Department of Correctional Services on claims, parole, staffing levels and other outstanding matters

Meeting report

Introduction by Chairperson
The Chairperson noted that oversight by the Portfolio Committee during the preceding 18 months, had led to questions, observations and requests for clarity. For 2010, the current meeting would be the last opportunity to meet in that manner. The Department had to seek solutions, and the Committee would write a report. There had been criticism from members such as Mr Abram, that departmental reports did not follow up on oversight recommendations. The current meeting was a follow-up on burning issues. The Department had been asked at a previous meeting to return, as the Committee had not been satisfied with progress made. The DCS had two weeks and two meetings to support its budget. Concerning the Budget Review, he said that the Committee had promised that it would not accept a budget that did not conform to the Corrections White Paper. He stated emphatically that the Committee would be the first committee to force the hand of the Executive, and repeated that statement. The Department had to be open about its challenges to the Committee. The end object would be to reach an intelligent decision about the budget, and to ensure that the Department was accountable.

Department of Correctional Services response document about outstanding matters
The Department was not asked to present the document on outstanding matters emanating from the first and second quarter (see document). The Portfolio Committee was instructed by the Chairperson to engage with matters dealt with in the document, from the outset. The entire meeting was devoted to discussion.

Discussion
Mr Tom Moyane, National Commissioner, thought it correct to render an apology for what had led to the Department being sent back at a previous meeting to prepare itself better. The dissatisfaction of the Portfolio Committee had been noted and was taken seriously. He had brought a good team to the current meeting and the Department was ready to be guided. If the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had failed the Committee for a long time, he thought it due to the fact that the DCS had relied too much on junior staff, without sufficient attention to issues. There had been a lack of content and quality in the DCS presentations. He had decided that compilation of information would henceforth have to conform to minimum requirements. There had been problems with the way in which reports had been packaged and prepared.

Commissioner Moyane continued that that a problem of coordination had been identified. Not enough respect had been given to the seriousness of issues. Insufficient time had been spent on Committee issues. He conceded that e-mails and fax communiqués were not enough, and that not enough time had been granted for the study of professional documents. He asked for an opportunity to address challenges, and asked for the unreserved support of the Committee. Before the end of the current year, restructuring would take place to make the Department more functional. There would be turnaround strategies. DCS was not an easy organization to run. There were difficult matters of public safety and security. The Committee had done its oversight, and could guide the Department.

Staff debt
Mr J Selfe (DA) asked about analysis of staff debt, and what attempts had been made to recover costs from staff.

Sechaba claim
Mr Selfe referred to the Sechaba claim against the Department, in respect of the award of a contract. The DCS had received a legal opinion not to contest the claim. Yet the National Commissioner had differed. He asked about reasons for that.

Dr Ruben Mbuli, Director of Legal Services, DCS, replied that when claims arose out of staff conduct, the DCS would give a directive to Legal Services. If a staff member had caused litigation, the DCS claimed from him. In Limpopo there had been cases were the DCS had prosecuted and recovered costs. Members had to face the consequences of causing litigation, if they forfeited state cover. Recovery was done via the Office of the State Attorney.

Dr Mbuli continued that he could not refer directly to the Sechaba claim because the matter was sub judice and could not be commented on until a court ruling.

Mr Moyane intervened to remind Dr Mbuli that the question had been why the DCS had decided to defend the claim.

Dr Mbuli responded that the applicant had alleged that the tender board had disqualified him because a document had not been submitted. The DCS thought that it had not erred, because it had not been there. The DCS was also convinced that there had been nothing untoward in the process followed. The judge could decide about the views of witnesses.

Mr Moyane added that when he took up office, he had found the matter on the table. A decision had been agreed upon, and the matter had been referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa). The decision to defend the Sechaba case had preceded him. There had been allegations that he had taken an uninformed decision within two weeks. He asked for the Committee’s support to clear his name on that issue.

