Release of 19 000 offenders on parole due to COVID-19; Alleged incidents of sexual conduct between inmates and officials & measures to address such incidents; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Deputy Minister’s opening remarks

Inkosi Phathekile Holomisa, Deputy Minister (DM) of Justice and Correctional Services, said the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had been requested to appraise Members on progress on the release of offenders on parole to address 2020/21 Covid-19 and the capacity of the Department's facilities to manage the additional numbers into its system as a result. In response to the President’s declaration of a national state of disaster, in terms of the National Disaster Management Act, the DCS had developed and implemented a response strategy that entailed detection, prevention, containment, treatment and recovery. Despite these measures, it continued to be confronted by the realities of logistical constraints as it endeavoured to navigate and gravitate towards the protocols of the new normal.

Members would recall that in 2019, a special remission project was undertaken by the DCS, prompted by the overburdened correctional services system, owing to the perennial problem of overcrowding in its centres. At the time, its centres were overpopulated on average by 37%. This figure was sourced from the 2018/19 reports and several individual Centres were overpopulated by 100%. In the wake of its constitutional imperatives, in accordance with section 35(2) of the Bill of Rights, it was incumbent on it as government to act. Section 35 (2)(e) stipulated that “offenders have the right to conditions of detention that are consistent with human dignity, including at least exercise and the provision, at state expense, of adequate accommodation, nutrition, reading material and medical treatment.”

Deputy Minister Holomisa said it was now a matter of record that the President had granted all sentenced offenders a special remission of 12 months, excluding offenders sentenced for gender-based offences and violent crimes. Thus far, from the 17 922 qualifying to be considered, up to 7 May 2021, a total of 14 003 had been placed on parole. The DCS would share how it had faired from the perspective of the DCS, this being a novelty for the Department. He commented that the total of 17 922 may be questioned, when the total number of sentenced offenders qualifying for release under this dispensation was 19 000. Upon further verification, the actual number qualifying was 18 544, but because other offenders that were identified to qualify had picked up further charges, the number of qualifying cases had dropped to 17 922.

With the declaration of the national state of disaster by the President, occasioned by the advent of Covid-19, these developments had led to the suspension of various activities within the DCS's community corrections facilities, from the date of publication of the regulations. The DCS had duly developed standard operating procedures (SOPs), in line with the Department of Health’s (DoH's) guidelines, to mitigate Covid-19 infections within the DCS. Community Corrections had also developed a specific mitigation plan to prevent the spread of the virus in the monitoring and supervision environment.

He clarified that the purpose of the presentation was for the DCS to delve into the details and appraise Members on the modalities of this process and the progress that had been achieved. There had been an unfortunate trend in the public domain, particularly on social media platforms, of visuals of incidents of sexual conduct between inmates and officials that compromised the standing of the Department in the eyes of the public. While this had been embarrassing, to say the least, it was also an opportunity for the Department to further interrogate its systems, security details, the code of conduct, and ethical behaviour within the Department. Some of these alleged incidents had been proven to be authentic, and it remained true that some of them were certainly from the ranks of the Department, and it therefore had to take appropriate action. Although such incidents were few and far between, the damage in terms of reputation had been done and, in his view, one incident was one too many. He would leave the details and circumstances of each case to the Department and officials to bring Members on board.

The much-publicised video of the female official and the male offender who engaged in sexual intercourse had been taken at Ncome Correctional Facility in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). The outcome of that investigation was that two Correctional Services officials had been summarily dismissed. He confirmed that the official in the video and her colleague, who allowed her office to be used for sexual acts, were both dismissed. The sanctions were implemented following a disciplinary process, and the inmate involved had been reclassified into maximum category and subsequently moved to another facility, had lost his privileges, and was serving a life sentence.

Another incident involved a female official engaged in sexual conduct with a male offender in the Limpopo/Mpumalanga/North West (LMN) Region. That official, after following a disciplinary enquiry, was also dismissed.

The DM handed over to the DCS officials to provide more details on these matters in the presentations.

The Chairperson thanked the DM. He invited Mr Arthur Fraser, National Commissioner of Correctional Services, to commence the presentation.

DCS on parole system

Mr Fraser said two colleagues from the team would lead the presentation.

Ms Anna Molepo, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Community Corrections, would present on the parole system and capacity.

Ms Cynthia Ramulifho, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Human Resources, would present on the measures in place to address incidents of sexual conduct between inmates and officials.

The team would then field questions from the Committee.    

Community Corrections capacity and budget

Ms Molepo explained the Covid-19 Special Parole Dispensation (SPD). To address, manage, and combat the spread of Covid-19, the DCS had recommended to the President to place selected categories of low risk sentenced offenders on parole to continue to serve their sentences in the system of Community Corrections. The President had authorised the consideration and placement on parole of a certain category of sentenced offenders who were, or would have been incarcerated, on 27 April 2020, subject to such conditions as may be approved by the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board.

Prior to the SPD, there were qualifications to ensure offenders would be placed on parole, based on the qualification criteria. In terms of the qualification, a sentenced offender who had reached, or would reach, their minimum detention periods within a period of sixty (60) months from 27 April, qualified for the SPD. She indicated the categories of sentenced offenders and/or crimes that were excluded from the SPD.

Within the DCS facilities, there were processes to be undertaken prior consideration for offenders qualifying for parole and SPD. Offenders were expected to participate in rehabilitation programmes, for example, such as the pre-release programme, which was also made compulsory prior to release back into the community. The other issue was in terms of the availability of a support system (family). Officials would check and confirm whether offenders had a family to support them and to whom they could go back.

The table on slide 9 reflected the total number of qualifying cases against the number released as at April 2021. From the release of the 13 989 as at 29 April, there were additional releases after the close-out date of the project. The number of offenders remaining to benefit from the SPD was 3 973, as at 29 April. As the DM had mentioned, the total releases were 14 003 as at 2 May 2021, but the presentation indicated a total of 13 989up until 29 April.  

On slide 10, Ms Molepo explained the mandate of Community Corrections. Community Corrections referred to all non-custodial measures and forms of supervision applicable to persons subject to such measures and intervention in the community, and who were under the control of the Department. The first table indicated the caseload of parolees and probationers, excluding the awaiting trial persons (ATPs) who did not qualify for the SPD.

As at April 2021, a total of 126 inmates were re-admitted, as outlined in slide 13. The 126 re-offenders/alleged re-offenders represented 0.9% of the 13 989 offenders who had been released during the SPD. The slide provided an overview of the types of crimes the 126 re-offenders committed.

