ATC12102: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services on the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services performance during the 2011/12 financial year, and the first quarter of the 2012/13 financial year dated 23 October 2012

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services on the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services performance during the 2011/12 financial year, and the first quarter of the 2012/13 financial year dated 23 October 2012

The Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, having considered the 2011/12 Annual Report , and 1 April - 30 June 2012 performance of the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services, reports as follows :

INTRODUCTION

1. The Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services’ (JICS) 2011/12 Annual Report was tabled and referred to the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services (the Committee) on 28 September 2012.

2. The Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act (Act 5 of 2009), provides for, amongst others, a parliamentary procedure to amend Money Bills, thus granting parliamentary committees greater opportunity to influence the allocation of funds to the departments they oversee. Section 5 of the Act compels the National Assembly, through its Committees, to annually submit budgetary review and recommendation (BRR) reports on the financial performance of departments accountable to them. Though the Act is silent on oversight over entities, the Committee believes that, although the JICS does not receive its allocation directly from National Treasury, but instead, and in line with the legislative provisions referred to below, from the Department of Correctional Services (DCS), the JICS’ performance too should be considered quarterly, to culminate in a final assessment during the BRR process in October each year. The Committee appreciates that in response to our March 2012 recommendation, the JICS ’ a nnual r eport was tabled timeously, and that therefore its consideration during the BRR finalisation period was possible .

3. During our consideration of the JICS’ performance for the period under review we considered the annual reports, input received from the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO), and the Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI), as well as quarterly reports submitted since March 2012.

4. Chapter IX of the Correctional Services Act (Act 111 of 1998) provides for the establishment of the JICS. According to section 85(1) the JICS is an independent office, managed by the Inspecting Judge. Section 85(2) provides that the JICS should facilitate inspections of correctional centres in order for the Inspecting Judge to report on the treatment of inmates, as well as on conditions of incarceration.

5. The JICS’ has as its vision ” to embody independent oversight of correctional centres for the advancement of [the] human rights of all inmates”. It hopes to achieve this through the pursuit of its mission which is to access accurate and reliable information regarding conditions of incarceration and the treatment of inmates through inspections; monitor mandatory reporting systems; maintain an independent complaints system; good governance practices and transparency in its administration; and promote community involvement in correctional matters.

OBSERVATIONS

1. ADMINISTRATION

The JICS’ activities during the period under review were marked by a number of developments including the appointments of a new inspecting judge, and its first chief executive officer (CEO), organisational restructuring, and the submission of its first quarterly reports to the Committee.

1.1 Management

1.1.1 Judge Vuka Tshabalala took office on 1 November 2011, six months into the year under review, and endorses the organisational restructuring and expansion first introduced by his predecessor, Judge Deon van Zyl . In the six months after his appointment the new inspecting judge undertook a number of inaugural correctional centre-visits, met with the relevant DCS senior managers, and focussed on the relocation of the Office of the Inspecting Judge to Durban , in Kwazulu Natal.

1.1.2 In terms of section 88A of the Correctional Services Act (CSA) the Inspecting Judge must identify a suitably experienced and qualified person to serve as CEO appointed by the National Commissioner. Mr Adam Carelse was duly appointed in March 2012. Since his appointment the CEO has focussed on, amongst others, refining the JICS’ strategic direction, and establishing three additional regional offices in George, Bloemfontein and Durban . In addition to accompanying the Inspecting Judge on his inaugural visits, the CEO undertook 11 correctional centre visits .

1.1.3 The JICS’ policy and research unit is seated in the Office of the CEO to ensure the effective monitoring and evaluation of internal reporting, to centralise reporting systems, and to provide research support to the Office of the Inspecting Judge.

1.1.4 The period under review also saw the JICS for the first time reporting to the Committee on a quarterly basis. At the time of reporting three quarterly reports, spanning the period from 1 October 2011 to 30 June 2012, had already been subject to such interrogation.