Mr Selfe noted that he would accept the National Commissioner’s word on the matter. There had been a legal opinion obtained from eminent advocates, prompting the DCS not to defend. He asked if it was possible to see the legal opinion.

Dr Mbuli replied that a legal team had handled the matter. The DCS was not happy with the legal opinion, as it had been written before staff members had been interviewed. The DCS had insisted on consultation with the legal team, who replied that they were unavailable. He had decided to interview others. He reiterated that the circumstances of the tender had not been untoward.

The Chairperson remarked that the matter had to be put to rest. The Committee operated in the real world. He said that horror stories had been heard about that tender. The National Commissioner had noted that he had inherited the matter. But Dr Mbuli had been the common denominator. If the DCS were found to be in default, the Committee would ask Dr Mbuli to resign. It was a serious matter. The Committee held the view that the DCS legal department was inadequate. There were horror stories, yet Dr Mbuli kept saying that there was no problem. If it turned out that there was indeed a problem, he would make it his duty to get Dr Mbuli to resign.

Ms Jenny Screiner, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Offender Management Services, replied that the decision about the Sechaba claim had been reached under her reign as Acting National Commissioner. There had been careful consideration of the matter, and the decision had been made on the basis that the legal team had not interacted with staff. The responsibility for the decision was taken by the management. The DCS management felt that it had a case.

The Chairperson asked what the mandate of the Legal Services department was.

Ms Schreiner responded that the mandate included provision of legal advice, or the sourcing of legal advice. The mandate was from management, and Legal Services had to advise managers, and implement the process through the State Attorney.

The Chairperson remarked that Legal Services had to be accountable about advice as to whether a case was defendable or not. He reiterated that if the case would be lost, the Committee would take action against Legal Services. The question was whether Legal Services were adding value. In a Department dealing with security, Legal Services had an important duty to perform. The Committee would not be granting budget money to Legal Services if it could not advise properly. The Committee had waited for more than a year for Dr Mbuli to appear before it. The Committee was adamant. If there were costs to the state arising from that matter, the Committee would take action against Legal Services.

Mr Moyane responded that the DCS would be taking the matter forward with the Committee.

Threatening of witness in prison
Mr S Abram (ANC) referred to a report in the press on that day. A witness in a rhino poaching case, Deon van Deventer, had been visited by individuals in the facility where he was incarcerated. The visitors had threatened him into not giving evidence. Yet no identity for them could be established. He asked what the procedure was for visits to inmates. He would have thought it necessary that ID and details of the visitors would be taken down before access to an inmate was granted.

Mr James Smalberger, Western Cape Regional Commissioner, replied that details of visitors were taken, and were on record. It was a matter of policy. Records were kept for family visits, as well as official visits. Uncontrolled visits were not allowed.

Proper medical care
Mr Abram then referred to press reports about an inmate, Clive Derby Lewis, who had injured himself in prison. He asked why access to proper medical care had been denied, so that the family had to intervene to procure medical services, through obtaining a court order. There were implications for people who were poorer than Derby Lewis. The DCS was responsible for the well being of inmates.

Mr Kenny Bouwer, Regional Commissioner for Gauteng, replied that Mr Derby Lewis had bumped his leg against a bed. A doctor examined him and referred him for x-rays on the following Monday. His wife visited him on Sunday, and decided to obtain the court order. In fact there was no need for her to go to court. He was entitled to medical attention and had actually received it. His lawyer had complained that he had been chained to his hospital bed. That was normal procedure, and care had been taken not to fasten the chain to the injured leg. Security measures had to be stringent. An inmate who had been ‘too ill to bathe’, according to his doctor, had escaped in the past. Mr Derby Lewis was also a high profile figure and the DCS was responsible for his safety against possible attacks. The doctor had made an issue out of the fact that the DCS wanted to be present in the event of an operation, but that was standard procedure. The DCS had not refused Mr Lewis a doctor. His lawyer had wanted to visit him with a fruit parcel and papers, but it was normal procedure to screen foodstuffs brought in. There was the possibility of poisoning. The DCS provided access to hospitals and competent doctors. If inmates desired their own specialist and/or own hospital, that was allowed at the inmate’s cost.