Slide 14 represented the Community Corrections capacity in terms of the caseload. Ms Molepo explained the reason for the high vacancy rate was due to posts not being filled because of budget cuts, several colleagues within Community Corrections going on pension, and others due to natural attrition. The table on the right represented the budget allocation for the 2021/22 financial year for the three sub-programmes within Community Corrections -- supervision, community reintegration, and office accommodation – which was earmarked for the compensation of employees (CoE) because of the labour-intensive nature of the work involved in this programme. The programme provided for the continued supervision and support of parolees, which was integral to community safety and reduced reoffending.

The other focus was in terms of the restorative justice programme, where the DCS conducted victim offender dialogues and victim offender mediation. In terms of the staff establishment, the DCS had social auxiliary workers who were not included in this table, which she would address later in the presentation.  

DCS interventions

On the Community Corrections facilities (slide 15), the DCS had partnered with non-profit organisations (NPOs) and established halfway houses managed by the NPOs. These halfway houses assisted in the reintegration of offenders who were due for parole placement and had no monitorable addresses and support systems. There were currently seven halfway houses in the country -- three in the Western Cape, and one each in Gauteng, the Eastern/Northern Cape, LMN and KwaZulu-Natal (KZN).

The Department’s interventions (slide 16) included developing a service delivery model to align it in a more comprehensive and integrated operational framework. The DCS was "centre centric" to ensure service delivery at the theatre of operations – this referred to the regions, management areas, correctional centres, and centres of excellence, which referred to the head of it. It was responsible for the implementation of the district development model (DDM) which had been developed to align the management areas of the DCS to the DDM in order to make a contribution towards the economic empowerment of communities. This ensured management areas were well equipped to play a role in building communities through procurement functions supporting incomes, job creation, and building strong relationships and community environment. There were various NPOs with which it had a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and the last intervention was on partnerships with stakeholders where the MOU was signed. The DCS partnered with institutions of higher learning and formalised partnerships with various stakeholders and Government departments for successful reintegration of parolees and probationers.

Slide 17 indicated the clusters and sub-committees the DCS participated in to ensure that maximum collaboration was attained from departments in the cluster system and to enhance its service delivery mandate. It claimed that coordination within the criminal justice cluster continued to have a beneficial effect on the work of the DCS.

The DCS was currently in the process of revising the Departmental structure and the implementation of the proposed Community Corrections structure to contribute towards delivery on the current medium-term strategic framework (MTSF) from 2019 to 2024, and the strategic plan from 2020 to 2025 and beyond, if implemented.

For the professionalisation of Community Corrections, the focus was currently on developing qualifications for the Head of Community Corrections. The DCS was involved with the courts in developing a training manual specifically for court officials, where they would be trained on court procedures. It was also working with the Department of Social Development (DSD) as the primary core department to regulate the functions of the social work profession. It intended to standardise the work of social workers within Community Corrections to ensure its focus was on the community development model. Social auxiliary workers (SAWs) were not within the DCS structures, and had been contracted to assist it in tracing the victims of crime and prepare them for their participation in the restorative justice system. The SAWs had contributed immensely towards the achievement of restorative justice indicators for the previous financial year, except in 2020-21, where the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown restrictions had had a negative impact.

For the current financial year, in terms of empowering victims, it had an indicator for facilitating economic opportunities for victims. The focus was on victims who had already participated in the restorative justice programme. It was working with the DSD and other relevant stakeholders to identify the socio-economic needs of victims, such as access to social grants, physiological and psychological components, access to education and the possibility of employment. This would help to change the current assertion that victims of crime were not being taken care of. The DCS had submitted a request for funding of the SAWs to the Presidential employment stimulus to assist in the appointment and contracting of SAWs, as all contracts would have expired by December 2021.

On the marketing of DCS programmes to communities, the DCS's efforts of the Covid-19 SPD was specifically done through virtual meetings. There had been distribution of information pamphlets and radio talks nationally, and various stakeholders were consulted immediately after the announcement by the President and the Minister, including families of parolees and probationers and the South African Police Service (SAPS). However, Ms Molepo said more still needed to be done to get communities involved in the monitoring, rehabilitation and reintegration of parolees and probationers to ensure a smooth reintegration process.

The next intervention was the social reintegration framework (slide 19), which was approved at the end of March 2021. In terms of this framework, the DCS’ focus was on preparation for reintegration. This should commence before the offender was placed on parole or correctional supervision, and thereafter the intervention should support the transition from the correctional centre to the community and continue until successfully reintegrated.

Ms Molepo referred to the key focus areas that were identified in the slide, and indicated that the list did not include all of them. On the first area, the effective utilisation of community-based sentences as an alternative to incarceration and a placement option, contributed significantly towards reducing the number of accused admitted to correctional centres while awaiting trial. and afforded probationers with an opportunity to serve sentences within the community. This would be done in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. On the second area, the DCS had a proposed a community corrections structure, and this would be elaborate on later. The third area was where the DCS had training for reintegration officials and social workers specifically for Community Corrections, and in terms of provision of rehabilitation and reintegration services of programmes to address issues that contributed to offending. In addition to physical supervision of offenders, under Community Corrections, psychosocial support programmes would be continued. In the fifth area, the DCS should look at other options in terms of supervision within monitoring and restoration within Community Corrections.

Challenges and mitigations

The first challenge the DCS identified within the Community Corrections space was the availability of resources in terms of human capital, budget and suitable vehicles for monitoring and supervision (slide 20). The DCS was currently working on the realignment of the organisational structure, the recruitment and appointment of more social workers and psychologists, and the prioritisation of the appointment of SAWs.

The other challenge was the lack of information communication technology (ICT) infrastructure at some Community Corrections offices, which included insufficient computers, and the capturing of information “off-site,” which required extensive driving and contributed to delays in the processing of information. To mitigate this, the DCS would ensure cabling of Community Corrections offices, except in leased offices, and the implementation of wireless Wi-Fi.

Most of the Community Corrections offices were leased. The DCS was engaging with the Department of Public Works on a process to review the lease agreements, as well as with municipalities to identify and utilise unused buildings in communities. It would use offender labour to refurbish some of those buildings to accommodate Community Corrections.

The DCS did not use technology to monitor offenders, and it was a highly manual process. It would explore the use of drones, and was currently working on a new electronic monitoring (EM) system. It had previously implemented an EM system, and the contract was awarded for a period of five years from July 2014 to June 2019. The Department had effectively terminated the contract after consultation, which was why it was coming up with a new EM system. It was currently developing the system in collaboration with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).

