africa to the United Nations was unconstitutional and invalid without prior parliamentary approval, and ordered the Government to rescind the notice with immediate effect. In line with the court decision, the South African government revoked its notice of withdrawal from the Rome Statute in March 2017.

(c) The International Crimes Bill, introduced in Parliament in 2017, whose purpose was to withdraw South Africa from the ICC by repealing the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002, is still with the Portfolio Committee in Parliament.

(d) Since that time, numerous developments within the ICC have taken place, including the adoption of the “Understanding with respect to article 97(c) consultations” by the Assembly of State Parties in December 2017. This Understanding, which was adopted as a result of concerns raised by South Africa, provides for a process for States to consult with the ICC in relation to a request for cooperation. In addition, the African Union’s resolve to reform or transform the ICC from within rather than through withdrawals and the failure to provide an African alternative court to the ICC are some of the notable developments.

(e) As a result of these developments, there are ongoing discussion between the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and the Department of International Relations and Cooperation with a view to develop proposals on South Africa’s membership of the ICC. These proposals will be submitted to Cabinet, and once approved, will provide a way forward on the matter.

(f) In terms of International law, South Africa remains a full member of the ICC with all the rights and obligations that accrue to all members of the Rome Statute. The Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002 remains in full effect.

Reply:

The investigation is being conducted by the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) and has been ongoing since early 2018. It is a complex investigation, involving also a forensic investigation into thousands of foreign and local transactions, requiring for applications for Mutual Legal Assistance Requests relating to different bank accounts in various countries to be made.

Further, the DPCI recently registered a separate case docket relating to an investigation into possible insider trading against the suspect/s. A team of prosecutors is guiding such investigation, and the team of investigators has been enhanced, in line with the decision to prioritize the matter.

Reply:

1. The National Director of Public Prosecutions has informed me that the following are the reasons for the withdrawal charges against the accused person:

a) At the time of accused arrest, the only evidence linking him to the crime was an informal identification of him on a Facebook photograph.

b) Evidence about identification is, because of the fallibility of human observation, to be treated with caution by the courts.

c) The accused was arrested and detained, pending a further investigation to link him further to the commission of the offence.

d) No further evidence was forthcoming and his continued incarceration could not further be justified.

e) The charges were therefore provisionally withdrawn against the accused person.

2. Other than what is stated above, the State does not wish to disclose any further details surrounding the investigations at this stage. It must be borne in mind that the matter is still under investigation, and that the State does not wish to compromise this process.

3. At the time of provisionally withdrawing the charges against the accused person, the prosecutor received instruction to discuss the reasons for the withdrawal of the charges with the family of the deceased, as well as the re-enrolment plan.

As stated above, the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (ADPP) received confirmation from the prosecutor that the consultation did take place on the day of the withdrawal of the charges against the accused person. Therefore, the ADPP issued instructions for further urgent investigations. Once the investigations have been completed, the docket will be presented back to the ADPP for re-evaluation.

The NPA treats instances of femicide as a priority crime with sensitivity and compassion. If sufficient evidence linking the accused person or any other person is uncovered, prosecution will definitely be reinstated.

Reply:

a) It must be noted that there is no offence per se called “domestic violence”, it is rather a collective of offences related to the Domestic Violence Act or other relevant legislation (for example: Protection from Harassment Act) or even other related common law offences which displays evidence of domestic violence in the merits of the case (for example: attempted murder).

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) does not collate offence specific statistics, therefore we extracted the information as is available on the ECMS. The information reflected only relates to main charges and would not indicate those cases where a different main charge such as assault, attempted murder, malicious injury to property, etc have been added. Secondly, the extracted information only relates to offences linked to the particular Acts of which three (3) contraventions are available namely:

Source	Description
a) Section 18(1)(a) read with section 10(1) or (2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011	Contravening a prohibition, condition, obligation or order imposed by a court by means of a protection order.
b) Section 6(a) read with section 2 and 4 of the Prevention of Family Violence Act 133 of 1993	Contravening an interdict or other order granted by a judge or magistrate in a domestic violence incident.
c) Section 7(1) read with section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998	Contravening the conditions of domestic violence protection order.

The following information, as extracted, is only with reference to contraventions on the aforementioned legislation. The previous disclaimers as explained in the second paragraph should also be kept in mind. A comparison of cases finalised between April 2019 and March 2020 compared with the verdicts finalised with a verdict between April 2020 and March 2021 is depicted in Figures 1 and 2 for District and Regional court respectively.

Figure 1: Verdicts Apr 19- Mar 20 compared to Apr 20 – Mar 21 in DC

Light blue reflects the 2020/21 FY for number of verdict cases finalised per month. The decrease in numbers as indicated is due to the impact of covid-19 and related restrictions. The dark blue information reflects the previous 2019/2020 FY.

Figure 2: Verdicts Apr 19- Mar 20 compared to Apr 20 – Mar 21 in RC

Light blue reflects the 2020/21 FY for number of verdict cases finalised per month. The decrease in numbers as indicated is due to the impact of covid-19 and related restrictions. The dark blue information reflects the previous 2019/2020 FY. The lower numbers in the Regional Court is attributed to the fact that the predominant number of these contraventions of orders are dealt with in the District Courts.

Similarly, a comparison of cases finalised between April 2018 and March 2019 compared with the verdicts finalised with a verdict between April 2019 and March 2020 is depicted in Figures 3 and 4 for District and Regional court respectively.

Figure 3: Verdicts Apr 18- Mar 19 compared to Apr 19 – Mar 20 in DC

Light blue reflects the 2019/20 FY for number of verdict cases finalised per month. The dark blue information reflects the previous 2018/2019 FY.

Figure 4: Verdicts Apr 18- Mar 19 compared to Apr 19 – Mar 20 in RC

b) The number of convictions resulting from the verdict cases are depicted in Figures 5 and 6 for the period April 2020 to March 2021; respectively for the District court and the Regional court. The conviction rates during this period for the District court was 77.9% and in the Regional court 77.3%.

The number of convictions resulting from the verdict cases are depicted in Figures 7 and 8 for the period April 2019 to March 2020; respectively for the District court and the Regional court. The conviction rates during this period for the District court was 76.2% and in the Regional court 80.0%.

Figure 5: Verdicts breakdown for Apr 20- Mar 21 in DC

Figure 6: Verdicts breakdown for Apr 20 - Mar 21 in RC

Figure 7: Verdicts breakdown for Apr 19- Mar 20 in DC

Figure 8: Verdicts breakdown for Apr 19- Mar 20 in RC

Reply:

1. Yes there is a Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB) dedicated to the Johannesburg Female Correctional Centre, however the positions of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson: Correctional Supervision and Parole Board are vacant.

(2)(a) Yes, there are delays in the consideration of parole with a current backlog of nine (09) offenders.

(2)(b) The CSPB Chairperson that is dedicated to Correctional Centre B, is assisting with parole considerations for the Female Correctional Centre. A roaming Vice Chairperson from Modderbee Management Area is then assisting at Correctional Centre B CSPB with consideration of Lifers as this is a time consuming process. The intervention of the roaming Vice Chairperson from Modderbee enables the Chairperson more time at the Female Correctional Centre.

It is desirable that CSPB posts should be filled to capacity, however due to Chairpersons, Vice-Chairpersons and community members being appointed on a 3 year contract there will be vacancies as a result of expired contracts pending the finalisation of the recruitment process. The process of filling these vacant positions is underway as the positions have been advertised.

The intervention of roaming CSPB members was put in place at various management areas in order to minimise delays.

END.

Reply:

1. As at 16 March 2021, a total of 1 568 cases are currently on the court rolls. This only relates to stock theft and does not include related offences such as attempted stock theft, receiving or possession of stolen stock, etc. The same applies to the responses below.

2. (a) The courts have dealt with 4 631 cases during the period 1 January 2019 to March 2021

(b) Convictions were secured in 1 553 cases during the afore-mentioned period and there were 382 acquittals.

3. (a) During this period, 2 315 cases were withdrawn from the court rolls. Some of

these cases were again enrolled after investigations were finalised, new evidence were obtained or facts in the matters changed. The number of cases re-enrolled is part of information contained in decision dockets, which is not recorded electronically and therefore not available for reporting purposes. There were also 816 cases struck off the roll during this period.

(b) The reasons for withdrawals are currently not recorded, although reasons for withdrawals or decisions not to prosecute are recorded on each case docket manually. The general reasons include the unclear identification of the stock in dispute (which is not marked or not properly marked, and ownership is in dispute). In some instances, witnesses become unavailable, evidence is obtained that disproves allegations contained in the docket initially, or the complainant requests the matter to be withdrawn.

In addition to the above, it should be noted that stock theft is regarded as a serious offence to which priority and focused attention is provided within the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). Stock theft has a crippling effect on commercial as well as communal farmers (representing 40%) of stock owners. The effect of stock theft is not confined to the actual monetary loss, but it also has a ripple effect that compromises the job security of the workers on the farms. Although training was hampered by lack of budget and resources in recent years, the NPA in collaboration with Justice College conducted four (4) courses in 2016, where 87 prosecutors attended the courses including five (5) prosecutors from Botswana. As part of the internal Community Prosecution Initiative, three (3) areas have identified stock theft as priorities in their areas, namely: Ermelo in Mpumalanga as well as Molopo and Odi offices in North West. Prosecutors will be working with all stakeholders and the community in these regions to address the crimes on stock theft.