Mr Abram reminded the DCS that Derby Lewis was a high profile figure, and that press allegations could play to audiences who had an interest in claiming that he had been victimised. He reiterated that there were others who required timeous attention. He urged the Department to make sure that the allegations about Deon van Deventer were not true. A key state witness had been threatened and scared into not wanting to appear in court.

Mr Moyane replied that stand-up procedures were at stake, and that he would ask Mr Bouwer to look into the matter.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) remarked that it had become necessary for Busasa to appear before the Committee. Vast sums of money had been paid to that company, and the Committee did not know who they were and where the money was going to.

The Chairperson referred to page 9 of the presentation, concerning unlawful detention, and asked Dr Mbuli why it was not a South African Police Service (SAPS) matter.

Dr Mbuli replied that under the law, police made arrests and then placed those arrested in a DCS facility. The SAPS had the first responsibility, and the DCS the second. If an arrested person had been sentenced and had lodged an appeal, he was kept in a facility because of a warrant. If the appeal was set aside, the Registrar of the High Court would tell the DCS to release him. If such a notice was not received, he remained in DCS custody. If the Court failed to inform, the Justice Department was liable.

The Chairperson questioned the rectitude of three departments potentially liable for the same case. The state had a liability of R900 million. His mother would faint if she had to hear that. The public were being misled. The three departments had to sort things out among themselves. Contingent liabilty made the Committee uneasy. Duplication had to stop.

The Chairperson asked about claims referred to on page 13. Claims dating back longer than 36 months, would be written off at year end. Of claims amounting to R176 million, some went back to 2004/05. He asked that the book be cleared of claims that had lapsed.

Escape of inmates from Harrismith Centre
Mr Abram referred to the escape of 49 inmates from the Harrismith Centre. There were questions about what had happened, and how many had been arrested. The real question was how to prevent such a thing happening again. Mr Abram said that he had visited the Harrismith facility. It was a remand detention facility in a rural area, with diverse feeder areas. There were not enough officials, and key facts were not being recorded. The question was why the inmates could escape, rather than statistics about the incident. A full written report was required.

The Chairperson asked the DCS what lessons had been learnt, and what responses there had been.

Mr Moyane replied that he had received an sms from the Regional Commissioner for the Free State and Northern Cape on 31 May. He informed the Minister of the escape details. Senior management had kept abreast of events. About 40 to 45 people had escaped. He decided to visit the facility at dawn, intending to drive there with the Chief of Staff. The Minister advised against driving there. The Chief of Staff of the Defence Force was approached about a helicopter. The Minister, himself and the Chief of Staff met with the Defence Chief of Staff, and were flown there. The Head of Centre said that he had been attacked, and invited the party to look for themselves. There had been a clear flouting of standard operational procedures. A lawyer had visited after lockdown. The Head of Centre had allowed the officials on duty to leave early, at 14h00. That was in contradiction of the principle that staff strength had to be maximised. The party heard that the Head of Centre had been informed days before that something was being planned. A gun had been smuggled in. The knock for admission rule had not been followed. The escapees managed to break into a tuckshop before they escaped. Officials on duty noticed nothing.

Mr Moyane continued that an assessment had been done. There had been clear violation and flouting of the law. The lawyer who had visited had not been harmed. Escapees only took the keys of her car. They had gone to the arsenal for guns. It had been an organised escape, and those at the helm of the facility would be held responsible. There had been a summary dismissal of four people on duty. Police intelligence helped track escapees down. Lessons learnt had been that policies had to be reviewed and officials held accountable. The escape had been noticed by a person living in a house adjacent to the facility. The men at the main gate had seen nothing. A case had been made against those dismissed.

Ms Ngwenya asked why staff members had left. She asked about the motive of the lawyer.