Conclusion

The 2020 Covid-19 SPD had been successfully implemented, with lessons learned. More still needed to be done to get communities more involved in the monitoring, rehabilitation and reintegration of parolees and probationers, to ensure a smooth reintegration process.

Community Corrections had created a conducive environment for the reintegration of parolees and probation through supervision, monitoring and rehabilitation, and ensured parolees and probationers complied with their conditions of parole. The DCS ensured probationers and parolees complied with their set conditions despite an increase in the caseload of probationers and parolees during the Covid-19 SPD.

Restorative justice processes would be implemented with some restrictions, in line with Covid-19 regulations, to ensure the participation of victims and offenders. Parole Boards would ensure victim participation prior considering offenders for parole. Communities had to be prepared for the release of parolees and probationers, to ensure effective reintegration and reduce reoffending.

A fully capacitated Community Corrections would alleviate overcrowding in its facilities. It had had become a core component of the South African criminal justice system, as it provided a useful and less costly alternative to incarceration. The DCS would continue its partnership with all relevant stakeholders and ensure community involvement with reintegrated parolees and probationers.

The implementation of the approved social reintegration framework would contribute towards promoting corrections as a social responsibility.

DCS on measures to address sexual misconduct

Ms Cynthia Ramulifho, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Human Resources, said the DCS had taken drastic action in the past to deal with parties involved in the sexual misconduct incidents, but it still experienced such incidents occurring.

The DCS’ Interventions at the policy level was to ensure that it was strategically guided and addressed and regulated all unethical behaviour, such as in the case of KZN. She referred to some of the policy interventions (slide 7).

On the interventions at the programme level (slide 8), the DCS had prevention and awareness programmes that covered training on the conduct, in consultation with relevant partners. Sexual activities could not be policed, but the mental and behavioural aspect of officials could be corrected through making them aware, especially with the female officials developing their assertiveness to be able to behave in a manner that was prescribed in terms of the White Paper.

The programme level interventions attempt to instil the appropriate conduct for the DCS to address the issues of misconduct of sexual incidents. This was part of its consequence management, to indicate the DCS would not tolerate any misconduct in line with its policies, security code and standards, and that it would lead to dismissal.

The incarceration and corrections alternative intervention programme was also on a programme level. The Department had put together an in-house professional team which included psychologists, social workers and criminologists, to engage with management at a centre level on the implementation of interventions that would assist offenders and the officials on how to address issues of sexual incidents. The DCS was currently conducting a case study analysis, and the outcome would inform it on the development of a model that would oversee types of behaviours in terms of the Departmental goals of ensuring it was Correctional Services that addressed the mandate, as per the Correctional Service Act.

On the security interventions (slide 12), the prevention of unauthorised articles entering Correctional Centres strategy, the vetting and personnel integrity policy, information gathering, and analysis policy were all in the process of being finalised. This would ensure the DCS conducted high-level profiling of offenders to prepare it according to the security standards. This included the vetting of officials and the personal integrity of its policies.

The DCS had included short-term and long-term security interventions (slide 13). Security awareness programmes, under the short-term interventions, were continuously happening in all the centres on a monthly basis, and human resources (HR) ensured that the managers were running and adhering to them. The development of a consequence management policy that included security and HR disciplinary processes within the DCS were also part of the short-term security interventions. For the long-term, the DCS was looking at a system to develop the detective, preventative and corrective measures that would assist it to detect elements of any sexual incidents before they could occur, as well as how it could manage the preventative and corrective elements.

Slide 14 illustrated the current status of disciplinary cases of officials and offenders. In the LMN region, together with head office, there were no reported cases of alleged incidents of sexual activities. Gauteng had reported one case which was currently pending and under investigation, and the DCS was ensuring it was finalised. KZN had reported the two cases which the DM had mentioned -- one was being finalised and the other was pending. The Free State had one case which had been finalised. In terms of the gender breakdown, with the one reported case in KZN, in the Free State and the Northern Cape, as well as Gauteng, the cases all involved a female official and a male offender. The second case in KZN involved a male official and a female offender.

On the measures in place (slide 15), the DCS had ensured it promoted a high level of discipline in officials throughout the management area, as well as the local centre in all regions of the province within Correctional Services, which was part of what HR, together with security, was piloting to ensure that discipline happened daily within the Department. The discipline of managers would also ensure the supervision part of management was also responsible to ensure those procedures were followed daily to address issues timeously. There was also emphasis on supervisors and managers’ roles in placing the process of special investigations on any serious offences that might occur within the centre. Correctional Services' officials must be continuously exposed to training and awareness campaigns. This entailed ethical conduct training that addressed behaviour and awareness that having intimate relationships with an offender was not allowed in terms of the Code. Employees were continuously informed to adhere to the policies, and the awareness programmes should enhance the training that was conducted.

Way forward

Correctional Services members would be continuously exposed to training and awareness campaigns which advocated that the DCS would not tolerate sexual incidents which might lead to the dismissal of those found guilty in any reported case.

Organised labour continuously ensured it conducted awareness campaigns to address issues of unethical behaviour, together with the management of all the centres and the areas.

The DCS would develop a professional intervention programme aimed at regenerating high standards of professionalism, moral and ethical conduct by all officials employed in the Department in the context of an offender-focused rehabilitation, corrections and operational environment at the centre level. Ethical awareness and actions, based on the amended code of good practice on sexual harassment, which was also run in parallel within the Department,  assisted the DCS to ensure awareness of sexual harassment and sexual incidents, as it was part of what the Department of Labour encouraged among employers. Ms Ramulifho said the DCS was also complying with this.

Discussion

Mr J Selfe (DA) said he had found the presentations very interesting. He commented that the second presentation had been from an HR perspective -- what happened to someone and what measures were put in place from the HR perspective. He asked, how many cases, in what Centres, what security breaches there were, and what steps were being taken to prevent a recurrence. He said the security component was missing from that presentation.

The first presentation was also interesting, but from slide 18 and 19 onwards it started to look very promising. Funds would progressively get limited, and that meant inevitably that offenders who could responsibly be released into communities should serve non-custodial sentences. This meant Community Corrections should no longer be the stepchild of the Department -- it must be at the cutting edge. It must get resources, personnel, equipment, premises and so forth. However, there was no sign that he could see in the budget, that this sort of shift was taking place -- the shift from incarceration to community corrections. He did not believe the budget was aligned with that provision, neither was the sentencing rating. There could not be 16 800 people serving life sentences in correctional centres, and still have a commitment to Community Corrections. He said those things needed to be aligned to get the system to operate properly.