Currently, one (1) of the cases in court relating to stock theft involves a charge of racketeering which has already been authorised by the National Director of Public Prosecutions. The case, which also involves a police official, is in Ermelo Regional court and includes charges of:

i) Contravention of section 2(1)(f): Managing an Enterprise - Accused 1, 2 and 4;

ii) Contravention of section 2(1)(e): Conducting or Participating in an Enterprise Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activities (Accused 1-7);

iii) Theft read with the provisions of the stock Theft Act, Act 57 of 1959 - All accused;

iv) Defeating the Ends of Justice - Accused 6;

v) Housebreaking with the intent to rob - Accused 3, 4 and 5;

vi) Robbery with Aggravating Circumstances - Accused 3, 4 and 5; and

vii) Kidnapping - Accused 3, 4 and 5

Reply:

I have been informed by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) that the PABX-system was installed by ITEC through a Departmental contract on 2 November 2018. At the expiry of the contract, the license was not renewed, and it started malfunctioning in August 2019.

In April 2021, Brilliantel Communications was appointed to supply and install PABX systems (including 3 years’ maintenance and support) in all the DoJ&CD sites, including all the courts.

Calls were logged from April 2021, and subsequently Brilliantel Communications visited the site on 7 February 2022. The service provider advised that the system is dead and needs replacement. This is one of the sites affected by contract management issues, i.e. affected by lapsed contracts.

In addressing the problem, the site has been scheduled for the installation of new PABX-system by 6 June 2022. I have been informed that the PABX-system was installed at the relevant court on 2 June 2022.

Whilst the Department was waiting for the new PABX-system to be installed as scheduled, and to minimize the impact of non-functional phones onsite, the Head of Office and all Magistrates, Court Manager as well as the Domestic Violence/Harassment Clerks applied for cellphone allowance and were approved to participate in the cellphone allowance policy.

END

Reply:

1. During March 2020, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) referred the matter directly to the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) Head Office. The matter was referred to the AFU Durban as it falls within the jurisdiction of that office.
2. There is currently no criminal case registered with the South African Police Service (SAPS) in this matter. However, the AFU in Durban is engaging with the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigations (DPCI): Anti-Corruption, with a view to initiate a criminal investigation on the matter. It should be noted that the SIU is also involved in disciplinary proceedings brought against the person by the Department of Correctional Services.

Reply:

1. The Magistrates Commission confirms that it has received a number of serious complaints against KwaZulu Natal Regional Court President. On 31 August 2018, the Commission resolved to charge him. A charge sheet with 50 counts of misconduct was personally served on the KZN Regional Court President on 04 September 2018. An amended charge sheet with a total of 162 charges was served on him via his attorney on 30 March 2021. He has been provisionally suspended from office which suspension was confirmed by Parliament on 9 October 2018. He is subjected to a disciplinary hearing which will be commencing within the next two months.

(a) No.

Reply:

a) As part of monitoring of administrative support to the courts the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) has included a Key performance indicator on the Annual Performance Plan which is monitored monthly. The Department has set a target that in less than 0.3 % in criminal cases the main cause of postponement of the case should relate to the unavailability of court administrative officials essential to a court sitting relating to Indigenous language as well as Foreign language interpreters as well as court recording system operators.

The performance in relation to this indicator for the period 1 April - 30 April 2021 is a National average of 0.14% against the 0.3% target.

See breakdown into regions and District and regional courts as per table below:

b) The Department is appointing interpreters as and when positions become vacant. The Regional Heads have delegations to advertise and fill the vacancies where required. Currently, the Department has a vacancy rate of 7.7%. The table below depicts the number of positions on the establishment, number of posts filled as well as the number of vacant positions:

Job Title	Filled Posts	Vacant Posts	Total Posts	Vacancy Rate
Court Interpreter	1 262	88	1 350	6.5
Senior Court Interpreter	396	49	445	11.0
Court Interpreter Principal	63	8	71	11.3
Assistant Director: Court Interpreting	32	1	33	3.0
Deputy Director: Court Interpreting	6	1	7	14.3
TOTAL	1 759	147	1 906	7.7

In relation to Foreign Language Interpreters and Sign Language Interpreters, they are sourced from the database as and when they are required, paid a daily allowance for appearance in court.

Reply:

The Department is in a process of finalising technical integration designs and procuring a court audio visual solution that will be used for court participant’s interviews and testimony in cases where direct contact is not feasible or very expensive, as well as in cases where expert witnesses are required in court. This will also allow victims and witnesses to easily get in touch and communicate with the CJS practitioners that are responsible for their case. This includes Interpreters, Witnesses, SAPS & DHA Laboratory Experts, Sexual Offence Facilitation and External Experts. This is initially related to virtual court appearances integrating to court recording solution for the court record, however it will be expanded to cater for virtual courts eliminating the physical appearance of all parties in courts and the adjudication of the case online.

The current Annual Performance Plan target for the Court Audio Visual Solution is the implementation of 45 identified sites for the current financial year.

a) As part of the digital transformation of courts and court processes, the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) in the spirit of the modernization approach has leveraged digital and virtual opportunities to ensure efficiency and continuity in court services and led by the Judiciary is in the process of developing and implementing Court Online, an advanced cloud-based collaboration solution aimed at providing a platform for the filing of court documents electronically (E-Filing) over the Internet from anywhere. Court Online is an E-Filing, Digital Case Management and Evidence Management system for the High Courts of South Africa. It provides Law Practitioners with the opportunity to file documentation electronically online anywhere and anytime without being physically present at court. It also affords Law Practitioners the ease of managing their court appearance diaries and court evidence instantaneously online.

Within the court room and chambers, Judges shall make use of the Court Online system to adjudicate disputes electronically. Office of the Chief Justice has partially implemented the Court Online system in the Gauteng Division of the High Court. Case-Lines as a stand-alone solution for evidence management was successfully piloted in these courts. The aim is to roll-out this electronic platform to other service centres during the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) period.

b) Provision for virtual hearings have further been made in the Directives issued by the Heads of Court/Judges President in line with the Superior Courts Act, 2013.

c) The Draft Court Online (E-Filing) Court Rules, drafted by the Judiciary and supported by the Office of the Chief Justice, are currently before the Rules Board. These rules will institutionalize Court Online (E-Filing) and are a major step in the digital transformation of courts and court processes.

d) The Office of the Chief Justice has further provided Judges and officials with ICT solutions to enable the courts to operate virtually. Amongst others, these measures included the provision of enhanced end user equipment, increased bandwidth for internet as well as increased data access.

e) Licenses have been provided for modern enterprise video communications/video conferencing platforms such as MS Teams or Zoom, along with concomitant storage space for the recording of proceedings, to enable virtual hearings to be conducted at the Superior Courts.

f) To improve network access, Wi-Fi was expanded at all Superior Courts.

g) All Constitutional Court hearings are currently livestreamed on the Judiciary YouTube channels.

h) In order to assist with readiness for digital transformation and improved service delivery, the Office of the Chief Justice is implementing the ICT Infrastructure Refresh Project, which would focus on the replacement of old hardware infrastructure. It is further supported by the recently installed Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) systems which ensures continuous availability of ICT systems and virtual platforms during power interruptions.

Reply:

1. As at 25 May 2021, 55 TRC cases have been referred to the DPP Offices in the jurisdictions where the crimes were committed. These cases are all being investigated by the DPCI. A further 59 cases have been identified as warranting investigation, which will be referred to the regions once there is the necessary capacity in the NPA / DPP Offices.
2. Cases are referred to the DPCI either because of the public interest which they attract or due to requests being made by relatives of the victims or other interested parties. The cases are referred merely upon request and are not subject to any pre-evaluation process.
3. Yes, I will make a statement.

Reply:

a) (i) The dispute between LexisNexis and the Department is with regard to the interpretation of clause 12.19 of RFB 2019 03 which requires the service provider to provide a shared one license accessible from all domains (DOJ&CD, OCJ, Constitutional Court, Legal Aid SA, NPA, The Public Protector and the Special Investigating Unit) for online (internet) services.

LexisNexis interpreted clause 12.19 of the bid to require a shared license from all domains which in their view is different from a concurrent user access which is attached to a domain.

The Department’s interpretation is that clause 12.19 of the bid required a shared one license accessible from all domains for online (internet) services which was clearly explained during the briefing session (question and answer session) to mean a concurrent user access attached to a domain. These questions and answers were provided by the Department in writing to all the bidders including LexisNexis.

(ii) The Department engaged with LexisNexis on the 12 March 2021 and urged them to restore the services and the services were restored on the same date.

b) The services were restored with immediate effect and there was no need for any contingencies.

c) The services were restored with immediate effect and officials have access.

Reply:

1. (a) The Domestic Violence Act, 1998 (Act No. 116 of 1998) was enacted to address and combat domestic violence. An applicant can apply to court for a protection order against the perpetrator’s abuse, in terms of the Domestic Violence Act.

The court may, if it is satisfied that it is in the best interest of any child:

• by means of an order, refuse the respondent (alleged perpetrator) contact with such child
• order contact with such child on conditions as it may consider appropriate
• prohibit the respondent (alleged perpetrator) from entering the residence shared by the complainant and the respondent (alleged perpetrator), provided it is in the best interest of the applicant.
• The applicant can apply for an order for temporary placement of children in care facilities.
• Further, the domestic violence court may not refuse to issue a protection order or impose any condition or make any order which is competent to impose or make merely on the grounds that other legal remedies are available to the complainant.