The Chairperson asked why there had not been criminal cases against the dismissed officials. Dismissal was not a deterrent. Firearms had been stolen, and officials had been associated. He wondered if the Head of Centre would simply be dismissed and still receive a pension.

Mr Moyane confirmed what Mr Abram had noted, namely that it was a Remand Detention centre. Inmates were sent there from court without proper classification. Four offenders had arrived that morning. Two were there for heists, one for murder, and one for rape. The Department had spoken to SAPS so as to be told beforehand about dangerous offenders. High profile criminals had been held in a facility which lacked capacity. The Department believed that there had been a motive behind officials leaving early. Lawyers could come in and consult but after hours the picture was different. The lawyer had come from Bloemfontein to consult on a High Court case. It was felt that she had had to make a long journey to get there. It was not known whether she had been in any way involved. Criminal charges were indeed being pressed against officials dismissed. All those on duty had been charged.

Mr Bouwer added that SAPS cases had been opened. In the past, there had been escapes through bogus officials. There had been prosecutions for the smuggling of dagga into prisons.

Mr Fihla (ANC) referred to the case of a high profile prisoner at St Albans who had made 9 escapes. The question was why such a dangerous prisoner had been kept there. Prisoners often escaped whilst being moved to court. High profile cases were escorted by the army. It had been suggested that court hearings be held inside prison. Dangerous prisoners were best kept at Kokstad or C Max. They were adept at planning escapes.

Busasa, Pezulu, Sondolo IT
Ms Ngwenya referred to access controls at centres that had been terminated in 2009. Busasa had 800 people at a given centre, and DCS only had 500. At Pollsmoor, cameras did not work. She asked who Pezulu really were, and how much had been spent on them. Sondolo was being paid R3,5 million per month. Who were they?

Mr Selfe asked about the shareholding of Sondolo IT, and about the position of Pezulu. He asked why access control had been decommissioned. It had taken two years for decommission and recommission thereafter. The quote by Sondolo for reactivation had been R6,8 million, which was excessive. The question was how inflated the original price had been. Regarding access control, he asked if evacuation through the turnstile system would be possible in the event of a fire.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) noted that there had been problems with Sondolo for a long time. At Durban Centre, Sondolo were not working, but were being paid. Officials keeping the logs at the gate were not from Sondolo. She asked if cameras had been fixed. Sondolo was providing half a service, and being fully paid.

The Chairperson referred to page 20 of the document handed out. There had been a R88 million contract cost installation, and maintenance costs of R3,5 million per month. He asked if monthly costs had been reduced when the decision had been taken to decommission. Page 21 reflected unauthorised expenditure. The executive management had decided to recommission. Reactivation had occurred at a great price. He asked who had taken that decision. The Committee was seeing wholesale looting and corruption. Maintenance fees were exorbitant. The Public Finance Management Act stated that the account officer had to ‘carry the can’. The DCS was in the process of being stigmatised as corrupt. The Committee was not seeing IT value for money. Systems were not working anywhere the Committee had been on oversight visits.

Mr M Ngubo, Deputy Commissioner, Security Management, replied that Busasa was the mother company, while the others were subsidiaries. Pezulu operated on their premises, managed by Busasa. The list of directors of Busasa included names from Sondolo and Pezulu.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would sit on that matter. The practices Mr Ngubo had mentioned, was called fronting. Ways had to be decided upon to take the process forward.

Ms B Blaai (COPE) insisted that Busasa had to appear before the Committee.

The Chairperson repeated that the Committee would have its own discussion.

Ms M Mdaka (ANC) quipped that the Committee wished to see the mother and the child.

Crossley / Mathebula case and parole
The Chairperson persisted that an internal strategy was needed. He referred to the matter of Mark Scott Crossley. There was the perception that if one had money, one could go free. Crossley was white, and his black co-accused Mathebula was black. Crossley had been released on parole, Mathebula was still in prison. He asked what Mathebula could do to get out.The question was whether it was all about money.