Ms Ramulifho said a total of four cases of alleged sexual incidents had been reported. On the nature of the incidents in the cases that were reported, the first one was from KZN -- the video of an inmate and an official engaged in sexual activities. In the Free State, the Northern Cape and Gauteng, it was an inmate relationship with an offender. The other case in KZN was also an inmate relationship with an offender.

She handed over to Mr Lucky Mthethwa, Chief Security Officer, to address the security measures that were in place.

Mr Mthethwa clarified where the unfortunate activities occurred. In KZN, it involved the Durban management area. and the other case was in Ncome Medium B. Another case happened in Mafikeng, which his colleague would speak on. In the Free State and Northern Cape, it was in the Grootvlei management area; in Gauteng, it was in the Modderbee management area, and in LMN it was in the Witbank management area.

On the security measures put in place, he said the DCS had indicated it had introduced a model which would shape the Department and assist it to ensure it utilised the modus operandi which the team that was currently placed at the Ncome management area was currently doing. As mentioned, the DCS had formed a team after establishing a project called "Project Lungisa." It would utilise this project nationally, where it would focus on the modus operandi and look into the circumstances surrounding how these matters happened so that it could develop appropriate measures. Where there was an element of crime that had been committed, there were certain measures it would employ to address this, in line with the arrangements it had with its sister department, Crime Intelligence. The DCS was introducing a big plan that had been developed and approved by the leadership, the Project Charter. He clarified that was why he had indicated that this plan was being implemented from a security point of view, as it would be able to address these incidents holistically and nationally because the DCS was of the view that what had happened in these four areas might be happening elsewhere. The plan that was being implemented, which was the model that had been mentioned, was a plan aimed at coming up with an authentic and differentiated approach which would ultimately assist the DCS with the prevention, detection, and response to that particular environment or activity in future.     

Mr X Nqola (ANC) welcomed the reduction of the 19 000 parolees because in his view, the DCS’s explanation on how it had moved from 19 000 downwards made sense. It had acted in accordance with the provisions of the law, and the Committee should thank it for being proactive in these matters, as some would have been released on parole or used this Covid-19 period for their release to commit more crimes. At least, the DCS had been proactive in terms of those who had recommitted.

His concerns were based on the real commission of crimes by parolees, because the DCS’s explanations indicated it did not have a stringent system of control for these parolees, as that they had found it easy and convenient to recommit crimes when they were returned back into society. He noted the DM had mentioned the need to look into the security system. The presentation had indicated that there was collaboration with the CSIR as means to move towards the electronic tracing of offenders. He asked if this had been added to the 2021/22 financial year's APP and budget.

On the KZN incident, he said in the Committee’s last engagement with the Department on this matter, there had been an issue or a delay in tracing whose gadget had been used to film the incident. The DCS had indicated it had not yet been able to establish whose gadget was used in order to properly effect consequence management for those who had enabled that incident. The Committee had seen those who were involved in the act, but it was again extending the consequence management system to the enablers of that incident. Had the Department been able to trace whose gadget or phone was used, and who else was involved in planning that incident?

He had an issue with the disciplinary code that was explicitly explained in terms of training, capacity building, and so on. The truth it was faced with was beyond the disciplinary systems, the code of conduct and capacity building. The ills of the Department had not come to an end. For example, beyond sex incidents, there were drug syndicates, and a lot more happening in Correctional Services centres. Had the Department seen the need to review the code and consider whether there was a need for amendments, in view of the current situations that were happening in line with the evolution of society? At all times, the systems in place should be in line with the current conditions of the Department. Had the DCS seen a need to consider whether the current code was the best, where the challenges were, and whether it was yielding the actual intended result?

As he was sitting in this meeting, he imagined a 21-year old boy who had since received that video, and who would now be convinced that being arrested was no different to living in society. Those were the negative effects these kinds of sex incidents were causing in society. They consequently caused deterioration in the confidence of people in the judicial system, and in the corrections system. Had the Department gone out, whether through media statements, interviews, or another form, to communicate to society about what had transpired, and what actions the Department was taking not only to try to address this incident, but also to curb further incidents of that nature in the near future? Had the Department taken that concerted effort to do this and conscientise society?    

Ms Molepo responded to Mr Selfe’s issue on the budget and the shift from incarceration to Community Corrections. She said the DCS’s focus within the Department was in terms of developing the service delivery model to ensure it would focus more on the theatre of operations which was focused more on management areas and the Community Corrections offices in the centres. The micro structure it was currently in the process of finalising also had to take into consideration the structure of Community Corrections. That would enable the DCS to achieve its mandate within Community Corrections, as it had been using the previous structure. For now, in terms of the micro structure that was being finalised during the current financial year, it would focus on issues of its structure.

The other issue was about learnerships. It had been indicated that the DCS would absorb learners within Community Corrections so that once it finalised the structure, they could assist by providing capacity and staff establishment. While the micro structure was being finalised, it would prioritise the issue of social auxiliary workers (. As soon as it finalised this, it would appoint several SAWs within its facilities.

Electronic monitoring was another system that would assist the DCS through the physical monitoring of offenders, parolees and probationers within Community Corrections. The project was from February until March. Within this current financial year, it would finalise and start with the implementation of the EM system.

The other key issue the DCS was working on, with the implementation of the District Development Model, was collaborating with stakeholders in various communities and ensuring all management areas and Correctional centres were engaging stakeholders within their communities and working closely with them to ensure that resources were shared within communities.  

On the issue of re-offending, the DCS had a system in place that ensured it was in a position to know how many people re-offended and the types of crimes they committed. Overall, there had been 126 re-offenders. Ms Molepo said she would focus more on the violent crime, but economic crimes were also committed. In terms of the violent crime, there were three murders and one rape in the Eastern Cape, one rape and two grievous bodily harm cases in LMN, one murder and one rape in the Free State and Northern Cape, and two murders and one rape in Western Cape.

 Some of the reasons offenders re-offended was due to unemployment. Some parolees, due to their crime record, struggled to find employment, but the DCS was working with stakeholders to ensure it facilitated job opportunities for offenders. The other issues included gang activities, where offenders re-offended due to these activities and loss of their support systems. This had been addressed where the DCS would need to ensure that, during admission, it should start working with all the offenders to ensure their families got involved, rather than waiting until parole.  