In providing the necessary relief, the court considers the facts presented before

it. The court, in making any order where it affects placement of children or removal of the respondent (alleged perpetrator), depending on the facts and application before it, will consider the best interests of the child, including safety, health, the well-being, perceived risk of further harm or violence, personal and material interests of both the applicant and the children and the best interests of the child.

The best interests of the child, in addition to that of the applicant, is emphasised to demonstrate that in all matters of gender-based violence where children are affected, the court will probe the details of a case in order to have all facts before it, so as to make an appropriate order. In this regard, the court may, where circumstances permit, in terms of the Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act, 1987, refer such matters to the Office of the Family Advocate for the court to obtain the Family Advocate’s report containing the recommendations on the best interests of children affected by the domestic violence.

The Family Advocate will conduct an investigation into the welfare of the children and make such recommendation that will first identify the risks and factors that have a direct and an indirect impact on the wellbeing of the children, and then recommend the necessary safety nets to mitigate such risk pending the finalization of the domestic violence case. These recommendations may include supervised contact between the children and the alleged perpetrator, in appropriate circumstances.

The Domestic Violence Act also provides for the court to consider an application brought before it by a child under this Act and if it deems fit, grant the interim protection order. In addition, if the court finds that the applicant child is in need of care, that child will be referred to the children’s court for further intervention.

The provision above demonstrates that minor children have to be protected and can deviate from the norm of a minor having to be accompanied by a parent or guardian, as an order can still be sought against either. The court will respond to any emergency application before it and grant the temporary relief sought, after considering all facts before it and the rights of children affected.

Where the perpetrator contravenes the interim order or removes the children against the court order, that will amount to contempt of court. Legal consequences ensue and the warrant of arrest by the domestic violence court is immediately given effect to. It must be noted that these are immediate orders which are interim pending the return date for further hearing, including that of the alleged perpetrator, for either the confirmation thereof or any order appropriate.

The Sexual Offences and Community Affairs (SOCA) Unit of the national prosecuting Authority provides regular training on the Domestic Violence Act to prosecutors and other partners in the criminal justice system to ensure that the intention of the Domestic Violence Act is fully realized.

(b) Where the victim of domestic violence is a primary care giver of the children (the

victim resides with the children) they will still retain the primary care of the children pending the finalization of the matter. The right that the victim has is that they can request assistance from the Office of the Family Advocate with regards to the drafting of a Parenting Plan. In the Parenting Plan they can set out arrangements as regards the children’s residence as well as the contact regime (how they will continue having contact with the alleged perpetrator) pending the finalization of the case. The victim can also request the Office of the Family Advocate to assist with assessments of the children, interactional analysis as well as observation of the children to ensure that they retain the custody of the children.

2. Children cannot be uprooted from their stable environment without any lawful reason. In the case where a child is unlawfully removed from their stable environment, that is they are removed without a court order or any form of agreement between their parents, the primary caregiver, in this case, the victim of domestic violence has a right to launch an application at the Children’s Court to have the children returned to their primary residence.

During such proceedings, the court will as a way of preserving the best interests of children, make an order to the effect that an investigation be conducted by the Office of the Family Advocate so as to provide the court with the recommendations on the best interests of the children given the prevailing circumstances.

Reply:

a) The average per capita costs per month incurred by the Department during the 2020/21 financial year (unaudited figures) are as follows:

The average per capita costs projected to be spent by the Department for the 2021/22 financial year to keep inmates incarcerated monthly including and excluding CoE are as follows:

The following should be noted on the calculations of the average monthly per capita expenditure of inmates:

• For both financial years the total number of offenders in the two Public Private Partnerships (PPP) correctional centres are 5 952. The PPP expenditure is excluded on calculations and the average monthly per capita of offenders in PPP correctional centres is indicated separately. It should be noted that the PPP Index Fee includes Compensation of Employees appointed in the two PPP correctional centres.
• The expenditure incurred under Programme 5: Community Corrections are excluded as the whole programme deals with Parolees, Probationers, and Awaiting Trial Persons who are not incarcerated.
• The average monthly per capita expenditure is also shown excluding Programme 1: Administration and Sub Programme Facilities under Programme 2: Incarceration. Programme 1: Administration deals with the administration and management of the whole department including PPP correctional centres and Community Corrections population. Sub Programme Facilities deals with maintenance, upgrade, and construction of correctional centres, municipal services and accommodation for state-owned buildings.
• The most accurate average monthly per capita total cost incurred in 2020/21 financial year would be R10 890.52 including CoE and R2 946.91 excluding CoE.

b) The items from the operational budget that cost the Department most (using the threshold of R200 million per annum) apart from Compensation of Employees are as follows:

• Property Payments item is for the payment of electricity, water and sanitation services to the various municipalities and the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) where relevant;
• Agency and Support/outsourced Services item is used for the payments to the two PPP correctional centres;
• Operating Leases item is for expenditure incurred for the accommodation charges for state buildings paid to the DPWI and the private leases for various offices;
• Inventory: Food and Food Supplies is for the expenditure of food for inmates;
• Fleet Services is for the payment of all running costs of government vehicles including repairs and maintenance;
• Consumable Supplies item is for cleaning material, stationery and printing supplies, building material and supplies and IT consumables;
• Inventory Farming Supplies is for the animal feed, farming and gardening supplements, fertilisers, and seedlings.

Expenditure Items above R200 million for 2021/22 Financial Year Projected Expenditure are as follows:

END

Reply:

(1) No, the Department of Correctional Services has not yet embarked on the 2021/22 Learnership Programme. The enrolment will be determined by the human resource needs and the availability of funds. The absorption of learners who have completed their learnership is not a determining factor for the enrolment of the next group of learners on the programme. The aim of the programme is to provide training and skills development opportunities to the youth preparing them for the labour market.

(1)(a) None

(1)(b) Not applicable

(2) No, the learnership programme is a 12 month development programme and not an employment contract, in the case of group 1 of 2019/20 the contract was extended as the programme was suspended for two months during the lockdown levels 5 and 4. The programme came to an end on 31 December 2020.

(3) Yes, their contract appointment on the PERSAL system is created in such a way that, when the contract end date is reached, the learner is automatically removed from the PERSAL system enabling them to pursue alternative employment.

END

Reply:

(1)(aa) Yes, the mentioned offender was placed on parole.

(1)(aa)(a) He was placed on parole on 1 November.2019 to 24 April 2040.

(1)(aa)(b) He was placed on parole after completion of 1/3 of his sentence. The offender benefited from the Phaahla judgment since he was sentenced after 1 October 2004 for offences committed in June 2003. This meant that he qualified to be considered for parole after serving a 1/3 instead of ½ of his sentence as this was the parole policy applicable at the time of commission of the offences. He was considered for placement after attending relevant programmes. The placement on parole was subject to placement conditions until expiry of his sentence. The CSPB further considered amongst others the following factors:

• the completion of the legislatively required minimum detention period;
• proof of a monitorable and appropriate support system;
• positive report on conduct and behaviour (including relevant interventions and programmes where applicable);
• proof that rehabilitation/ development took place;
• risk posed to the community/ victim; and
  • acceptance of the conditions for placement by the offender.

(1)(aa)(c) The Offender was inter alia subjected to the following parole conditions in line with section 52 of Correctional Services Act, 1998 (Act 111of 1998):

• house detention;
• does community service;
• seeks employment;
• where possible takes up and remains in employment;
• restricted to one magisterial district;
• lives at a fixed address;
• refrains from using alcohol or illegal drugs;
• refrains from committing a criminal offence;
• is subject to monitoring;

(1)(bb) Yes, the mentioned offender was placed on parole.

(1)(bb)(a) He was placed on parole on 20 September.2019 to 24 April.2040.

(1)(bb)(b) He was placed on parole by the CSPB after completion of 1/3 of his sentence. The offender benefited from the Phaahla judgment since he was sentenced after 1 October 2004 for offences committed in June 2003. This meant that he qualified for consideration after serving a 1/3 instead of ½ of his sentence as this was the parole policy applicable at the time of commission of the offences. He was considered by the CSPB after attending relevant programmes and was placed on parole subject to placement conditions which he had to comply with until expiry of his sentence. The CSPB further considered the following factors, among others:

• the completion of the legislatively required minimum detention period;
• proof of a monitorable and appropriate support system;
• positive report on conduct and behaviour (including relevant interventions and programmes where applicable);
• proof that rehabilitation/ development took place;
• risk posed to the community/ victim; and
• acceptance of the conditions for placement.

(1)(bb)(c) The offender was among others subjected to the following parole conditions in line with section 52 of Correctional Services Act, 1998 (Act 111of 1998):

• house detention;
• does community service;
• seeks employment;
• where possible takes up and remains in employment;
• is restricted to one magisterial district;
• lives at a fixed address;
• refrains from using alcohol or illegal drugs;
• refrains from committing a criminal offence;
• is subject to monitoring;

(2) Yes,

(2)(a) The offender mentioned in part (aa) appeared in court on 12 May 2021.

(2)(b) He appeared at the Frankfort District Court.

(2)(c) He is alleged to have committed robbery with aggravating circumstances.

(2)(d) Bail has not been fixed.

 

END.

Reply:

1. Permission to access to Correctional Centres is permitted under section 99 of the Correctional Services Act, 111 of 1998. This section must be read together with Section 123 which relates to prohibited publication. The Department has a gang combating strategy in place to deal with gangsterism in our facilities.