1.1.5 Following a June 2011 strategic planning workshop, the JICS embarked on a process of organisational restructuring which, as stated above, is endorsed by the new Inspecting Judge. The restructuring is aimed at enhancing the JICS’ efficiency and effectiveness, and comprised four phases: developing a proposed structure (Phase 1), and accompanying job descriptions (Phase 2), a process of job evaluation (Phase 3), and approval of the structure by the Inspecting Judge and the Minister of Correctional Services (Phase 4). Phases 1 and 2 had been completed by 31 December 2011, and Phase 3 by the end of June 2012. The Inspecting Judge approved the structure, and it was submitted for ministerial approval, via the National Commissioner on 21 August 2012. At the time of reporting the outcome was still unknown. In March 2012 the Committee had welcomed the organisational transformation the restructuring implies, and had registered its concern about the process’ dependence on a recommendation by the DCS. Given the delay, for which the DCS has not provided an explanation, those concerns appear justified. The CEO hopes that the structure would be approved by 31 October 2012, in order for the processes needed for implementation to commence. The JICS pointed out that the uncertainty surrounding the approval made it very difficult for it to plan its activities, and appealed to the Committee for assistance in fast-tracking the process.

1.1.6 The 1 March 2012 to 30 June 2012 period saw much emphasis on the JICS’ restructuring. The JICS expanded its operational capacity through the establishment of three regional offices mentioned above which are intended to make the JICS’ services more accessible to inmates, and to improve the management of the independent correctional centre visitors (ICCV) system. This expansion of the operations will result in the JICS having to almost double its staff compliment, which will necessitate a considerable increase in its budget.

1.2 Human Resource Development

1.2.1 At the end of the 2011/12 financial year the JICS’ personnel had increased by 34%. Its post establishment comprised 44 fixed posts, all of which were funded. The JICS envisaged that the posts of the 15 contract employees will be added to the post establishment should the above-mentioned restructuring be approved.

1.2.2 According to the annual report, the JICS increased its approved ICCV posts from 281 at 31 March 2011, to 304 at the end of the 2011/12 financial year. The report does not indicate how many of these posts had been filled by the end of the financial year.

1.2.3 The JICS confirmed that as in the case of the DCS, it made appointments in line with national and not provincial demographics. At the end of the period under review the JICS’ personnel comprised 79% black, 18% coloured, 2% white and 1% indian officials. In terms of gender equity the JICS fared well – 49% of its officials were women.

1.2.4 The report stated that the JICS prioritised the skills development and training of its officials. Though these activities are reported on in some detail in quarterly reports, little detail about how many of its permanent officials participated in training activities in the 2011/12 financial year was provided in the annual report.

1.2.5 According to the 2011/12 annual report, ICCV-training programmes had been improved to allow for paralegal training, taking place three months after the introductory training attended upon commencement of contracts. In 2011/12 financial year, ten introductory and four paralegal training sessions were convened, with 82 ICCVs attending the introductory training, and 38 attending the paralegal training. The Committee accepts that as the JICS only started providing paralegal training in November 2011, few had completed the training by the end of the financial year. It is however concerned that only 82 ICCVs had completed the introductory training.

1.3 Financial and Supply Chain Management

1.3.1 In terms of section 91 of the CSA , the JICS is dependant on the DCS for the payment of all its expenses. The JICS ’ 2011/12 budget showed an increase of about 19%. Much of the increase was spent on compensation of employees (owing to increased employees), and travel and substance in line with the increase in inspections undertaken. For the 2011/12 financial year the JICS had requested a budget of approximately R23 million, but had received only R19, 3 million. This allocation was adjusted three times during that financial year, with the final allocation totalling R21 291 000. By the end of the financial year, its expenditure came to about R24, 2 million representing an over-expenditure of about R2 ,8 million. In 2012/13 the JICS received a budget of R29 603 000, and by the end of the first quarter it had, in line with its projection, spent R6, 43 million.

