Correctional Services Amendment Bill: deliberations

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
23 October 2001
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL: DELIBERATIONS

Chairperson: Mr B Fihla

Relevant Documents
Correctional Services Amendment Bill [B8B-2001]

SUMMARY
The Chair briefed the Committee on the reasons that the Justice Portfolio Committee had requested the deletion of Section30(b). Members voted for the deletion of the section as it interferes with the independence of the Judiciary and is therefore unconstitutional

A Justice Portfolio Committee member pointed out the Committee could, however, not vote on the amendment as proposed by the Justice Committee. Instead they had to take two votes firstly to overturn the NCOP recommendations then to delete Section30(b). Members voted unanimously in favour of both proposals.

Members requested the Committee clerk to give them a breakdown of the budget as there were queries on the amounts included in the copy with which they had been provided.

MINUTES
The Chair explained that the purpose of the meeting was to inform members that the Portfolio Committee on Justice had requested the deletion of S30 (b) of the Act. The section, which deals with unsentenced prisoners created problems with regard to the independence of the Judiciary. This emerges from the fact that a magistrate would set a bail amount or makes a finding with regard to bail. The fact that Correctional Services could then instruct the magistrate to release this prisoner is a clear indication that the independence of the judiciary is being interfered with.

The Justice Committee had suggested that the NCOP could intervene to make the amendment as the matter had already moved via the Portfolio Committee. However, there had been a misunderstanding between the Portfolio and the Select Committees. The Select Committee therefore accepted the clause and merely made recommendations.

The Law Advisors have come up with a way in which to short circuit the process (instead of it having to move through the NCOP again).

Discussion
Mr H Smit (NNP) asked what Judge Fagan's view was.

The Chair replied that Mr J De Lange (the Chair of the Justice Portfolio Committee) had contacted him to explain the problem with regard to the amendment. Judge Chaskalson had supported Mr De Lange's view that the section was unconstitutional. The Chair had therefore informed the new Chair of the NCOP that he should make the amendment, but this had not been done because of a misunderstanding.

Mr Smit said that he was not satisfied with this answer. He requested the Chair to get in touch with Judge Fagan to determine his opinion.

Briefing by Justice Portfolio Committee member
Ms F Chohan-Kotu (ANC), a member of the Justice Portfolio Committee explained that the Justice Committee had drafted an amendment. The effect of this amendment would be as follows:
-It substitutes the Head of Prisons with the Ministers of Justice and Correctional Services. The previous clause had been unconstitutional, as the Judiciary made a finding, which the executive could then overturn.
-It restricts the type of awaiting trial prisoners mentioned in the section to those convicted of Schedule 7 offences.
-The application now has to be heard by a judicial officer. It had previously been an executive decision.

Their amendment therefore makes the section more constitutional. She also indicated that Judge Fagan was happy with the amendment.

Discussion
Ms S Seaton (IFP) wanted feedback on the tasks that had been given to the clerk at an earlier meeting.

The Committee clerk replied that he had done everything possible but pointed out that he was not able to accomplish much with regard to the Department. This would have to be done by the Chair. With regard to the workshop, some organisations, such as. the Institute for Security Studies have indicated that they would attend.

Mr D Bloem (ANC) said that the clerk should provide the members with a breakdown of the budget. He referred to the workshop on which R5000 had been spent and said that there had been no such workshop. With regard to the amount, which had been spent on visits, he pointed out that there had been just one visit (which was to Gauteng). Members should be provided with a breakdown to indicate how the figures have been arrived at.

The clerk said that the R5000 had been spent on catering and not on the workshop itself.

Mr Bloem argued that the figures indicated that R3000 had been spent on the catering and an additional R5000 on the workshop itself.

The clerk said that he would provide a breakdown. He had not been able to obtain anything better than the one with which he had provided the Committee.

The Chair stated that the Committee should vote for the amendments introduced by the Justice Committee.

Members voted unanimously in favour of the amendments.

Ms Chohan-Kotu (ANC) pointed out that members of this Committee could not vote on the amendment as proposed by the Justice Committee. Instead they had to take two votes:
-to overturn the NCOP recommendations
-to delete S30(b).
Members voted unanimously in favour of both proposals.

Mr Bloem asked whether there would be a debate with the Justice Committee.

The Chair said that there would not.

Ms Seaton asked when the workshop would be held.

The Chair replied that it would be held on 5 November 2001.