Ms Molepo said the DCS had EM, which was not included in its APP, but was included in its annual operational plan. The reason for this was because it was still a project for this financial year, which was running from February until the end of the financial year. She said a budget was available for the implementation of the EM system the DCS was currently working on.

Mr Mthethwa responded to the issues from Mr Nqola on the the cellphone used to film the incident, and said it belonged to the offender in Ncome. The cellphone, in terms of the DCS’s approved standard operating procedures (SOPs), was one of the unauthorised articles that was not allowed within its system. This was very clear in its SOPs, which emphasised the consequence management, as it was unacceptable for it to have found its way into the facilities. This was why, through the investigation that was conducted after the incident, it was established that one of the two ladies who had been dismissed was the one who had smuggled this cellphone of the offender into the facility. As a result, it had been added into the charges against that particular individual. The offender was also charged for possession of the cellphone, so he had been downgraded to a maximum.

The SOPs were very clear that cellphones were not allowed, so proper searches needed to be conducted at the entry as well as the exit of the facility. On the intervention the DCS was implementing, it was finalising its integrated security strategy, which was inclusive of all the elements of the activity or system it wanted to have going forward. Currently, it was procuring and awaiting the delivery of an operative system that would assist it with downloading information from the cellphones it confiscated during the searches, and to do this on its own. At this point it would utilise its sister department, which was assisting the DCS to deal with its own requirements. By extension, the model the DCS was introducing was inclusive of what Mr Nqola had indicated regarding role the DCS was playing, or what role the community would play to assist the Department. The model would focus holistically on an offensive as well as a defensive approach, to ensure it was able to have the environmental and geographical centre, focusing on its SOPs and looking into it and questioning the extent all these levels played to impact this security breach while it was focused on the target -- the individual who had done this. It would then be able to conduct the threat and risk assessment which was part of this model, and understand to what extent its facility was impacting negatively on all these security breaches.

The integrity of its officials was another factor added to the security model for consideration. It was finalising a policy for vetting and checking the personnel integrity of officials so that it did not have to wait for the State Security Agency (SSA), on which it was currently dependent.  This would give it a holistic approach to prevent and to curb incidents before they could happen, and eventually help to develop reforms, inclusive of the community, because focusing on one environment may not be sufficient to curb and address the matter appropriately.

Ms Ramulifho responded on whether the disciplinary procedure policy was responsive enough to address sexual incidents going forward. The DCS, as it was currently developing its consequence management, was also adding the HR part on the ethical behavioural standards that also needed to be addressed in terms of the Code of Ethics, guided by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA).

The preventative measures, such as the issues of recruitment, including psychometric batteries, would be part and parcel of what the DCS used to ensure it recruited people who were the right fit for the purpose. Other measures would include ethical behaviour and sexual conduct that would assist in ensuring more awareness of the prevention of sexual incidents. On the security part, there would be profiling of offenders on a regular basis to ensure they were at a level that complemented what the security standards prescribed. Lifestyle audits would be another preventative measure that would assist the DCS to focus on how it could analyse and prevent such incidents from occurring, as part of the case study it was undertaking in KZN.

The code of ethics and conduct which the DCS was currently addressing in terms of the ethical organisational culture within the Department and capacity building issues, was to ensure there was a driving focus on productivity, efficiency, discipline, and implementing that work and also delivering efficient service delivery by ensuring that the supervisors or managers supervising officials would continuously be checking these elements, so that they could prevent this from happening within the Department.

Mr Phiko Mbambo, Acting Chief Operations Commissioner, responded to Mr Nqola’s issue on what the Department would do to restore the confidence of the public, based on the incidents that had happened in the DCS. His team had already indicated the initiatives currently under way - the issue of Ncome and Operation Lungisa, and the lessons that it would learn from these exercises. The operation it would be involved in would be communicated in the media. Tomorrow, there would be a session of the professionals of the Department, where they would discuss this issue. It would find solutions based on those discussions, and they would be communicated to the public through the DCS’s external communication department, because it was clear communication was the way to go to create public awareness about these unfortunate things that had happened. It would ensure it sustained this approach, as it did not want to have a repeat of these bad incidents. It would be therefore be firm regarding the code of conduct and the educational awareness of the DCS officials where this behaviour was concerned.

He clarified that those were the interventions the DCS was planning to undertake soon, and Operation Lungisa at Ncome would be completed soon. Around June, the Department's stance on these behaviours, as reported in the media, would have been made clear to the public.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) said that before a parolee was released, the DCS would have to investigate the family or check if the family would take the parolee back to their homes or to the community. She asked how the interactions with the families went, because some of the families did not want the offenders back. Who went to speak with the family and explain to them that the offender’s term had ended, or he/she was up for parole? Who communicated with the family or promoted the possibility that the family could take the parolee back?

Slide 9 indicated other offenders who qualified had picked up further charges. Before they were put on parole, they were still incarcerated. How did they already pick up extra charges? Did they pick them up while they were out on parole and then went back to the facility? She asked for clarity on that point.

The DCS had referred to partnerships with different stakeholders. or non-profit organisations (NPOs). Who were these NPOs and stakeholders? She asked the DCS to provide some examples.

How many parolees could each halfway house accommodate? What assistance did it provide to those parolees?

The DCS had said it had sent a proposal for funding the social auxiliary workers to the Presidential employment stimulus. Had it received a response as to whether it would receive the funding or not? She said the SAWs could not work without supervision, as they had to work under the supervision of a social worker. Were the social workers who supervised the SAW the Department of Social Development, or were they DCS social workers?

A lack of ICT facilities had been indicated. How much funding in this new financial year had it allocated to improve the ICT situation?

On the Electronic Monitoring (EM) system, the DCS had had a contract from 2014 to 2019. On the evaluation of that system during that time, what was the reason for the termination of the contract? Had it helped the Department to track the parolees, or did it not work? As the DCS was moving on to a new system, how much had been provided for it? Was it working? Was the DCS able to use this new system to accurately track parolees and monitor them?

Slide 4 had referred to drastic action that had been taken in the past. She asked for examples of these actions, especially if they were still continuing. Why had they not helped prevent the situation in these days?

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen said the DCS had mentioned a long list of training, awareness, ethical awareness and so on. She had not heard any practical ways to prevent officials and inmates from engaging in sexual relations. The Committee had heard a lot about the overcrowding in Correctional Services, so she got the sense that there was no way to get any kind of privacy. What practical measures had been put in place to prevent officials and inmates from having the opportunity to engage in such actions? In previous sessions, the Committee had heard that sexual incidents in Correctional Services had ended up on different social media platforms. Had the DCS investigated how inmates got access to social media, or how they could be prevented from having access to social media to share these videos?  