1.3.2 The JICS’ staff establishment did not provide internal audit capacity, and therefore it relied on the DCS’ resources in this regard. Certain items, such as traffic fines, and the asset register, were nevertheless audited on a regular basis. The proposed establishment, which at the time of reporting was still subject to approval, provided for such posts. In the interim an agreement has been made that the DCS’ internal audit unit would assist the JICS with its auditing needs .. During the above-mentioned strategic planning session it was agreed that financial and administrative policies, procedures and guidelines would be amended, reviewed and/or created.

1.3.3 Though the renovation of the Inspecting Judge’s temporary offices was finalised by the end of March 2012, the JICS’ challenges as far as the renewal of the lease agreements for its Cape Town and Centurion offices, continue. The leases expired on 31 May 2010 but had at the time of reporting not yet been renewed. According to the JICS the lease agreements, and the National Commissioner-approved procurement instruction for three additional offices in Durban . George and Bloemfontein , were still awaiting finalisation by the Department of Public Works (DPW).

1.3.4 The JICS’ establishment does not provide for information technology posts, and at the time of reporting it was relying on the DCS’ Western Cape and Gauteng , Kwazulu Natal and Free State regional offices for IT support. The proposed new staff establishment allowed for such posts. Throughout all its quarterly reports the JICS have raised serious concern regarding its IT-capacity. The JICS’ server which was installed in 2002 needed replacement and its website has not been upgraded since its installation in 2002. It further requires a domain email distinct from that of the DCS so as to enhance its independence, and importantly a wizard that would enable better mandatory reporting. Though these have been consistently raised, no progress had been made at the time of reporting.

2. COMPLAINTS PROCESSING, MONITORING & INVESTIGATIONS

The JICS’ former legal services unit was overhauled in June 2011, and a new directorate responsible for inspections, investigations, complaints and mandatory reporting, created. This was done in anticipation of the approval of the new organisational structure. According to the report the directorate now comprises legally trained and experienced personnel, who despite their small number, have carried out a “significant amount” of work since its overhaul. It is expected that the directorate would be fully staffed by the end of the 2012/13 financial year .

2.1 Inspections and Investigations

2.1.1 The inspections unit was established in September 2011. Inspections are conducted in accordance with pre-determined guidelines which cover a range of activities related to incarceration e.g. how discipline is maintained, whether good governance principles are practiced, health care provision, and maintenance. Inspections include interviews with heads of correctional centres and inmates, and site visits to corroborate information provided. Inspection reports are submitted to heads of correctional centres, and the remedy of shortcomings identified, is monitored. The JICS aims to inspect each correctional centre at least once every three years.

2.1.2 In the 2011/12 financial year 72 inspections were undertaken. Almost half of the centres visited were overcrowded. Of the centres visited 54% suffered staff shortages, and 42% exhibited significant general maintenance weaknesses. These challenges are exacerbated by overcrowding.

2.1.3 Of major concern is that some of the centres did not comply with legislative requirements regarding the reporting of segregations, and deaths: 11% failed to report segregations, and 6% did not have a register for reporting deaths. Mandatory reports are required in those areas, where inmates’ human rights may easily be violated. The failure to report represents a major breach of the relevant provisions of the CSA, and impacted on the accuracy with which oversight bodies are able to assess the treatment of offenders, and the conditions of incarceration. Where information is unreliable, interventions cannot be made, and violations are likely to continue with no consequences for the perpetrators. The DCS has a responsibility to ensure that every measure is taken to guarantee the safety and security of those in its care.

2.1.4 Inspections revealed that 8% of the centres accommodated mentally ill offenders, who are a vulnerable category, in communal cells. This was unacceptable, particularly given the focus the Committee’s oversight has placed on the protection of vulnerable categories of offenders.

2.1.5 Upon considering the JICS’ 1 September to 31 December 2011, and the 1 January to 31 March 2012 quarterly reports, the Committee noted with extreme concern that the DCS virtually ignored the JICS’ recommendations and findings, and recommended that the relationship be drastically improved to ensure that the JICS’ activities bore fruit. The JICS conducted 23 inspections in the first quarter of the 2012/13 financial year, and in August reported that the DCS’ response to their findings had improved. The Committee would continue to monitor the situation.