Mr Moyane responded that in that matter, the SAPS, Justice and the DCS were involved, with the DCS at the end of the value chain. Scott Crossley had received a life sentence, and the DCS had held him. He appealed, and the sentence was commuted to 5 years. It was not DCS duty to question the sentence. He was sent to an appropriate facility and obtained the right to parole. The Justice Department had to account for the reduction of sentence, but were not complicit to his release. The DCS wanted a roadshow about the involvement of families of the victim in Parole Board hearings. The matter was beyond DCS capability. The Department had to release or face litigation.

Ms Screiner responded with regard to opportunities open to Mr Mathebula. Any inmate had such opportunities. Involvement in programmes counted significantly. The Case Management Council (CMC) would consider that for anything short of a challenge of sentence. Interaction with the victim’s family was important. Mathebula could engage with the family of the victim and with programmes.

The Chairperson asked if Scott Crossley had interacted with the family. He asked if parole could be forfeited because the family had proved untraceable. Conditions were being set that people could not attain. He asked whose duty it was to trace the victim. He asked if the Parole Board had requested that the victim’s family be found, in the case of Mathebula, and whether the family had been found in Crossley’s case.

Ms Screiner responded that interaction with the family was not always a prerequisite. Some families did not want to interact. The victim was sometimes untraceable. It was a cluster responsibility, and a database was needed. When the family and the inmate both desired interaction, it became a strong consideration.

Mr Fihla remarked that in South Africa, the victim was considered relatively unimportant. In New Zealand, costs to the victim were calculated, and the offender had to pay. Locally, there was a minister of religion serving a 17 year sentence, who had tried to petition for parole, with church support. That was irregular. This minister had his own business, and had killed people who were robbing it.

Mr Abram referred to offender statistics. Offenders sentenced to less than 24 months, amounted to twelve and a half thousand offenders. He asked about parole conditions, with regard to them. He asked if the DCS had a concern about reducing the inmate population, and whether proposals like correctional supervision and community service had been considered. Such inmates were probably not high security risks, and could be involved in municipal projects. Concerning medical parole, he remarked that the family could take over from the state, for the last years of an offender’s life. Punitive aspects could be considered as having been met.

Ms Screiner responded that amending medical parole policy required amendment to law. It could not be dealt with through policy.

Ms Ngwenya asked about challenges faced by the victim to participate in Parole Board hearings, and assistance to victims. She asked if the DCS called the victim, and how many Parole Board offices had been completed during 2009/10.

Mr Smalberger answered that the Case Management Council was responsible for those sentenced to less than 24 months. The Head of Centre was responsible for them. There had to be an address for an inmate before he could be released on parole. A large number of such offenders also had other warrants. Released offenders also committed minor crimes. Many inmates were considered for parole. Victim empowerment was a new focus of government. The SAPS, DCS and Justice worked together in that regard. The three Departments had distributed pamphlets on victim rights in Elsiesrivier. Interaction with the victim was not a prerequisite for parole. The CMC had to trace the victim. It was a state responsibilty.

Mr Moyane added that there had to be a monitorable address to follow up. The minister had stated that it was not dependable, and that other means had to be found of making people traceable. There were monitoring and electronic gadgets. The technologies were there.

Mr Bouwer added that it had been less than 12 months in the past. When the period was extended to 24 months, Heads of Centre had to deal with many more of such offenders. Victim empowerment was emotional and time consuming. The SAPS could help to find the victim.

Mr Moyane responded that new Parole Boards were being appointed. Suitable people for the Boards were being identified. Parole Committees were being instructed. The determination of salary levels had to be re-evaluated. 47 offices had been opened.

Staffing reduction
Mr L Max (DA) referred to steps taken to reduce overcrowding. He alluded to optimal use of staff, as set out on page 30 of the document. There were 23 000 operational staff and 164 000 inmates. That came to a ratio of 1 to 7 if all staff were present. The Annual Report had pointed out a shortage of staff, and yet Treasury had instructed the reduction of staff. That was cause for concern. Statistics for escape prevention were commendable, but for a turnaround, the DCS had to look at its strength. He asked if the Treasury instruction to reduce staff had been based on research. The DCS had had casualties. The Department had to say outright if it could cope with the reduction.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) noted that there were 41 psychologists in the DCS, yet only 36 were mentioned in the document. She asked where the others were. She asked about the abuse of sick leave by officials.