Ms Molepo said in order to provide support for parolees, the DCS had social workers in its system. The social workers would engage with the families, and some of the heads of the correctional centres also communicated with the families of its members while they were still in its facilities. Even when they were on parole, it had reintegration officials who continued to engage with the families of the parolees.

Regarding the NPOs, the DCS had several NPOs in its system. For example the National Application Centre offered skills empowerment programmes to parolees and probationers. It also had other NPOs which marketed a positive image of the Department. It would interview some parolees and probationers, who exhibited what they had learnt within the correctional facilities, and this would then be presented in their communities so that the DCS was also promoted. She confirmed the DCS had been engaging with other departments, and that it had a list of the NPOs within its system.

She repeated the provincial breakdown of the seven halfway houses, and said the Department had reintegrated 33 parolees and probationers through them.

The DCS had not yet received a response on the SAW funding requested from the Presidential employment stimulus. It had presented its case to the National Treasury, but it was still awaiting feedback. It was true that the SAWs were working under the supervision of social workers. Within Correctional Services and in Community Corrections, there were 118 social workers, and the SAWs were supervised by the DCS’s social workers.

Regarding the EM system from 2014 to 2019, it had an evaluation/close-out report which indicated the lessons learnt from it, which had assisted the DCS in monitoring its parolees and probationers. Therefore, it would continue this year with the new EM system, as it would assist in reducing the overcrowding within its facilities.

On the budget for the current financial year, the DCS had around R24 million for the EM project which would be implemented as soon as it finalised the project. It developed an electronic tracking that would be led between the DCS and the CSIR. This would contribute towards reducing the number of offenders within its Correctional facilities and even within Community Corrections, it would assist with reducing re-offending because it would provide real-time information of where the offender was.

Ms Ramulifho responded on slide 8. She said the chairperson and initiator sessions were conducted in terms of employee relations, and were the labour relations sessions that the DCS undertook in terms of the HR policy, read together with the labour relations. It was very important for the chairperson to understand the human rights issues and the power relations in terms of the supervisor, the offender, and so on. The DCS continuously conducted these sessions to ensure they were aware and addressed the professional conduct of employees and offenders when they addressed matters. This was also to ensure they promoted the willingness of accounting of employees in terms of their behaviour and the process of being corrected while they shared the disciplinary processes in the centres.

On the drastic actions referred to in slide 4, she said this involved the LMN region, as there had been a sexual incident in 2019. The matter had been finalised and addressed, and the official outcome of the investigation, together with the disciplinary process outcome, was that the official was dismissed and tried to appeal, but it was overruled and finalised. The drastic action was therefore a zero tolerance, with no exception on incidents in terms of the security standards, the code of conduct, the disciplinary procedures and code, and all the ethical codes being maintained.  

Mr Mthethwa responded on the number that dropped from 19 000 to 17 922. He said one of the reasons was because of those who had been identified as having further charges. How did the DCS establish the further charges? Part of the prerequisite conditions for the 2020 special parole dispensation was that all offenders would have gone through a DNA test by the staff. For whatever reason, if that particular individual that had been tested it was found that a matter was still outstanding, the DCS would not place that person on parole, so the numbers would decrease from the original forecast. There were those who had refused to undergo the DNA test, but the DCS had worked with the police to establish what they were hiding, and had told them they were not going anywhere.

To prevent offenders from utilising cellphones and gaining access to social media, provision had been made in terms of the DCS’s approved SOPs on security that cellphones were not allowed in its facilities. Therefore, they were unauthorised articles, and whoever was found with them would be punished. In its integrated draft security strategy, it had included the manner in which it would address this, in line with its partners such as CSIR. It was developing a model that would assist it in blocking cellphone networks within its precincts, in line with the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) regulations. This was part of the big package that he had mentioned. The DCS was ready to address this to ensure it prevented cellphones from being smuggled into its facilities

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) referred to the first presentation on the issue of reductions, saying she appreciated the thorough work of the DCS on this matter. The Committee acknowledged some of the good it saw, and the progress in addressing all of these issues. It appreciated the DCS’s efforts and its focus to ensure they made a difference.

She asked how many foreign inmates were amongst those who were released, as she had not picked this up in the presentation.

She asked the DM and the DG if this kind of meeting could be repeated in future. Did they think it could help in bringing some ease in terms of addressing the issue of congestion within its facilities?

On the issue of parolees returning to their families, she said the Committee had heard that some families did not want them to return, and there were a lot of reasons for this. Since halfway houses had been discussed, and the NGO’s that welcomed them if the families rejected them, she asked what the DCS did to assist the NGOs to carry this burden. The fact that they were rejected by their families might impact on their low self-esteem and because they felt rejected, it could also be a reason for them to commit other crimes that would send back to the correctional facilities. She described an incident with her in-law’s neighbour, where the entire family had rejected the male parolee. The parolee’s sister had welcomed him, but in the end, this man had ended up killing his sister and he was currently back in prison. Considering the anger that inmates had towards their families, what could be done to assist them and their families? She was aware that the DCS sent its officials and social workers to talk to the families, but what more could be done to ensure this did not happen -- the impact caused by rejection. She asked the officials to elaborate on this matter.

Her advice to the female officials involved in the sexual incidents would be that it was certainly an embarrassment, especially since these incidents were mainly committed by the women. This was very embarrassing, especially when dealing with such a high rate of gender-based violence (GBV) issues at this time. One needed to talk sense into some of these officials who were involved in this. Perhaps there were only a few incidents that had been reported, but it was unclear how many more had taken place within its facilities. This should be condemned in the strongest terms.

Ms Maseko-Jele disagreed with the DCS’s use of “training” of officials on these issues. It should rather use education and awareness, because training was something else. Officials could not be trained, as it involved issues of behaviour and ethics. Did officials sign the code of conduct as it related to these ethical behaviour issues? This would mean that when officials needed to be disciplined, one could refer them back to this -- where they had been made aware that this behaviour would not be tolerated.

She added that there was a video circulating in the media of an inmate with a gun, where an official was being held hostage. It was later discovered that this video was a joke and an act. Because of the violence and the many incidents of misconduct and wrongdoings reported in the prisons, what had the Department done to condemn this, if it was really an act?   