In the case of the mentioned documentary, permission was granted during 2019 for filming of the documentary at the Brandvlei Correctional Centre, filming then commenced in January 2020.

2. Yes, It is also common practice for the Department to provide qualified Employee Assistance Practitioners (EAP) to officials. Group awareness and therapy programmes are regularly presented to correctional officials. Individual consultations are also arranged for officials who are either referred to the EAP for debriefing or through voluntary personal requests. In the event that further assistance and intervention is required, the cases are referred to external practitioners.

END.

Reply:

1. No, the Department of Correctional Services has not yet embarked on the 2021/22 Learnership Programme. The enrolment will be determined by the human resource needs and the availability of funds. The absorption of learners who have completed their learnership is not a determining factor for the enrolment of the next group of learners on the programme. The aim of the programme is to provide training and skills development opportunities to the youth preparing them for the labour market.

(1)(a) None

(1)(b) Not applicable

2. No, the learnership programme is a 12 month development programme and not an employment contract, in the case of group 1 of 2019/20 the contract was extended as the programme was suspended for two months during the lockdown levels 5 and 4. The programme came to an end on 31 December 2020.

3. Yes, their contract appointment on the PERSAL system is created in such a way that, when the contract end date is reached, the learner is automatically removed from the PERSAL system enabling them to pursue alternative employment.

END

Reply:

1. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) has never concluded any agreement with the Republic of Cuba or any entity in Cuba for work exchange and/or employment during the period from the 2010-11 financial year up to the 2020-21 financial year.

The DoJ&CD is currently negotiating an Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance agreements with Cuba. These agreements have not yet entered into force and are not linked to any work exchange programme and/or employment between the two countries.

The position is that the DoJ&CD does not currently have any plans to conclude work exchange programme and/or employment with any entity of the Republic of Cuba.

Neither the Department of Correctional Services concluded any work exchange or employment agreements with any entity of the Republic of Cuba since 2010/11 financial year up to 2020/ 21 financial year.

(a) Not applicable

(i) Not applicable

(ii) Not applicable

(b) Not applicable

(c) Not applicable

(d) Not applicable

2. Not applicable

(a) Not applicable

(b) Not applicable

END.

Reply:

Yes, every regulation issued in terms of section 134 of the Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998 as amended was referred to the relevant parliamentary committees as required by section 134(5). The 2004 regulations (promulgated in government gazette 26626 dated 30 July 2004) and 2012 regulations (promulgated in government gazette (35277 dated 25 April 2012) are the only regulations issued and there have been no amendments since 2012.

(a) Not applicable.

(b) Not applicable.

END.

Reply:

No, the Department has not referred any regulations as none have been drafted nor published since 30 May 2019 to date.

END

Reply:

Out of the 19 000 estimated Low Risk Sentenced offenders who have or will reach their minimum detention periods within a period of sixty (60) months from 27 April 2020, a total of 13 765 (12 980 males and 785 females) have been placed in the system of Community Corrections to continue serving their sentences were released as at the 19 February 2021, in managing overcrowding and mitigating the spread of COVID-19 virus in Correctional Centres. Other offenders who were initially eligible for the dispensation were discovered to have further charges and as such they no longer qualify. This process is still continuing as some of those who qualify are required to attend rehabilitation programmes.

END

Reply:

1. The Department is not aware of officials who have been accused of acting with impunity in their maltreatment of inmates at Mangaung as well at Leeuwkop Correctional Centres. The offenders at Mangaung have access to JICS officials or platform to raise complaints and requests, including cases of assaults by officials. Departmental officials are employed to manage compliance with the Contract between Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and G4S Company.

The allegations in respect to Leeuwkop Maximum, this may have arisen from an incident where the DCS National Task Team conducted a search operation on 01 December 2020. All complaints emanating from this search operation were handled by the Head of Centre and the Independent Correctional Centre Visitor (ICCV) in line with the Complaints and Request Procedure of the DCS. The affected offenders were referred for medical examination and the South African Police Service (SAPS) were called for those who chose to lay criminal charges. The matter was also investigated by JICS.

(2) Yes, the Department has been in communication with the Department of Health and offenders are prioritised under phase 02 as Communicated by the President.

The following are other activities regarding vaccination rollout in Correctional Facilities:

• Training of DCS nurses that commenced from the 15 - 27 Jan 2021 by the National Department of Health was conducted;
• Vaccination fridges for the storage of vaccines and carriers for vaccine from the Pharmacy to the vaccine site are in the process of being procured.
• A list of consumable items was finalised and the pharmacy is in the process of procuring items that are not in stock; and
• Emergency medical services are available for management of emergency response.

END

Reply:

(a) and (b) Yes, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD), Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) as well as the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), Special Investigating Unit (SIU) and Legal Aid South Africa make use of private security firms.  The tables below provide details of the security firms per Department and entity reporting to me:

 

1. Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, OCJ and NPA:

MARCH 2021 TO DATE
(i) Name of Security Firms	(ii) Purpose	(iii) Contract value	Duration of specific contract
			Start date	End date
1. Mabotwane Security Services	Security guarding and special services in various offices (DoJ&CD, NPA, OCJ) Gauteng and Western Cape provinces	R118 477 375.20 (Gauteng) R86 775 743.04 (Western Cape)	01 March 2021	28 February 2022
2. Fidelity Security Services	Security guarding and special services in various offices (DoJ&CD, NPA, OCJ) Kwa-Zulu Natal and Eastern Cape provinces	R125 937 824.81 (Kwa-Zulu Natal) R140 116 955.68 (Eastern Cape)	01 March 2021	28 February 2022
3. PhepheMV	Security guarding and special services in various offices (DoJ&CD, NPA, OCJ) Limpopo and North West	R51 288 890.20 (Limpopo) R31 100 672.02 (North West)	01 March 2021	28 February 2022
4. Vhugi Protection Services	Security guarding and special services in various offices (DoJ&CD, NPA, OCJ)  Mpumalanga province and National Offices	R55 987 986.64 (Mpumalanga) R21 757 528.15 (National Offices)	10 March 2021 10 March 2021	28 February 2022 28 February 2022
5. Zacks Business Enterprise	Security guarding and special services in various offices (DoJ&CD, NPA, OCJ) Free State and Northern Cape provinces	R42 028 800.00 (Northern Cape) R76 114 608.48 (Free State)	10 March 2021 11 March 2021	28 February 2022 28 February 2022

 

2. Legal Aid South Africa

Legal Aid SA has 118 contracts relating to security services with private security services providers for 118 of 129 of its offices. Security services of the remaining 11 offices are provided by respective landlords. The offices are made up of 64 local offices, 64 satellite offices and National office. The majority (115) of contracts are for alarm monitoring and armed responses and three (3) are for physical guarding of fixed properties and immovables at the National office and two (2) of its local offices. The total value of the contracts is R5 898 807, 38 with the average durations of 36 months. The table below provides a summary of the security contracts.

Profile of Legal Aid SA security contracts profile
Region	Physical		Alarm monitoring		Total			Average duration of the contract
	Number of contracts	Total value of the contracts (Rands)	Number of contracts	Total value of the contracts (Rands)	Number of contracts	Total value of the contracts (Rands)
National Office	1	3 737 009,50	0	-	1	3 737 009,50		36 months
KZN	0	-	21	295 898,99	21	295 898,99		36 months
Limpopo	0	-	25	454 297,82	25	454 297,82		36 months
WCNC	0	-	21	232 322,38	21	232 322,38		36 months
Gauteng	2	407 870,87	13	249 924,41	15	657 795,28		36 months
EC	0	-	17	256 191,17	17	256 191,17		36 months
FS	0	-	18	265 292,24	18	265 292,24		36 months
Total	3	4 144 880,37	115	1 753 927,01	118	5 898 807,38

 

A detailed spreadsheet with the name of each firm, purpose, value and duration of each contract is attached as Annexure A.

 

3. Special Investigating Unit

 

Region	Description	Appointed Service Provider	Value	Duration
				Start Date	End Date
1. Durban Office	Security Guards Services at SIU Durban Office for a period of 10 Months	Stallion Security (Pty) Ltd	R396,858.53	1 June 2020	30 May 2021
2. Nelspruit Office	Security guard Services for Nelspruit Office for a period of 12 months	Fidelity Security Group (Pty)Ltd	R342,233.40	1 August 2020	31 Jul 2021
3. Bloemfontein Office	Appointment of security guard services for Bloemfontein office and for a period of 10 months	Fidelity Security Group (Pty)Ltd	R287,500.00	3 August 2020	2 May 2021
4. Mahikeng Office	Appointment of service provider to render security guard services for Mahikeng office	Mminatlou Security and Projects	R466,273.08	1 September 2020	31 August 2021
5. Mthatha Office	Appointment of service provider to render security services for Mthatha office	Tyeks Security Services (Pty)Ltd	R408,910.22	8 October 2020	7 October 2021
6. Pretoria Office	Appointment of service provider to render security guard services for Pretoria office for a 12 months period	Lenong Security Services cc	R315,608.16	1 January 2021	31 December 2021
7. Polokwane Office	Appointment of service provider to render security guard services for Polokwane office for a 12 months period	Eager Beaver Projects(Pty)Ltd	R238,146.00	01 November 2020	31 October 2021
8. East London	Provision of Grade C Security Guards (Unarmed) for the SIU East London Office for a period of Ten (10) months.	Xhobani Cleaning and Security Services	R497 927.00	01 February 2021	30 November 2021
9. Bloemfontein Office	Provision of armed close protectors for SIU employee on very high risk investigation, after SAPS security assessment recommendation	Arcangel Group	R277,828.50	29 January 2021	28 April 2021

 

4. Information Regulator

The Information Regulator does not use private security firms. Security services of the work premises are provided by the Landlord.