2.1.6 Investigations may be conducted on referral by the JICS’ Mandatory Reporting or Complaints units, or occasionally on instruction of the Inspecting Judge or other organs of state. According to the 2011/12 annual report, 11 investigations were conducted at correctional centres in the DCS’ Limpopo/Mpumalanga/North West (2), Gauteng (4), Free State/Northern Cape (2) and Western Cape (2) regions. The investigations were in response to very serious allegations including the rape and torture of offenders by officials, arson and unnatural deaths. In the first quarter of the 2012/13 financial year, six investigations were conducted.

2.1.7 Of major concern is the long delay in the finalisation of investigations into very serious matters. Should investigations eventually reveal that allegations have merit, victims would have been subjected to unnecessary delays, and evidence may have been compromised, which in turn compromises inmates’ access to justice.

2.2 Complaints

2.2.1 The Complaints Unit came into operation in September 2011 and, according to the annual report, assists the JICS in ensuring that the DCS meets its responsibilities with regard to resolving inmates’ complaints and requests. Given the number of complaints submitted directly to the Committee, it is evident that the DCS is not performing as well as it should in this regard, and should the JICS’ task indeed include ensuring that the DCS adheres to the provisions contained under section 21, it is failing in this objective too. This may be owing to the infancy of the new unit, and to the fact that with a staff complement of only four at national level, it is grossly understaffed. At present the unit focuses mostly on allegations of assault.

2.2.2 In the first quarter of the 2012/13 financial year, the JICS received 219 complaints. In its quarterly report for that period the JICS states that recording the external source of a complaint enables it to determine, amongst others, whether “inmates prefer to complain directly to the inspectorate or via another organ of state, etc”.

2.2.3 According to the 2011/12 annual report ICCVs are trained to encourage inmates to follow the DCS’ internal complaints process outlined in Section 21 of the CSA. The DCS should ensure that all heads of correctional centres adhere to the provisions, and that all inmates are made aware of complaints procedure, not only at admission, but for the duration of their incarceration. The JICS’ intention to intensify efforts to merge the unresolved complaints received from ICCVs and those submitted directly to the complaints unit is welcomed as this would provide a clearer indication of what the challenges in respect of the implementation of its complaints processes are. Failure to adequately respond to complaints not only contravened the provisions of the CSA, but also violated inmates’ right to just administrative action .

2.2.4 The annual report reflects that 424 714 complaints were received in the 2011/12 financial year. This represented an 11% increase since 2010/11. The largest number of complaints related to transfers, rehabilitation programmes, communication with families, inhumane treatment, and health care. The largest category of complaints, accounting for almost 25% of the total number of complaints is unacceptably referred to as ‘other’. No detail is provided on what this category constitutes, but the Committee welcomed the JICS’ intention to further categorise complaints.

2.2.5 Reporting on their 2010/11 performance the JICS had registered its concern that the DCS might be applying its transfer-policy irregularly, in a punitive and preventative manner, subverting rehabilitation and reintegration objectives. In 2011/12 the concern remained, although the JICS had not investigated the underlying causes, and continues to investigate transfer-related queries on a case-by-case basis. In its 1 April to 30 June 2012 quarterly report, the JICS indicated that most of the transfer requests received for that period, were requests for information and not actual complaints.

2.2.6 The JICS reported that about 50% of the parole-related complaints they received related to the poor functioning of the case management committees (CMC) who are responsible for ensuring that inmates are prepared to be considered for parole upon reaching the minimum sentence period. Where CMCs do not function properly inmates are not adequately advised on the programmes to be completed in order to qualify for parole consideration. In many instances poor administration results in incomplete files being submitted to correctional supervision and parole boards, resulting in ‘further profile’ rulings i.e. consideration being postponed pending the submission of relevant information, or the completion of the outstanding programmes. The JICS opted not to comment on the impact the delays in the Minister’s consideration of parole applications by those serving life sentences, have had. Upon interrogation, the JICS confirmed that where administrative weaknesses on the part of the DCS have resulted in parole consideration being delayed, inmates were being treated unfairly, and were unjustifiably deprived of their freedom. In 2012/13 the JICS intends to undertake a survey of parole in order to gain a better understanding of what the nature of the challenges are.