Ms Molepo responded to the question on the foreign inmates. She said the DCS would provide the numbers but for now, it did not have the exact figures. The foreign nationals did not come to Community Corrections, as they were only registered on the system and on the same day, they would be deported by the Department of Home Affairs. As soon as they got out of the Correctional centre, the centre had to ensure the Department of Home Affairs was available, but Community Corrections only recorded them and then they would get sent to the deportation centres. The DCS would provide the numbers of the foreign nationals in its system.

She confirmed that the DCS had a challenge with the parolees' support system, as it was shown from the number of those who re-offended, there had been 11 with a loss of support. Within the Department, it communicated with families, although there were families who were reluctant, but it ensured that prior to the release, the social workers would be involved with the families where the offenders would not be welcomed to their place of residence. It also engaged with other family members within the family. For example, if it was the parent, social workers would also engage other family members who would be willing to accommodate the parolees and probationers. In some cases, the DCS received positive responses from some of those offenders where the families did not accept them. Some would be placed at the halfway houses if the families rejected them, but the DCS would continue to engage with the family members and other family members. The social workers were therefore highly involved in this process of engaging the families to accept the parolees and probationers. For those who returned due to committing violent or aggressive crimes, the DCS had anger management programmes offered to offenders within its Correctional Centres, and even within Community Corrections, it continued offering anger management programmes to the offenders.   

Ms Ramulifho responded on the matter of embarrassment. She said the Department felt the same about bringing the Department into disrepute. However, through the GBV action plan, the DCS had embarked on ensuring that the officials promoted the values of a Correctional Service official. Wearing the brown uniform should demonstrate the dignity and respect of women by ensuring their conduct also improved within the Department. This was part and parcel of its GBV action plan going forward, which it would be reporting on quarterly in terms of progress.

She acknowledged suggestion that the DCS should capture training and awareness when it presented. She also acknowledged that reference to the skills development and soft skills training on sexual harassment was classified in terms of its reporting and training, and also part of awareness, but recognised the input from Ms Maseko-Jele.

Ms Ramulifho said all employees signed a code of conduct when they were appointed, and it was kept in their personal files. The DCS was rolling out an ethical conduct form that all employees would sign in terms of the ethics standards, guided by the DPSA.   

Mr Mthethwa responded to the question of the release of foreign nationals for the SPD, saying that the figure at this point in time was just over 2 475 out of the total of 13 989.

He agreed the video was certainly embarrassing. The Department took this matter seriously and as a result, a criminal case had been opened on the same day against the perpetrator. That was the contravention of two sections within its Act. One was section 124, which prohibited the utilisation of any part of the Department’s services, particularly the uniform, which included the uniform of officials or of offenders. The other contravention was in terms of section 125 of the Correctional Services Act, which addressed the masquerading of its uniform or any part of the Department without the approval of the National Commissioner. The case had been opened, and the DCS was currently monitoring it closely. The police had reported that it was following the matter up and had managed to get hold of the perpetrator, who had provided a statement where he confirmed he had not got any approval for such. The DCS would receive an update this week from the provincial brigadier on this matter.  

Mr Mbambo said the Department was also embarking on the process of developing a social media capacity, which was captured in its annual operational plan for this current financial year, to address all the issues it experienced in the media. This was to ensure it had a sustainable strategy going forward on how to curb these things from happening.

Prof C Msimang (IFP) said he focused on the main objective for the adoption of the SPD strategy which was to try to reduce the number of those who became infected with Covid-19. The government had emphasised that crowding could make Covid-19 infections run rampant, and that as these facilities were so overcrowded, it would not be able to control the spread. Since the SPD had started in 2020, what had been the outcome? Was the DCS comfortable that it was winning the war?

When these offenders found themselves back in their communities earlier than was expected, in certain instances it could be found that the wounds caused by the offences had not completely healed. Did this facilitate reintegration? If it did not, would the offender who had been released on parole become tempted to re-commit a crime so that he/she could be convicted and be in a space where perhaps there would not be many disgruntled persons?

His first impression when the Committee was presented with the report on the sexual misconduct conduct of officials and several inmates, was that this was a very serious matter which could bring the correctional facilities into disrepute, as well as the Department, and therefore it was worth reporting and addressing it. When it came to the statistics, however, he did not know what to think when in provinces such as Gauteng and KZN, with very large prison populations, he received reports of only one or two cases. He therefore assumed this was not very serious, and not even worth reporting to the Committee. The only reason he could think of for reporting this was that the means of detecting the offences or the misconduct were not effective. If the DCS presented on only one incident in the entire KZN, with so many correctional services facilities, and only two instances of this misconduct in Gauteng, then surely it could not claim it was serious. If it was serious, then the ways, the means and the mechanisms of detecting it, were not effective. 

Ms Molepo responded to the question of whether the communities accepted the parolees back into the communities, and the challenges. One of the processes that had to be undertaken prior the release was to ensure there was family support. The second issue looked at the restorative justice programme and the participation of offenders in this programme prior to reintegration. Placement of offenders would commence after all due processes, including victim offender dialogues, had accordingly unfolded. For example, if the offender did not attend the restorative justice programme, they were supposed to attend prior release. The timing of the offender’s release would be delayed to ensure the restorative justice programme was implemented and the victims had been involved. The SAWs would assist in terms of tracing the victims to ensure offenders engaged in the programme prior their release.

Prior to the SPD, the DCS undertook marketing programmes where it marketed the SPD through virtual meetings to prepare communities to accept the parolees. It also distributed information pamphlets and presented nationally on the SPD in community radio talks. It had engaged stakeholders and consulted immediately after the announcement by the President and the Minister. Families of parolees and probationers were also consulted. It undertook this in collaboration with the SAPS, as well as with the DSD. Those programmes had assisted in creating awareness and ensuring people understood the situation when the offenders came back. However, the consultations with families were of critical importance in cases where the social workers were closely involved in counselling the families. The SAWs were also involved in counselling the victims and promoting the restorative justice programme so that those families could understand the process. She clarified that this process had to be undertaken prior to the implementation of the SPD.  

Ms Ramulifho responded to the comment about the statistics, read in terms of Schedule A of the DCS’s operational service regulations and its disciplinary procedures. She said the DCS took the allegations of sexual incidents seriously because of its security code and the nature of the work it rendered, and it was unacceptable that officials broke the code of conduct through incidents of sexual misconduct. This incident had been one too many, as officials were appointed to ensure that they safeguarded and secured, and that they handled themselves professionally so that offenders would be able to see authority in the uniforms they wore.