Reply:

1. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has reported as follows:

a) In the past five financial years, since 2016, a total number of 180 employees requested permission to perform remunerative work outside the public service or normal working hours, in terms of the Directive regulated by the Public Service Regulations of 2016. However, it should be noted that some of these employees applied for an approval more than once as the approval is only valid for a period of a year from the date of approval.

b) The table below provides a summary according to job title or work category for 2016/17 to 2020/21 financial years:

Item No.	Total number of applications received from officials requesting permission to perform work outside normal working hours	(ii) Total number of officials permitted to perform work outside normal working hours
	(i) Job titles or Work Categories	Number of Approved Applications	Number of Disapproved Applications
1.	Accounting Clerks	5	0	5
2.	Administrative Clerks	57	0	57
3.	Administration Heads (level 9)	1	0	1
4.	Administrative Officers	11	0	11
5.	Assistant Directors	14	0	14
6.	Assistant Financial Operations Managers	3	0	3
7.	Assistant Master	2	0	2
8.	Assistant State Attorney	0	1	1
9.	Audit Manager	1	0	1
10.	Chief Accounting Clerk	1	0	1
11.	Chief Administrative Clerks	4	0	4
12.	Court Intermediaries	4	1	4
13.	Court Interpreters	6	0	6
14.	Court Managers	7	2	7
15.	Deputy Directors	12	0	12
16.	Deputy Master	1	0	1
17.	Directors	4	0	4
18.	E-Scheduler Clerk	1	0	1
19.	Family Advocate	1	0	1
20.	Human Resource Practitioner	1	0	1
21.	Internal Auditors	3	0	3
22.	Legal Administration Officers	2	0	2
23.	Maintenance Investigators	2	0	2
24.	Maintenance Officers	2	0	2
25.	Master: Supreme Court	2	0	2
26.	Messenger	1	0	1
27.	Principal Legal Administration Officer	1	0	1
28.	Provisioning Admin Clerks	2	0	2
29.	Registrar	1	0	1
30.	Registry Clerks	2	0	2
31.	Secretaries	2	0	2
32.	Senior Secretaries	2	1	2
33.	Senior Assistant State Attorneys	2	0	2
34.	Senior Communication Officer	1	0	1
35.	Senior Court Interpreters	2	0	2
36.	Senior Human Resource Officer	1	0	1
37.	Senior Legal Admin Officer	1	0	1
38.	Senior Training Officer	1	0	1
39.	Social Workers	2	0	2
40.	State Accountants	3	0	3
41.	State Law Advisors	2	0	2
42.	Vetting Administrator	1	0	1
GRAND TOTAL	174	6	174

2. As indicated in the table above, 174 of the application requests were approved and only six (6) were disapproved.

a) The Department is guided by the Directive on other remunerative work outside the public service issued by the Department of Public Service and Administration, together with the relevant legislation that include Public Service Act and Public Service Regulations. This directive is implementing section 30 of the Public Service Act (Act No. R103 of 1994). The Department may take appropriate disciplinary action in instances where contravention of the policy is established.

b) Applications are considered and approved or disapproved by the Deputy Director-General: Corporate Services in terms of the Departmental Delegations.

c) The Labour Relations Unit in the Department has confirmed that there was no disciplinary processes taken against any employee who contravened with the Directive on performing other remunerative work outside the public service without permission in the past five (5) years. And lastly, the Directive does not require the Head of Department to report to National Treasury on misconduct in relation to performing other remunerative work outside the public service. The Department reports statistical information to the Department of Public Service and Administration and Public Service Commission, as the normal process on reporting in terms of the relevant prescripts – in this instance, disciplinary matters by Director: Employee Relations.

Reply:

1. The proportion of expenditure incurred for black legal counsel is 59% as compared to white legal counsel of 41% since the Commission was instituted in March 2018. The proportion of the expenditure is tabulated below:

Race	Percentage (%)
White	41%
Black	59%
Total	100%

2. The proportion of expenditure incurred in respect of black legal counsel is further broken down into African and other as follows:

Race	Percentage (%)
African	46%
Other	13%
Total	59%

3. The proportion of expenditure for black legal counsel, specifically for Africans is 46%, compared to white legal counsel of 41% since the Commission was instituted in March 2018.

White	African
41%	46%

Reply:

1. The Sexual Offences and Community Affairs (SOCA) Unit of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is currently focusing on the establishment of six (6) Thuthuzela Care Centres (TCCs) sites, instead of five (5). Despite the lockdown regulations that hampered finalisation of the tender process, the process of selecting sites was finalised with stakeholders, and the procurement of park homes (where required) is on schedule. The refurbishment process of the park homes and health facilities was unfortunately also hampered by the lockdown restrictions but is currently on-track. We are working with relevant stakeholders to ensure that these sites become operational by March 2021.

2. TCCs are based at health care facilities so that the TCC services remain accessible to victims. During Alert Level 5 lockdown, everyone was confined due to the Disaster Management Regulations, and the staff was required to work on rotational basis to ensure continued service delivery to victims. The TCCs have been acknowledged as an essential service and to this end, TCCs sites remained open during the period of lockdown.

It is noted that in the first months of lockdown, the number of matters reported decreased, however as the lockdown levels were lifted and public awareness initiatives were implemented by the SOCA Unit during August and September 2020, we specifically noted an increase in the number of matters reported at the TCCs sites during this period. In Quarter 2 of the current financial year, 7 336 matters were reported at TCCs sites, which is a 45.2% increase from Quarter 1 when 5 050 matters were reported.

Various forms of editorial media engagements, including national and local radio and TV stations, webinars, community events and social media platforms are utilised to inform communities regarding related services at the TCCs sites, thus there are no budget implications. The current 55 operational sites are covered in the NPA voted funds.

Reply:

(1) In response to these challenges, the Department has reviewed the Vetting policy to include continuous screening and integrity testing of personnel through the implementation of the Voice Stress Analysis.

The Voice Stress Analysis (VSA) is considered as a professional non-invasive investigation system tool used in various risk management processes for emotion detection, personality and risk assessment and investigations. It is also a security investigation tool utilised to gather information in identifying internal fraud, smuggling activities, stop theft of merchandise (Stores), equipment and company funds.

In addition, the Department has a Gang management strategy in place and is currently reviewing the strategy into a Gang Combating Strategy which will be accompanied by implementation plan to counter strategies and new techniques used by the gangs. Amongst the interventions, there is consultation and collaboration with Law Enforcement Agencies under the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) Cluster.

This effective collaboration has shown success in combating gangsterism in our facilities and has yielded positive results in management areas with high numbers of incarcerated gang members such as the St Albans Management Area.

Our Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are in place which include conducting searches in correctional facilities. Confiscated Contraband such as sim-cards and cellular phones are handed over to Crime Intelligence for further operationalization. Through this collaborative initiatives, numerous officials were arrested for being linked to gangs. We are also in the process of reviewing DCS Security Protocol through the review of B-Order and enhancing such protocol.

Therefore in addressing the challenge at hand, officials are sensitized to comply with Security policies and procedures by ensuring that proper and regular searches of inmates, officials, visitors and services providers are conducted at Access Control points. For any non-compliance, consequence management must be undertaken and criminal cases opened with the SAPS.

The Department is in a process of implementation of Body Scanners in the identified Correctional Facilities within six (6) Management Areas. The aim of the Scanners in question is a threat detection solution which combines ultra-low radiation with maximum visibility, therefore addressing the challenges of smuggling of contrabands i.e. cell phones and drugs among others. It will detect any hidden metals, weapons and drugs in a body of a person. The scanner will be able to search all body cavities without compromising the privacy of individuals and reduce the time taken to manually search inmates, officials and visitors.

Body Scanners have been installed across big facilities, this include:

1. Gauteng: (Kgosi Mampuru II, Local CC and Johannesburg Med A and B);
2. Western Cape: (Pollsmoor Max and access control);
3. Free State: (Groenpunt Max and access control);
4. Eastern Cape: (St. Albans Max and Medium A);
5. KwaZulu-Natal (Durban Med A and B); and
6. Mpumalanga (Barberton Max).

(2) Non adherence to policies and Standard Operating Procedures

(3) The total number of cases of this nature involving the practice recorded in the past 12 months in each province are as follows:

REGION	TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES
EC	17
LMN	9
KZN	14
GP	121
WC	13
FSNC	7
NATIONAL	181

END

The deployment of the use of VSA will aid as a force multiplier and a deterrent to criminal activities and misconduct by officials and would be perpetrators which will ultimately results in the eradication of contrabands in DCS Correctional Centers. It will further more ensure a security competent workforce and the integrity of the Department and State.

END.

Reply:

(1)(a) DCS has not entered into any contracts for the supply and/or operation of electronic monitoring devices in the last three (03) Financial Years.

(b) N/A

(2) (a) N/A

(b) N/A

(3) N/A

END.

Reply:

a) The offender in question qualified for remission of sentence which reduced his sentence with 01 year. He then became eligible to be considered for parole as part of the Special Parole Dispensation and his placement on parole was approved by the parole board;

b) The parole conditions such as reporting twice a week at Community Corrections Office are applicable to all. We will continue to monitor his parole conditions accordingly.