2.2.7 The JICS has, as one of its objectives, “to target serious human rights abuses”, and accordingly again treated assaults by officials on inmates as a priority. In the 2011/12 financial year 71 such complaints were recorded. According to the annual report these assaults mainly occurred in response to internal offences committed by inmates, in which force was not necessary. Of major concern was that of the 71 cases recorded, only one had resulted in disciplinary action against those implicated. In most cases it is not possible to take action, because of the delay between the incident and the investigation, and the absence of medical examinations that would ensure that there is a record of the injuries inflicted.

2.3 Mandatory Reports

2.3.1 The CSA compels heads of correctional centres to report any matter that may suggest violations of inmates’ human rights. Accordingly all deaths, segregations and incidents in which mechanical restraints and force are used should be reported. HCCs who neglect to do so are in violation of the law, and should be held to account.

2.3.2 In 2011/12 the JICS received 852 death notifications. All deaths are classified as natural or unnatural. Unnatural deaths are most often the result of accident, homicide or suicide. In 2011/12 47 unnatural deaths were reported, and in 16 cases the DCS could not determine the cause of death because no post-mortems were performed. In the same period, 20 suicides either by hanging, electrocution, overdose or setting fire to cells, were reported. A number of the suicides occurred in single cells or special care units, that apparently were not adequately monitored. It is unclear whether officials are trained to identify early warning signs that inmates may be suicidal.

2.3.3 Twelve homicides were reported in the 2011/12 financial year. In four of these cases the deaths occurred as a result of violence by an official on an offender. In all four cases, officials implicated were subjected to disciplinary action, but no information on whether criminal action was taken, was provided. The JICS confirmed however that of the homicides in which officials were implicated in the 2010/11 financial year, the South African Police Service (SAPS) closed the files in the majority of cases, and in the case of those submitted for prosecution the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) elected not to prosecute.

2.3.4 In 2011/12 804 natural deaths were recorded. Most resulted from tuberculosis, pneumonia and AIDS. The JICS drew a correlation between overcrowding and the incidence of natural deaths: for every 25% increase in the prison population, the rate of natural death increased by 250%. Both tuberculosis , pneumonia and HIV-infections are manageable conditions, but difficult to manage, and more easily transmitted, in overcrowded conditions. The JICS’ 2010/11 concern that many unnatural deaths are misclassified as natural, remained.

2.3.5 The JICS’ comments that the crude death rate in correctional centres is lower than the crude death rate of South Africa as a whole, is noted. The Committee does however feel that given that the correctional centre-environment is a controlled one, where monitoring is meant to be constant, the early detection of disease, psychological or otherwise, should occur, and that therefore the death rate should be far lower than outside of this controlled environment. While the impact of overcrowding and staff shortages is acknowledged, these should be mitigated given the DCS’ mandate to safely and humanely incarcerate.

2.3.6 In 2011/12 the JICS received 8 585 segregation notifications, more than 500 more than in the previous financial year. As in the previous year most of the referrals in terms of Section 30(7) of the CSA were received from the public-private correctional centres. The JICS identified that some correctional centres struggled to differentiate between permissible segregations as allowed by section 30, and separate accommodation of different categories of offenders (section 7). This results in inaccurate reporting. It is essential that all correctional officials fully understand their obligations in terms of the CSA, there are consequences for failure to report. Where they do not understand their obligations, and where there are no consequences for non-reporting, violations are likely to go unnoticed.

