Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services Annual Report 2012/13

Meeting report

Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services: Annual Report (AR) 2012/13
Mr Michael Masondo, acting Chief Executive Officer (CEO), JICS, noted that new offices had been acquired in George, Bloemfontein and Durban. The DCS were reluctant to make funding available for posts. The JICS were recommending that section 85 of the Correctional Services Act be amended to ensure independence from the DCS. Section 88 had to be amended to enable the appointment of the inspecting judge by the Minister. Section 91 had to be amended to make the National Treasury or Parliament responsible for the JICS budget. The JICS only received 0.1% of the DCS budget.

Mr Masondo took the Portfolio Committee through human resource development (post establishment); budget and expenditure; information technology and transport; inspections, investigations and mandatory reporting; community oversight and stakeholder engagement. Figures were given about the inmate population; remand detainees; overcrowding; inspections and investigations; inmate complaints; mandatory reports on deaths and unnatural deaths; segregation; mechanical restraints and the use of force. The post establishment for Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs) was discussed.

Judge Vuka Tshabalala, Inspecting Judge, referred to a lack of funding. The Inspectorate was frustrated. It would prefer to be a component of the DCS, but with independence like that of the Human Rights Commission and the Public Protector. There had to be more power to deal with issues. The JICS had submitted reports on events at Groenpunt, St Albans and Pollsmoor centres. Rioters had been distributed to maximum security centres. Many factors caused eruptions at centres. Inmates had had enough of conditions. He referred to the riot caused when warders failed to unlock cells for an inmate soccer match that had been approved by the Head of Centre.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that there would be robust scrutiny. At Groenpunt an inmate had died in hospital. The question was whether that death would be classified as homicide or suicide. He asked where the DCS had reflected the death. For the Free State there was only one death, classified as execution.

Mr Umesh Raga, Head of Legal Services, JICS, asked if he could confer with his manager. Prima facie the death appeared unreflected, but it had been noted under JICS investigations, on page 44, as homicide by an official on an inmate.

The Chairperson said that the Auditor-General had been critical of information reliability in the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). That could also be true for the JICS. The case had been all over the media. He had been shocked to find the term “execution” used in a homicide report. He asked what it meant.

Mr Raga replied that the JICS used the DCS categorisation to classify unnatural death. It was mandatory that they report in a particular manner. The merits of the matter would be questioned, to see whether it was execution or not.

The Chairperson insisted that the JICS return with an answer. When it was reported that a government department was involved in an execution, it created panic. The whole country was following current events.

The Chairperson referred to 16 cases of unknown death, which awaited the result of post mortems. He asked about the waiting period. It was inhumane for survivors not to know the cause of death. There had to be a time frame. It was the kind of thing that came up every year. It had to be possible to say whether death had been caused by a heart attack or a blunt instrument.

Mr Professor Mohlaba, Mandatory Reports Manager, JICS, replied that the time frame for post mortems differed widely among regions. In the Western Cape it could be done within three or four months, but in some provinces it could take three or four years. The Department of Health was responsible, and they had to explain.

The Chairperson said that when a death certificate was signed, the cause of death had to be known. If a death certificate with cause of death did not exist, beneficiaries of policies would be deprived for as long as four years. It would not do to profess a humane concern with rights, whilst dependents were being deprived. The implications for South Africa had to be understood. The DCS had a highly important role to play, and the situation was unacceptable. The ones that suffered most were the most needy in society. It was highly probable that 15 of the 16 delayed post mortems were black people. The disadvantaged suffered the most. He asked the JICS not to view it as a mechanical exercise.

Mr Raga agreed that there were consequences. Mr Mohlaba had said that post mortems were under the jurisdiction of the provincial health departments. The JICS reported delays. Medical legal reports had to come from those departments.

The Chairperson said that the PC was not saying that there had to be blame. But a flag had to be raised.

Mr Mohlaba confirmed that the term execution was according to the DCS classification.

The Chairperson answered him that the JICS held high office, and that their views carried more weight than that of the Department. He cautioned the JICS not to become the postman of the Department.