It should also be noted that the offender in question is currently under Witness Protection. We are limited by regulations to disclose information on this matter. However, we have been briefed by the Department on this matter and details will be communicated as other cases are enrolled with the justice system.

c) According to Section 299A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 as amended (“the CPA”) provides for the right of complainant to make representations with regard to placement on parole, on day parole, or under correctional supervision in the following cases:

1. When a court sentences a person to imprisonment for-

(a) murder or any other offence which involves the intentional killing of a person;

(b) rape or compelled rape as contemplated in sections 3 or 4 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007, respectively;

(c) robbery where the wielding of a fire-arm or any other dangerous weapon or the infliction of grievous bodily harm or the robbery of a motor vehicle is involved;

(d) sexual assault, compelled sexual assault or compelled self-sexual assault as contemplated in section 5, 6 or 7 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007, respectively;

(e) kidnapping; or

(f) any conspiracy, incitement or attempt to commit any offence contemplated in paragraphs (a) to (e)

Therefore, the offender’s victims were not approached to participate in the Parole Board’s meeting when he was considered for parole placement as the crimes committed by the offender do not fall within the ambit of the section stated above.

END

Reply:

1. The table below provides details on the number of incoming extradition requests are currently pending and/or under review, as well as the details on the number of cases, time it has taken thus far and progress made for each case under review

(1) (a)	53
(b) (i)	Details of cases
	Nature of offence	Number of cases
	Murder	15
	Attempted Murder	3
	Culpable homicide	3
	Assault	3
	Rape / attempted rape	2
	Robbery /armed robbery	6
	Fraud	8
	Drug related offences	4
	Hunting without permit	2
	Money laundering	5
	Corruption	3
	Terrorist activities	1
	Assault	1
	Theft	17
	Housebreaking	1
	Escape from lawful custody	1
	Sexual exploiting/neglect of children	2
	War crimes	1
	Total	74

N.B. Seven (7) countries reported more than one (1) criminal case per extradition request, which explains the total number of 74 cases versus the total number of 53 extradition requests.

(b) (ii)	Cases received from 2012 to 2017	29
	Cases received from 2018 to date	24
	Total	53
(iii)	Progress on cases
	Interpol	5
	Section 5 notifications served/submitted to Minister	15
	Extraditions to be served after sentence	2
	Requests incomplete and returned	9
	Cases before court	7
	Outgoing requests sent but no response received	15
	Total	53

 

2. The total number of extraditions and mutual legal assistance treaties that have been negotiated but not yet signed and/or ratified as at the latest specified date for which information is available and (b) are the details of the progress of the specified treaties and projected timeline of their completion?

(a)	Treaties negotiated but not yet signed	9
(b)	Country	Progress	Projected Timeline
	CUBA (Extradition and MLA)	Await comments from the Cuban authorities	Possible entry into force during the fourth quarter of 2021
	BELARUS (Extradition and MLA)	Presidential Minute for signing issued Belarus to indicate whether they are ready to sign	Possible entry into force during the third quarter of 2021
	VIET NAM (Extradition and MLA)	Minor amendments to be effected on request of Viet Nam	Possible entry into force during the fourth quarter of 2021
	PAKISTAN (Extradition)	Treaty negotiated during 2014	Pakistan yet to confirm that they will provide death penalty undertakings
	ETHIOPIA (Extradition and MLA)	Treaty negotiated during 2015	Ethiopia still to accept South Africa’s proposal regarding terrorism
	UNITED KINGDOM (MLA)	Presidential Minute already issued UK to indicate whether they are ready to sign	Possible entry into force during the third quarter of 2021
	MOZAMBIQUE (Extradition)	Treaty negotiated during 2017 OCSLA (DIRCO) requested certain amendments to comply with Article 19 of the SADC Protocol on Extradition	Possible entry into force during the fourth quarter of 2021
	BRAZIL (MLA)	A new Presidential Minute requested Brazilian Ambassador in Pretoria has been authorized to sign on behalf of the Brazilian Government	Possible entry into force during the third quarter of 2021
	BOTSWANA (Extradition and MLA)	South Africa is ready to sign await Botswana’s approval to sign	During February 2020, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions indicated that they are still waiting for Cabinet to approve that the Amendment Treaty be signed.

END

Reply:

(1) (a) Although there were discussions to revamp the Humansdorp Magistrates Court as early as 2006 there were no formal designs and plans which were finalised at that stage. The initial plans were formally endorsed in 2013 with the submission on the needs assessment to the Department of Public Works (now Department of Public Works and Infrastructure) (DPWI). Following several interactions and consultations with various stakeholders, the revised Needs Assessment was officially signed off by the Accounting Officer on the 19th November 2019 and forwarded to DPWI to conduct a feasibility study and to prepare a detailed estimate for consideration by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. It appears that the project was delayed by challenges encountered by DPWI regarding the consolidation of the ERFs and rezoning of the property, which has now been resolved.

(b) Several meetings and interactions with consultants and various stakeholders were held to consider the revised needs and concept designs in through a Zoom meeting held on 14 July 2020. It was unanimously agreed that the Concept 3 (demolition and rebuild) be adopted and this has since been formalised in writing for official signing off by all stakeholders for approval by National Office before the end of December 2020. This will then result in finalisation of sketch plans for approval and for cost estimates to be determined. Construction will commence immediately after the approval of the sketch plans and it is anticipated that the project will get underway during the second half of the 2021/2022 financial year.

(2) (a) The Project is currently registered for additional accommodation and is currently in stage 4, i.e. planning stage. A decision was taken to adopt a phased approach where the project will be split into two phases to address the urgent security measures and shortage of ablutions at the facility in the first phase as follows:

1. Phase 1: Security measures i.e. installation of a perimeter fence and security gates only, minor repairs to existing ablutions and provision of a temporary ablution park home.
2. Phase 2: Demolition of the existing single storey magistrate office and construction of new court house in accordance to the approved designs. The new designs will also provide adequate undercover parking for court officials.

(b) The fence and gates will be placed within the boundary to avoid having to demolish the low boundary wall and trees on the perimeter will be cut down and removed. A temporary mobile unit accommodating additional ablutions, storage facilities, and consultation offices for prosecutors, will be placed in a position where the court can still operate when construction commences on the second phase.

(3) (a) As part of the current capital works project, the fencing and gates will be addresses as phase one of this project and the other access control measures will be addressed in the second phase of the project.

(b) The department has appointed the services from a departmental appointed security service provider to conduct security functions at the court daily. Recruitment is done by this service provider in line with the Departmental specifications and required security grading who then further receive on the job training by the employer during the induction phase and is monitored in line with the service level agreement on an on-going basis.

(4) Security problems at the court are infrastructural instead of physical in nature and therefore the concerns will be addressed under the registered Capital Works Project but done in Phases. Since the site clearance was issued and submitted to the department on 19 November 2020, the department will start making arrangements to attend to the fence and the ablutions by March 2021.

(5) (a) Based on municipal approval and site clearance, the ablution facilities will require electrical, sewerage and water connections to be fully operational. Chemical toilets cannot be considered as this is not an economically viable solution, sustainable, or hygienically suitable for this type of environment in the absence of running water. Current ablutions are maintained when the need arises through day to day maintenance on an on-going basis, but challenges are often experienced with breakages as a result of vandalism by end users.

(b) The Department is working closely with DPWI to ensure the project phase 2 is under implementation in the next financial year 2021/22.

END

Reply:

(a) What measures have been put in place at each of the correctional facilities administered by his department to:

(i) isolate detainees showing symptoms of being infected with the coronavirus,

On 14 March 2020, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Preparedness, Detection and Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) of the Department of Correctional Services were approved and circulated to all regions for implementation. Since the lockdown, 10 035 Remand Detainees (RDs) have been admitted to Correctional Centres nationally. All RDs are screened for COVID-19 symptoms and those showing symptoms of being infected with the Coronavirus are quarantined from the other detainees for 14 days and monitored on a daily basis. A swab is collected for testing by the NICD; monitored on a daily basis in isolation area whilst awaiting the results.

(ii) isolate detainees who have tested positive for infection with the coronavirus, Detainees who test positive for COVID-19 are categorised by the health care professional as mild, moderate and severe according to the COVID-19 categories. However, the following procedures are implemented:

• Once the positive results are received, the detainees are moved from quarantine to isolation;
• A medical practitioner at the Department of Health designated Hospital will be engaged to determine the need for the detainee to be treated in the department or at the designated hospital;
• Detainees with mild and moderate symptoms will be treated at a designated treating site in the department whereas those with severe symptoms will be admitted at the Provincial Designated Hospital;
• The isolated detainees are monitored and treated symptomatically by the health care professionals;
• The Department will inform the relevant Health District and the Provincial Communicable Disease Control Directorate for support in conducting contact tracing;
• The notification of the COVID-19 positive case will be as per Department of Health and the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) prescripts;
• The Department of Health links the relevant Health District office to the centre for further monitoring.
• Remand detainees with co-morbidities, (i.e above 60, diabetics, HIV positives, TB patients, Asthmatics, cancer patient, pregnant females), are identified and are classified as per risk factors and monitoring is intensified.
• Isolated/Quarantine inmates are retested for COVID-19 before exiting out of quarantine.
• Psychological, Spiritual services care are provided to Confirmed inmates.