2.3.7 In 2011/12 the JICS received 239 reports on the use of mechanical restraints, which represented a substantial increase form the 67 received in 2010/11. Most of the notifications originated from Gauteng . None of these were submitted for appeal in terms of section 31(5) of the CSA. Upon enquiry the JICS found that offenders subjected to mechanical restraints were aware of the right to appeal, but waived it.

2.3.8 The JICS received 50 reports of the use of force in 2011/12, five times more than in the previous financial year. None of the incidents took place in self-defence or in order to the prevention of an escape. The JICS emphasised that because centres were not able to submit notifications electronically, monitoring was inadequate.

3. COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGAMENT

The JICS interacted with communities and stakeholders through their public ICCV nomination process, stakeholder interactions and through community outreach activities.

3.1 Independent Correctional Centre Visitors

3.1.1 ICCVs are independent contractors, and are appointed after a process of public nominations and consultation with community organisations. As indicated earlier, the 2011/12 financial year saw the creation of more ICCV posts. The newly developed Management Regions’ Policy Manual for staff and ICCVs provides clear regulations, rules and procedures to guide functions and duties.

3.1.2 Each ICCV serves 1 000 inmates, and a certain number of hours at their allocated centre. ICCVs ’ performance is audited at least twice a year, and 229 such performance audits were conducted during the 2011/12 period. The audit resulted in 13 contract terminations, all for serious acts of dishonesty: claiming for hours worked, private consultations and interviews which could not be verified, absenteeism from visitor committee meetings, and breaching security through inappropriate relationships with offenders, and smuggling, No indication was provided about whether criminal charges were brought against any of those dismissed, particularly in the instances where the misdemeanours posed a threat to security.

3.2 Visitors Committees

3.2.1 In addition to their community participation-functions the visitors committees are responsible for considering complaints ICCVs are unable to resolve. Where VCs are unable to resolve such complaints they have to be escalated to the Inspecting Judge. The JICS had 28 visitors’ committees in 2011/12.

3.2.2 During the 2011/12 financial year only 20 of the 424 717 matters dealt with by ICCVs were eventually referred to the Inspecting Judge. The Committee assumes that a large number of the matters received, had not been resolved, as the low number of referrals are, for the JICS, indicative of a breakdown in the complaints process, particularly in relation to referrals to VCs. In the first quarter of the 2012/13 financial year 241 complaints were referred to the VC, and of these 49 could not be resolved at their level, and were brought to the Office of the Inspecting Judge for further handling.

3.3 Stakeholder engagement

3.3.1 Forty nine nomination meetings were held in 2011/12, and 1 223 ICCV nominations were received from across the country. In the 1 April to 30 June 2012 period, 589 nominations were received.

3.3.2 Visitors committees play an important role in increasing community involvement and awareness of correctional matters, and according to the annual report the JICS has built strong partnerships with stakeholders such as NICRO, Legal Aid South Africa (LASA) and smaller community-based organisations. In 2011/12 its community outreach activities included the donation of books and participation in Human Rights, and Mandela day activities.

4. NOTEWORTHY DEVELOPMENTS

4.1 Children and Juveniles in correctional centres

4.1.1 During his tenure the Inspecting Judge will focus on children and juveniles in correctional centres. In a joint project with the CSPRI, the JICS will monitor the DCS’ legislative compliance with regard to the detention of young people of up to 21 years of age. The project is aimed at, amongst others, influencing the manner in which the DCS manages juvenile and child offending behaviour and incarceration. Progress will be reported annually.

4.2 Health Survey

4.2.1 The JICS had previously reported that health care-related complaints had increased from 11 227 in 2007 to 39 868 in 2010. The sharp increase between 2007 and 2010 warranted investigation, and a health survey across all 236 active correctional centres were conducted in the 2011/12 financial year. The Annual Report contained preliminary findings, but a more detailed analysis, and the final report is scheduled for publication in 2012/13. In 2011/12 the number of complaints declined to 34 202.