Ms Ngwenya remarked on the implications for prison labour of staff shortages. There were many staff, but too many were in offices. They had to come down to the centres.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Max that the Department had to clearly state the challenges. It was said that the two shift system did not work. That had been said by organised labour. It had been instituted to save R700 million on overtime. The question was whether it was working for the Department. The DCS had to state its case so that it could present a united front with the Committee against Treasury. The Department had to state what would be the ideal. The Minister had stated that another shift system could be used. Challenges had to be stated.

Mr Moyane responded that DCS business was labour intensive. The limit set by Treasury was unworkable. Coalface business needed a human element.

Ms Schreiner responded that 36 psychologists were permanent staff, and 5 were community psychologists. Regarding staff utilisation, the Department had told Treasury that it could not function within the staff limitations. Impacts on security and rehabilitation were severe. Treasury had benchmarked against Public/Private Partnership (PPP) centres, which was not appropriate. It was the wrong model. PPPs did not have to deal with transfers and remand detention. The PPP centres had been recently built, and were technically well equipped. They were not old and manual. Staff requirements differed according to how prisons were constructed. A setup where cells surrounded a central passage, had different needs to multi-levelled or rabbit warren type facilities. An appropriate set of norms were needed. The DCS had been accused of bloating staff figures. The Department had arrived at the figure of 46 000 by studying the White Paper. Different admission procedures were needed for remand detention centres. There had to be a scientific approach. Without staff, the DCS could not deliver. The two shift system enabled rehabilitation, but enough people were needed. The shift system had to be structured according to centre needs.

Ms Linda Bond, Deputy Commissioner: Human Resources Development, responded that ratios for access control and ground patrols had been set out. A ratio of 1 to 7 was fine for case management, but for an escort there had to be two officials for one inmate. The gap had to be assessed between approved ratios and what was actually happening on the ground. Treasury had instructed the Department to defend its needs, but would only concede to a ratio of 1 to 8. A short term bid was submitted. The Department got Treasury to fund it at the previous level. The Department was aware of challenges faced with the 2x12 hour shift system. Regional Commissioners could suggest different shift systems. It would not do to have a one size fits all system. There were line managerial functions in place to curb abuse of sick leave. Temporary incapacity leave had been exploited, but applications were currently screened by a health risk manager.

Mr Bouwer added that it was practically impossible to keep to the ratio of two officials per inmate, for escorts, as 50 to 70 people per day had to be taken to courts. Regarding the deployment of staff to centre level, he noted that there was more money to be earned at centre level, but migration to centre was difficult. Officials liked the 2x12 shift system, they could work two or three days per week, and then moonlight with other security related jobs. At Medium A there were 132 officials to 6000 Awaiting Trial Detainees (ATDs). Seven officials would guard 1500 people. The PPP centres were button-pushing centres, not labour intensive.

Mr Moyane responded that the support of the Committee was needed to engage with Treasury. DCS business was labour intensive, and centres were old. A reduction from 46 000 staff to 41 000 would kill the Department. It was fortunate that there had not been more mass escapes.

Mr Max referred to the discretion granted to Regional Commissioners to use other shift systems. He asked who would pay, in the event of overtime granted. There had to be a meeting with Treasury about staff reduction. It was a serious issue. Without personnel, the command structure would collapse.

Mr Smalberger responded that according to the seven-day establishment, staff at the centres had to work 45 hours per week. Approval of the Minister was needed from the Minister to deviate from the two shift system. A farm prison could not operate according to the two shift system, when there were dairies to run or pigs to feed on a daily basis. Small centres were more labour intensive. The PPP centres taken as the ideal, were larger centres.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.