(iii) Identify and isolate contacts of detainees or staff members who tested positive for the coronavirus,

• The detainees who test positive are interviewed by health care professionals to identify the possible contacts;
• The staff utilises admission registers into the cell where the positive inmate was accommodated to identify possible contacts of the detainee;
• Those detainees who shared the same cell with the positive case are identified as possible contacts;
• The contacts are quarantine and monitored for symptoms of COVID-19 for 14 days; and
• Should the contacts present with symptoms they will also be tested for COVID-19 as per DoH guidelines.

Regarding the officials the following processes are followed:

• All officials with COVID-19 signs and symptoms are identified and referred for testing;
• Presumptive cases are reported and partner Departments are contacted (SAPS, DOH, NICD etc);
• Self-isolation/quarantine forms are acknowledged and signed off by officials who are requested to isolate/quarantine;
• All Confirmed COVID-19 cases of officials and presumptive persons under investigation are self-quarantined (either home or State provided facility);
• Psychological services are provided to confirmed cases; and
• Reintegration is done upon re-test and negative confirmation.

(iv) assist members of the prison population to practice regular hand-washing and other hygiene practices recommended by the World Health Organisation

The Department is dealing with this pandemic by implementing a disaster management plan that is embedded in national government’s adopted approach of ‘prevention, containment/treatment and disaster recovery’. The Department’s Disaster Management Response Plan is designed to prevent, contain, disrupt and mitigate COVID-19 from spreading in the department’s facilities and administrative offices.

Health care professionals disseminate hand hygiene and infection control information through awareness sessions and conduct hand washing campaigns. Each inmate is provided with soap for hand washing purposes; installation of secured hand washing soap and sanitizers is done in most centres. Educational posters on hand wash are placed on all notice boards in all Correctional Facilities.

Security equipment including vehicles are being sanitised and cleaned with the necessary detergents daily before and after utilisation by Correctional Centres and Community Corrections. Scrub down of facilities continues on a daily basis to ensure that areas are scrubbed down at least once a week. Officials have been assigned to sanitise hands of officials, inmates and visitors at all entry points and exit points in Correctional Facilities. Cleaning and enforcement of sanitisation are maintained at the Correctional Centres and Community Corrections especially at the reception, admission areas and living cells.

(v) encourage social distancing

Social distancing is encouraged in all Correctional Facilities and work places by introducing below mentioned measures as a form of promoting social distancing:

• Reduce the number of offenders appearing before the CSPB for placement consideration and CMC. During these sittings social distancing must be adhered to;
• Reduce number of offenders attending group programmes;
• Reduce the number of representatives attending meeting/sessions/training/VC meetings including decreasing meeting times;
• Decreased travelling to and from or within the Management Areas;
• Reduce the movement within management areas between correctional centres;
• Encourage electronic submission of documents where facilities are available;
• Promote increased exercise for offenders in manageable groups;
• Members record on duty at the entrance gate to prevent congestion;
• Minimise congestion in the admissions areas by calling new admission one by one to admission table; and
• Reduced number of inmates in library.

Social distancing for offenders in their cells is a challenge given the limited floor space for each offender in a cell and is further exacerbated by overcrowding ,hence offenders are encouraged to implement good hand hygiene practices.

(vi) test for infection

Naso-pharyngeal or Oro-pharyngeal swabs are collected by health professionals and sent to laboratory.

(b) in each case (i) what are the full relevant details and

In each case the Naso-pharyngeal or Oro-pharyngeal swabs are collected by health professionals and sent to laboratory and the results will determine further management of the detainee per stipulations.

(ii) from what date were the specified measures implemented;

Approved 2020 DCS Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Preparedness, Detection and Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) of the Department of Correctional Services.

(2) what number of (a) employees at the Department of Correctional Services and (b) detainees under the supervision of his department have been tested for the coronavirus to date?

(a) As at 26 April 2020, there are 536 officials who have been refereed to health care services for testing. It is important to highlight that most employees possess medical aids which they utilize for coronavirus testing. (b) To date there are 2 611 inmates that have been tested for coronavirus under the supervision of the Department of Correctional Services.

END

Reply:

1. Yes, the DCS centres have been affected by water shortages.

1.1 The following are the centres under OR Tambo District Municipality

• Lusikisiki;
• Flagstaff;
• Mqanduli; and
• Ngqeleni.

The major challenge is the capacity of water treatment plants that cannot cope with the demand. However, the Department has bought water tankers for those centres to augment when there is no municipal supply.

1.2 In addition, the following centres under Chris Hani District Municipality:

• Sada;
• Queenstown;
• Dordrect;
• Cofimvamba;
• Lady Frere;
• Engcobo; and
• Middelburg

The biggest challenge in this District is the high demand versus the capacity of the plant and ageing municipal infrastructure.

1.3 Furthermore, the following are the centres under Amathole District Municipality

• Idutywa
• Butterworth
• Middledrift

The biggest challenge is drought (drying up of dams which causes silting). DCS has also bought water tankers for those centres to augment when there is no municipal supply.

1.4 The following are centres under Nelson Mandela Metro:

• St Albans Medium A;
• St Albans Medium B; and
• St Albans Maximum;

The main challenges are lack of rainfall and this started beginning of this year. DCS is procuring Jojo tanks and 3 water tankers and is in talks with the municipality for alternative ways of supply.

(2)

(a) The immediate intervention undertaken by the Department is procurement of storage tanks and water tankers for various areas;

(b) Medium to long term plans are to survey ground water availability in order to drill boreholes. The process of surveying has started at St Albans.

Municipalities, as water services authorities, need to upgrade their water treatment plants to be in line with the population demand and maintenance of plants thereof.

(3) 

(a) Discipline

Offenders were addressed regarding the problem of water in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan (NMBM), and how this problem will affect the normal running of the activities in the Correctional centre. They were also alerted of attempts that were being made to mitigate the risk of no water. The briefing made offenders not to revolt or be aggressive as they see that even though there is no running water is provided for drinking and bathing.

(b) Operations

Water shortages in centres compromises security and the entire operations of a centre due to the following reasons:

• No steam to prepare food for offenders;
• No hot water generation for bathing;
• The hygiene of offenders is severely compromised. The security of the centres is also at risk.

END

Reply:

a) As on Friday, 23 October 2020, the current national overcrowding level in correctional centres stood at 15.17% over the approved accommodation. (Table 1)

The current status of overcrowding over the past 12 months is reflected in Table 2.

Table: 1

INMATE POPULATION - 23 OCTOBER 2020
Region	Accommodation	Unsentenced	Sentenced	Grand Total	Population level %	Overcrowding Level %
		Females	Males	Sub total	Females	Males	Sub total
EC	12846	89	5766	5855	156	12698	12854	18709	145.64%	45.64
GP	25204	425	13713	14138	530	19199	19729	33867	134.37%	34.37
KZN	21278	106	5910	6016	102	15763	15865	21881	102.83%	2.83
LMN	18929	71	5426	5497	269	15434	15703	21200	112.00%	12.00
FSNC	21585	78	4723	4801	227	13776	14003	18804	87.12%	12.88
WC	20725	403	10586	10989	391	13018	13409	24398	117.72%	17.72
National	120567	1172	46124	47296	1675	89888	91563	138859	115.17%	15.17

Table: 2 overcrowding status over the past 12 months per region

Region	Oct 2019	Nov 2019	Dec 2019	Jan 2020	Feb 2020	Mar 2020	Apr 2020	May 2020	Jun 2020	Jul 2020	Aug 2020	Sep 2020
EC	59.66%	59.42%	60.03	55.39%	53.81%	54.65%	54.94%	28.96	45.73%	46.23%	43.83%	45.64%
GP	52.06%	52.56%	52.72	47.63%	47.53%	45.56%	52.20%	48.88	44.84%	37.21%	35.46%	35.33%
KZN	33.64%	33.52%	34.63	31.32%	25.04%	23.86%	26.14%	22.67	16.05%	4.17%	2.69%	3.44%
LMN	44.27%	45.96%	46.70	41.09%	39.36%	38.56%	39.29%	33.84	27.60%	14.85%	11.13%	12.01%
FSNC	2.21%	3.56%	6.32	0.54%	0.18%	12.32%	0.38%	98.31	8.24%	11.86%	14.04%	13.70%
WC	42.29%	41.24%	36.81	31.07%	30.16%	29.17%	29.16%	26.07	19.51%	14.55%	16.13%	16.93%
National	37.83%	38.03%	38.17	33.27%	31.45%	30.25%	32.66%	28.96	23.35%	16.15%	14.56%	15.20%

1. The breakdown of the overcrowding level in each month and in each region over the past 12 months in (End of month: October 2019 to September 2020) is provided from (Table 3 to Table14):

Table: 3

INMATE POPULATION - 31 OCTOBER 2019
Region	Accommodation	Unsentenced	Sentenced	Grand Total	Population level %	Overcrowding Level %
		Females	Males	Sub total	Females	Males	Sub total
EC	13294	83	5522	5605	290	15330	15620	21225	159.66%	59.66%
GP	24877	497	11958	12455	839	24535	25374	37829	152.06%	52.06%
KZN	20281	155	6185	6340	495	20269	20764	27104	133.64%	33.64%
LMN	17799	99	6169	6268	477	18934	19411	25679	144.27%	44.27%
FSNC	21542	76	4840	4916	393	16710	17103	22019	102.21%	2.21%
WC	20779	472	10547	11019	696	17851	18547	29566	142.29%	42.29%
National	118572	1382	45221	46603	3190	113629	116819	163422	137.83%	37.83%