Mr L Max (DA) agreed with the Inspecting Judge that JICS independence was a necessity and not a luxury. Everybody was singing the same song but no one was pushing for change. He asked the JICS what they were initiating.

The Inspecting Judge replied that the JICS would have to approach the Minister. The DCS could not be relied upon. Government had to know the JICS plight.

Mr Max referred to a report from the Acting National Commissioner about unrest at Mangaun on 18 September. It was a Private/Public Partnership (PPP) centre. He asked if the JICS had jurisdiction in PPP centres. The Constitution stated that the human rights of inmates were suspended. If the JICS did not have jurisdiction, they could not enter those centres. The DCS had indicated that they were eligible to intervene at those centres under certain conditions.

The Inspecting Judge replied that the JICS had jurisdiction in PPP centres. They were received in their official capacity. But the JICS did not enforce their rights there. At Kutuma, their authority had been recognised. Future reports would be clearer about PPP centres.

Mr Max noted that Sonke Gender Justice Network had commended the DCS on filling 98% of posts. But some posts were based on officer accommodation and not on inmate population. The DCS claimed that staff strength depended on the centres. He asked if there was any link between understaffing and the increase in the number of complaints, deaths and suicides.

Mr Raga replied that there was a link at first glance. The nexus of liability depended on the merits of each case. Suicides occurred in single cells, because there were not enough officials on duty. The duty of care was wanting in the DCS. There could be liability for culpable homicide. The JICS would recommend to the Department about evaluation of evidence. As a general proposition it could be stated that there was a link. But an evidential link depended on merit. An inquest was needed to pronounce on unnatural death. The JICS had enquired about deaths in KwaZulu Natal (KZN), and had been told by the DCS to wait for the inquest and court adjudication. But inquest courts made their decisions very slowly. Yet the JICS had made findings that directed liability to the DCS. There were challenges to reaching finality in the criminal justice process.

Mr Max noted that there had been an increase in suicides. He asked if reports were only from the DCS. He asked if the JICS were convinced that it was indeed suicide. Five inmates could hang someone and make it appear like suicide. He asked if the JICS had checked for themselves about suicides.

Mr Max noted that the JICS had stated that they had no internal audit unit (Page 27 of the AR). On page 28 it was said that the JICS was audited together with the DCS. He asked what prevented the JICS from asking the DCS internal audit section to audit the JICS as well. The internal audit would be objective and independent, systems could be evaluated. The JICS could not audit themselves.

The JICS was saying that it had been audited, but it had in fact only been an inspection. He asked how an audit unit could be established in the future.

Mr Deon Duarte, National Finance Manager, JICS, replied that the Minister had approved the internal auditor. JICS documents had been audited by the Auditor-General. The audit by the CEO in JICS offices would focus on human resources.

Mr M Cele (ANC) referred to the statement in the AR, page 59, that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) had refused to prosecute four officials.

Ms Veonia Grootboom, Complaints Manager, JICS, replied that the NPA had found 20% of complaints to be bogus complaints, motivated by another agenda. In the cases referred to, the Director of Public Prosecution decided not to prosecute.

Mr Cele asked if there was merit in allegations of inmates about parole (page 51, AR).

Mr Cele asked if mentally ill inmates were being kept separately.

Mr Leonard De Souza, Inspections and Investigations Manager, JICS, replied that some mental patients in hospitals were more stable. Where they would be placed depended on a doctor’s recommendation.

The Chairperson asked for the JICS view on placing the mentally ill with the general inmate population, in single or in communal cells. He asked if it was acceptable in terms of the JICS mandate.

The Inspecting Judge replied that it was not acceptable. There was a mentally ill inmate who had been kept in prison for three years, in the Northern Cape. When he objected that it was wrong, he was told that the DCS did not know where to keep him.

Mr Cele referred to the right of the Inspecting Judge to consult with the Minister. But conditions were not the same as when the unit was formed.

The Chairperson said that the Portfolio Committee needed support. There was an outcry about overcrowding. Ultimately the Portfolio Committee had to report to Parliament.