4.2.2 Having considered the preliminary findings the Committee is most concerned about deaths in correctional centres, shortage of medical professionals, delays in the processing of medical parole applications, and the breaches of policy represented by the large percentages of inmates not medically examined upon admission, not receiving immediate health care, and not being informed of their right to health care. These would be discussed in greater detail upon the tabling of the final report on the survey.

4.3 Independence

4.3.1 The Committee had in 2009 identified the JICS’ independence as one of the areas it would focus on during its term. Accordingly, the subject had been broached in most interactions on the JICS’ activities. In our report on the JICS’ 2010/11 annual report the Committee had made specific mention of how the JICS’ operation, finances and the restructuring underway might be negatively affected by the entity’s dependence on resources requested, and approvals sought from the DCS. These concerns remain.

4.3.2 In its exploration of how its independence may be enhanced, the JICS had, as suggested by the Committee, met with the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) which is a similar statutory body. The meetings, and the June 2011 strategic planning workshop revealed a number of policy-related challenges that the JICS feared would arise should it become “organisationally independent”. These included insufficient resources to implement equity, risk management, fraud prevention plans; the need to develop a JICS management information system, the formalisation and implementation of basic terms and conditions of employment policies and procedures, and the establishment of budget and planning committees.

4.3.3 The Committee notes that in the year under review two policies were developed; and that a further two would be developed in the current financial year. The Committee urges the JICS that policy-development should be geared towards maximum independence under the current legislative framework, and new policies should not hamper any future developments that may result in complete independence from the DCS.

5. TECHNICAL ASPECTS

5.1 Details pertaining the ICCV posts, and training and development are reported on under stakeholder involvement. Ideally this information should be reported on under the JICS administration programme in order for readers to, at a glance, have a complete picture of the details of the JICS staff establishment, and other human resource-needs.

5.2 The figures provided in the annual report differ from those provided during the JICS quarterly report briefing on its 1 January to 31 March 2012 performance when it was reported that 278 ICCV posts existed on the establishment, and that 38 of those were vacant. According to the annual report 304 such vacancies existed at the end of the 2011/12 financial year.

5.3 According to the annual report all chairpersons and secretaries of VCs attended the Office Bearers’ training programme. The 1 April to 30 June 2012 quarterly report however mentioned that chairpersons and secretaries for the first time attended such training courses in the first quarter of the 2012/13 financial year.

5.4 The quarterly reports for the period 1 September 2011 to 31 March 2012 reflected 16 investigations, while the Annual Report reflected only 11 for the entire 2011/12 financial year.

5.5 Though the 1 April to 30 June 2012 quarterly report referred to the number of VCs having increased to 48, the Annual Report mentions that by 1 April 2012 there were 50.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee requests that the Minister of Correctional Services (the Minister) ensures that the following recommendations are considered, and where possible, implemented. The Minister should further ensure that responses on their feasibility and/or implementation status reports are submitted within three months of the adoption of this report.

6.1 Administration

6.1.1 The JICS indicated that the proposal for its organisational restructuring emanated from a workshop held in June 2011, and that it was submitted for the Minister of Correctional Services’ consideration and approval in mid-August 2012. Should approval be granted too late in the current financial year, the DCS’ planning will not reflect an appropriate allocation to the JICS in the 2013/14 financial year. Needless to say the uncertainty with regard to whether the restructuring would be approved also impacts on the JICS’ planning . The response to the proposal should be provided as soon as possible, to ensure adequate financial planning, and to ensure that inmates will be able to as soon as possible start benefiting from the changes the restructuring will bring about.

6.1.2 Given that the R2,8 million overspent by the JICS represented a small percentage of the DCS budget, and given the DCS’ under-expenditure over the past three years, it is not clear why the initial amount the JICS had requested was turned down. The JICS having to throughout a financial year continuously request more funds to be able to execute its mandate increases concerns about the its dependence on the DCS. The Committee received no indication in the period under review that the DCS was concerned about the JICS financial management, and that therefore it was reluctant to grant the initial transfer. Given that concerns about its independence mostly related to the fact that without funding from the DCS it is unable to pursue its oversight function, ways in which the JICS’ funding may be made more transparent should be explored.