Table: 4

INMATE POPULATION - 30 NOVEMBER 2019
Region	Accommodation	Unsentenced	Sentenced	Grand Total	Population level %	Overcrowding Level %
		Females	Males	Sub total	Females	Males	Sub total
EC	13294	92	5553	5645	290	15258	15548	21193	159.42%	59.42%
GP	24877	507	12185	12692	842	24419	25261	37953	152.56%	52.56%
KZN	20281	164	6163	6327	19745	1007	20752	27079	133.52%	33.52%
LMN	17799	102	6453	6555	442	18982	19424	25979	145.96%	45.96%
FSNC	21542	82	4908	4990	402	16916	17318	22308	103.56%	3.56%
WC	20779	452	10391	10843	668	17645	18313	29156	141.24%	41.24%
National	118572	1399	45653	47052	22389	94227	116616	163668	138.03%	38.03%

Table: 5

INMATE POPULATION - 31 DECEMBER 2019
Region	Accommodation	Unsentenced	Sentenced	Grand Total	Population level %	Overcrowding Level %
		Females	Males	Sub total	Females	Males	Sub total
EC	13294	103	6273	6376	251	14648	14899	21275	160.03	60.03
GP	24877	497	12922	13419	744	23830	24574	37993	152.72	52.72
KZN	20281	172	6822	6994	423	19887	20310	27304	134.63	34.63
LMN	17799	124	7434	7558	390	18163	18553	26111	146.70	46.70
FSNC	21542	114	5764	5878	385	16640	17025	22903	106.32	6.32
WC	20779	460	11141	11601	556	16084	16640	28241	136.81	36.81
National	118572	1470	50356	51826	2749	109252	112001	163827	138.17	38.17

Table: 6

INMATE POPULATION - 31 JANUARY 2020
Region	Accommodation	Unsentenced	Sentenced	Grand Total	Population level %	Overcrowding Level %
		Females	Males	Sub total	Females	Males	Sub total
EC	13294	105	6224	6329	236	14092	14328	20657	155.39%	55.39%
GP	24877	522	13514	14036	677	22013	22690	36726	147.63%	47.63%
KZN	20281	170	7066	7236	418	18978	19396	26632	131.32%	31.32%
LMN	17799	125	7157	7282	417	17413	17830	25112	141.09%	41.09%
FSNC	21542	98	5453	5551	343	15764	16107	21658	100.54%	0.54%
WC	20779	515	11772	12287	467	14482	14949	27236	131.07%	31.07%
National	118572	1535	51186	52721	2558	102742	105300	158021	133.27%	33.27%

Table: 7

INMATE POPULATION - 29 FEBRUARY 2020
Region	Accommodation	Unsentenced	Sentenced	Grand Total	Population level %	Overcrowding Level %
		Females	Males	Sub total	Females	Males	Sub total
EC	13294	116	6106	6222	238	13987	14225	20447	153.81%	53.81%
GP	24877	521	13666	14187	677	21837	22514	36701	147.53%	47.53%
KZN	20281	163	6889	7052	402	17905	18307	25359	125.04%	25.04%
LMN	17799	116	6939	7055	386	17363	17749	24804	139.36%	39.36%
FSNC	21542	94	5420	5514	343	15647	15990	21504	99.82%	0.18%
WC	20779	519	11545	12064	496	14485	14981	27045	130.16%	30.16%
National	118572	1529	50565	52094	2542	101224	103766	155860	131.45%	31.45%

Table: 8

INMATE POPULATION - 31 MARCH 2020
Region	Accommodation	Unsentenced	Sentenced	Grand Total	Population level %	Overcrowding Level %
		Females	Males	Sub total	Females	Males	Sub total
EC	13294	119	6221	6340	238	13981	14219	20559	154.65%	54.65%
GP	24877	477	13662	14139	661	21412	22073	36212	145.56%	45.56%
KZN	20281	157	6784	6941	400	17779	18179	25120	123.86%	23.86%
LMN	17799	121	6879	7000	374	17289	17663	24663	138.56%	38.56%
FSNC	21542	91	5221	5312	349	15382	15731	21043	97.68%	12.32%
WC	20779	470	11394	11864	512	14464	14976	26840	129.17%	29.17%
National	118572	1435	50161	51596	2534	100307	102841	154437	130.25%	30.25%

Table: 9

INMATE POPULATION - 30 APRIL 2020
Region	Accommodation	Unsentenced	Sentenced	Grand Total	Population level %	Overcrowding Level %
		Females	Males	Sub total	Females	Males	Sub total
EC	13294	130	6596	6726	219	13653	13872	20598	154.94%	54.94%
GP	24877	580	15762	16342	645	20877	21522	37864	152.20%	52.20%
KZN	20281	187	7745	7932	378	17273	17651	25583	126.14%	26.14%
LMN	17799	138	7380	7518	354	16921	17275	24793	139.29%	39.29%
FSNC	21542	99	6006	6105	351	15167	15518	21623	100.38%	0.38%
WC	20779	479	11973	12452	445	13942	14387	26839	129.16%	29.16%
National	118572	1613	55462	57075	2392	97833	100225	157300	132.66%	32.66%

Table: 10

INMATE POPULATION - 31 MAY 2020
Region	Accommodation	Unsentenced	Sentenced	Grand Total	Population level %	Overcrowding Level %
		Females	Males	Sub total	Females	Males	Sub total
EC	13294	117	6296	6413	195	13362	13557	19970	128.96	28.96
GP	24877	541	15296	15837	627	20572	21199	37036	148.88	48.88
KZN	20281	176	7723	7899	303	16676	16979	24878	122.67	22.67
LMN	17799	107	6913	7020	323	16479	16802	23822	133.84	33.84
FSNC	21542	85	5524	5609	357	15213	15570	21179	98.31	98.31
WC	20779	411	11671	12082	386	13556	13942	26024	126.07	26.07
National	118572	1437	53423	54860	2191	95858	98049	152909	128.96	28.96

Table: 11

INMATE POPULATION - 30 JUNE 2020
Region	Accommodation	Unsentenced	Sentenced	Grand Total	Population level %	Overcrowding Level %
		Females	Males	Sub total	Females	Males	Sub total
EC	13294	108	6147	6255	183	12935	13118	19373	145.73%	45.73%
GP	24877	509	15017	15526	567	19939	20506	36032	144.84%	44.84%
KZN	20281	136	7017	7153	277	16107	16384	23537	116.05%	16.05%
LMN	17799	96	6274	6370	300	16042	16342	22712	127.60%	27.60%
FSNC	21542	74	4757	4831	267	14668	14935	19766	91.76%	8.24%
WC	20779	396	11494	11890	328	12615	12943	24833	119.51%	19.51%
National	118572	1319	50706	52025	1922	92306	94228	146253	123.35%	23.35%

Table: 12

INMATE POPULATION - 31 JULY 2020
Region	Accommodation	Unsentenced	Sentenced	Grand Total	Population level %	Overcrowding Level %
		Females	Males	Sub total	Females	Males	Sub total
EC	12846	103	6073	6176	163	12446	12609	18785	146.23%	46.23%
GP	25204	460	14380	14840	540	19202	19742	34582	137.21%	37.21%
KZN	21278	134	6424	6558	275	15332	15607	22165	104.17%	4.17%
LMN	18929	70	5848	5918	284	15538	15822	21740	114.85%	14.85%
FSNC	21585	131	4599	4730	217	14078	14295	19025	88.14%	11.86%
WC	20725	354	10953	11307	296	12138	12434	23741	114.55%	14.55%
National	120567	1252	48277	49529	1775	88734	90509	140038	116.15%	16.15%

Table: 13

INMATE POPULATION - 30 AUGUST 2020
Region	Accommodation	Unsentenced	Sentenced	Grand Total	Population level %	Overcrowding Level %
		Females	Males	Sub total	Females	Males	Sub total
EC	12846	96	5823	5919	148	12409	12557	18476	143.83%	43.83%
GP	25204	421	14146	14567	535	19039	19574	34141	135.46%	35.46%
KZN	21278	129	6253	6382	281	15188	15469	21851	102.69%	2.69%
LMN	18929	67	5408	5475	259	15301	15560	21035	111.13%	11.13%
FSNC	21585	79	4592	4671	196	13688	13884	18555	85.96%	14.04%
WC	20725	372	11038	11410	273	12385	12658	24068	116.13%	16.13%
National	120567	1164	47260	48424	1692	88010	89702	138126	114.56%	14.56%

Table: 14

INMATE POPULATION - 30 SEPTEMBER 2020
Region	Accommodation	Unsentenced	Sentenced	Grand Total	Population level %	Overcrowding Level %
		Females	Males	Sub total	Females	Males	Sub total
EC	12846	92	5901	5993	158	12558	12716	18709	145.64%	45.64%
GP	25204	422	14058	14480	523	19105	19628	34108	135.33%	35.33%
KZN	21278	107	6293	6400	295	15314	15609	22009	103.44%	3.44%
LMN	18929	70	5622	5692	269	15242	15511	21203	112.01%	12.01%
FSNC	21585	72	4736	4808	213	13606	13819	18627	86.30%	13.70%
WC	20725	373	10819	11192	352	12690	13042	24234	116.93%	16.93%
National	120567	1136	47429	48565	1810	88515	90325	138890	115.20%	15.20%

END.