Mr S Abram (ANC) referred to page 47 of the Annual Report. It was stated that 530 000 complaints had been taken by the Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs), but there was no feedback on how complaints had been dealt with. He asked about the percentage success rate for resolution of complaints. Increased complaints were cause for concern. Inmates were not getting feedback on their requests to help them understand. Communication to inmates had to improve. There were complaints about assaults, transfers and health care.

Ms Grootboom replied that there was a prevalence of complaints. Legal Services dealt with it at the national level. It was first dealt with at the Visitors Committees. 51 000 had been dealt with at the correctional level. Transfers had increased. Due to the state of some centres, inmates were transferred to underpopulated centres in the Northern Cape and Free State, and ended up far from home. The JICS were working closely with the DCS to alleviate the situation. Many centres had been built in the wrong areas. There was a current focus on mental health, in health care. There were vast health care issues. Assault was due to overcrowding, dissatisfaction and undisciplined officials. Some assaults might have been prevented if officials had stuck to B orders and legislation. Inmates were unhappy because officials did not stick to policy. It had been recommended to Heads of Centre that officials keep to laws.

Mr Raga responded that the JICS only received new statistics at the Annual Report level. For quarterly reports there was a lag. Rulings were written on the merit or demerit of assault matters, but it could only be disclosed later.

Mr Abram noted that there were inmates at Zonderwater who were doing courses, who had suddenly been told that the courses were no longer available.

Mr Abram remarked that there had been a substantial increase in the use of force. It was a continuing trend. He asked if all centres were reporting on mandatory obligations. He asked about measures to increase and monitor compliance.

Mr Mohlaba replied that since 2009 there had been no electronic wizard to report the use of force. An electronic wizard became operative in January 2013. The Independent Investigation Unit and the ICCVs reported on a monthly basis. The JICS would ask about mandatory matters.

Mr Abram said that engagement with the Minister about JICS independence had to proceed. The JICS offices were of low quality, and their location was not amenable to JICS status. The Department of Public Works (DPW) had to bring leasing to conclusion post haste. The environment was not conducive to the delivery of good products.

Mr Abram advised that the DCS ensure that their Regional Commissioners engage with JICS reports and monitor and comply. There had to be monitoring of engagement with monthly and quarterly reports, so that things could be nipped in the bud. The DCS had to ensure that their staff, especially Heads of Centres, were present at Visitors Committee meetings.

The Chairperson referred to vulnerable deaths of women and juveniles (page 60). He asked about causes of death, whether it had been tuberculosis (TB) or pneumonia. There were only reports from KZN for juveniles.

The Chairperson referred to page 34 of the Annual Report. Disciplinary actions included six written and six verbal warnings to staff. He asked about the kind of misconduct. Officials were getting written warnings for smuggling in a gun. The question was whether the sanction fitted the crime.

Ms Marlize Van der Walt, Support Services Manager, JICS, replied that verbal warnings were given for failure to carry out an instruction or lawful order, or failure to report through line management. A written warning was for failure to comply with a regulation, as in the excessive use of a telephone account.

Mr Cele asked about the outcome of the car accident with the South African Police Service (SAPS).

Mr Duarte replied that the SAPS had admitted liability for colliding with a DCS vehicle. But the liability had as yet not been recovered.

The Chairperson thanked the Inspecting Judge for the focus on ensuring that the JICS could do what it had to do. It had to be raised with the DCS that the JICS budget was R31m, whereas the DCS catering budget alone was R26m. The DCS had to be asked how that was justified. The Judge had said that there was no money. Yet the mother body was returning R300m to the fiscus. The Portfolio Committee would write a report to motivate for more money for the JICS.

The Inspecting Judge responded that it had been a useful interaction. The JICS would prepare reports about Mangaun and Kutuma. The people at the PPP centres were South Africans, even though there were contracts with the United Kingdom and the United States. The JICS still had oversight there. He would speak to the Minister. The JICS was still doing its own audit, but the PC had suggested an external audit. The Annual Report had shown a good effort to comply with the JICS mandate, but it had fallen short. The JICS would deal with the DCS and the Minister. There were issues where the DCS did not move.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.