6.1.3 Although the report mentioned that 12 administration-related policies were subject to consideration in the 2011/12 financial year, it does not provide the detail of the policy developments. The JICS should provide clarity on what the policies contained, and particularly whether these addressed some of the concerns regarding its independence.

6.1.4 The DCS should resolve challenges related to the JICS’ office space as soon as possible. Should the DCS be unable to resolve the matter with the DPW, an alternative solution should be pursued. The almost three-year delay in the renewal of the leases or alternative permanent arrangements being made is unacceptable.

6.1.5 The DCS and JICS should resolve the long-standing IT-related challenges as a matter of urgency. The IT challenges do not only impact on the JICS efficiency, but also on its overall capacity to monitor compliance with provisions pertaining to humane detention. Failure to address this challenge, which impacts directly on the JICS’ operations, may be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to subvert their oversight activities.

6.2 Complaints Processing, Monitoring & Investigations

6.2.1 It is expected that the Legal Services directorate will be fully staffed by the end of the 2012/13 financial year. Given the major importance the units under the directorate play in ensuring humane conditions of incarceration, the JICS should report quarterly on progress made in this regard.

6.2.2 The JICS should determine reasonable timeframes within which all investigations, inspections and complaints must be resolved, and that these should be adhered to. In instances where conduct by the DCS is likely to negatively impact on the meeting of timeframes, the National Commissioner and Minister should be informed.

6.2.3 According to the 2011/12 annual report ICCVs are trained to encourage inmates to follow the DCS’ internal complaints process outlined in Section 21 of the CSA. The Committee recommends that the JICS’ intervention should only be sought, once matters have gone through the DCS’ internal complaints procedures. ICCVs should bring challenges in relation to the DCS’ implementation of the provisions to the attention of the Inspecting Judge for referral to, and address by the National Commissioner. The Committee recommends that the correct procedure should be made clear to all inmates – complaints that are not addressed by the DCS through its complaints procedures should be referred to the JICS for adjudication. Should the legislation governing the functions of the JICS not adequately provide for the above, the necessary amendments should be made.

6.2.4 The JICS has as one of its objectives “to target serious human rights abuses”, and accordingly again treated assaults by officials on inmates as a priority. As not all such cases are investigated by the JICS at present, the Committee recommends that every effort is made to increase the JICS’ capacity so that it may be able to do so in the near future.

6.3 Community Oversight and Stakeholder Involvement

6.3.1 Efforts made to create awareness of the JICS activities are noted. The JICS should, its capacity permitting, extend its awareness-raising campaigns around the appropriate use of its complaints procedures, to all correctional centres. If possible, pamphlets explaining its services should be made available to all visitors to correctional centres.

.

6.4 Children and Juveniles in Correctional Centres

6.4.1 The Committee should receive a detailed briefing on the scope of the above-mentioned project aimed at assessing and improving conditions of incarceration, and at developing and introducing interventions aimed at diverting child and juvenile offenders.

6.5 Health Survey

6.5.1 The Committee should receive a detailed briefing on the findings of the health survey as soon as these have been finalised.

6.6 Independence

6.6.1 In its 2011/12 annual report the JICS again cautioned against it becoming an independent entity ‘overnight’ and undertook to pursue the issue of its independence with the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA). The Committee recalls that in 2010/11 the JICS had also reported that its financial independence would require “drastic changes to the present structure, operation and functioning of the Inspectorate” and therefore should be briefed on whether the concerns raised about its independence then, had been taken into account during the planning of the restructuring currently underway.

6.7 Technical aspects

6.7.1 The discrepancies highlighted above, impact on the Committee’s ability to accurately assess the JICS’ performance, so as to perform our oversight function effectively. The JICS is requested to provide the Committee with clarity on the above-mentioned discrepancies, and to ensure that future reporting is consistent.

Report to be considered.