She said the DCS took note of Prof Msimang’s comment that he expected more incidents, but because of the continuous management directives by the National Commissioner that it would not be acceptable to have officials engaging in elements of sexual incidents in any facilities and areas, it was hoped there would be no more sexual incidents in the near future. The Department would promote a high-level of discipline to ensure zero tolerance of this behaviour, in line with the GBV framework of the national developmental plan (NDP)..

Mr Mthethwa said the 2020 SPD certainly had a significant impact, which was very positive. It was therefore part of the DCS’s plans in managing its disaster management response team. Before the commencement of the SPD, which had started on 20 May 2020, its inmate population was 155 069 against its approved accommodation of 120 567, which was an excess of 30.78%. Currently, as of 10 May, it had 140 004, which was an excess of 16.16%. This indicated a significant reduction in the overcrowding, and the DCS had therefore was able to manage the spread of Covid-19 effectively.

Follow-up questions and responses

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen rephrased her question on the halfway houses. Of the seven, how many people could each house accommodate?  

Ms Molepo said each halfway house could accommodate a maximum of six offenders.

Ms Maseko-Jele posed a follow-up question in the chat. Was there any specific timeframe where an inmate could interact with an official during work time, or did they have open time? This was in relation to the sexual allegations.

Mr Mthethwa said there was no specific timeframe, where a female official and an offender could spend time together, as they were officials in any case.

The Chairperson said he would start with a detailed question that the DCS did not need to respond to, as he wanted it responded to in writing.

Of the close to 38 000 women in brown uniform within Correctional Services, how many women in the brown uniform were in management and how many were the full soldiers who interacted on a daily basis with the inmates? What kind of support did they receive in executing their work? What kind of infrastructure support and security support did the ones who interacted with inmates on a daily basis receive? He explained that the question was asked because he had picked up a sense of vulnerability regarding their role and what the women did. Although the few sexual allegations could be regarded as almost negligible or insignificant, they remained important because so far the only report it had received was that the women in brown were intimately involved with the inmates, hence the vulnerability. He had not heard a different version that indicated the men in brown were also involved with women inmates. He therefore emphasised the sense of vulnerability, because it appeared as if inmates were not forcing themselves, attacking or imposing themselves on the women in brown.

To add to the point about the DCS’s focus on social reintegration, which was very important, he said it seemed there was a major challenge with the core mandate of this Department. Its core mandate was not incarceration or any of the other programmes -- it was rehabilitation, which was why it was a Correctional Service, and not a prison. It seemed as if it was struggling with the core mandate. The DCS had focused mainly on the 126 who had re-offended not being accepted by their families or the communities, and the trouble with social integration. The DCS should go back to indicate that at a time when they were being paroled, it seemed as if they were not ready and were not rehabilitated. The kind of acts they were involved in, such as assault, murder and serious multiple rapes, and so on, pointed to that core service. Members were all aware that of the many centres that existed, very few were geared towards rehabilitation, and overcrowding could also be added to this. He emphasised the challenge with the core mandate of rehabilitation. He clarified that he had used the 126 as an example, but it was important to delve deeper into this issue. It was something the Committee would have to give more attention to.

He said that Members had raised the issue of the budget, and in future, responses should be based on the budget in terms of social integration or rehabilitation issues, and so on.

He said his comments suggested the Department had a long way to go in responding to its mandate. He got a sense it was struggling with its core mandate. He would leave this to the Department to reflect on, as it did not sit well with him. It had been many years since it declared that this was its core mandate, but it would never get restorative justice if it did not attend to many of those issues.

National Commissioner’s comments

Mr Fraser said the DCS would consider all the issues raised, but specifically those raised by the Chairperson. It would try to provide an adequate response to them.

He agreed that the Department had challenges, but it was trying to deal with them. This was the reason it tried to have a long-term outlook while it was meeting the targets it had set.

The DCS needed to have greater interaction from its side with some of the social departments so that it could deal with corrections not only from the tail end of the process, but could try to correct them at the entry point, which was at the family level, the community level, and the schooling level. These were the areas where it was challenging itself, to ensure it did not look only at the internal issues that it needed to deal with. The engagement with the Committee over this brief period had elevated and challenged the DCS to respond in a specific manner.

Aside from the rehabilitation programmes, the DCS was challenged by the insufficient information that it received from the SAPS. It had had engagements with the SAPS, where it was in the process of signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This was so that for the rehabilitation programmes, it could understand the description of the crime and the crime history of the offender, because when it dealt with rehabilitation, its response plan would be inadequate and re-offending would happen if it did not have this information. It would allow the DCS to see the victim at the beginning of the process, and therefore Community Corrections would be part of its admissions. As it evolved as a Department, Community Corrections would no longer be at the tail end, but at the beginning, when the DCS dealt with admissions. It was important to reflect this.

The DCS agreed with the National Commissioner of Police that it should develop protocols so that it did not have fragmented approaches developing at the centre level. He mentioned this, as there was one case the DCS had not shared with the Committee in this session. There had been a female remand offender who had been impregnated by a policeman while she was in a facility. During this process, it had been discovered that the police officer had collected the female remandee and that the sexual act had happened outside of its facility. The DCS had engaged with the SAPS, and it was in the process of dealing with the disciplinary process in this regard. It was important to raise this with the Committee so that it did not see it on social media before the DCS registered this with it. the DCS was following up on this, but it wanted a clear protocol on how it dealt with it. It was currently working on this protocol. To clarify, one of the officials in the Durban management area, Durban Westville, who had sexual relations with an offender, had been criminally charged with rape and was currently in a disciplinary process. The DCS believed the offender had been vulnerable, and had therefore moved to the perspective that the incident had been more serious than consensual relations. The DCS was looking into that matter.

On whether the DCS should repeat the SPD, he would want the Department to give this consideration, as it was more complex than simply giving an immediate response on whether it could repeat it. The DCS was looking at the remanded population, because that was what was actually overcrowding its facilities. If its facilities dealt only with sentenced offenders, they would not be overcrowded. This meant the DCS needed to get its partners -- both the police and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) -- on board so that they could compress the time used to complete the investigations so that cases could go to trial. Too much time was spent with offenders in remand. To address overcrowding, incarceration for remand needed to be looked at, because it received people who were involved in minor offences and were not released.

The DCS had noted the Committee’s advice to look at how it communicated. It would communicate better on the issues it was addressing so that it could provide assurance to society in terms of its work.

Mr Fraser thanked the Committee for its leadership. He said the DCS endeavoured to deliver according to its mandate, and handed back to the Chairperson.   

Deputy Minister's comments

Deputy Minister Holomisa expressed his appreciation for the interaction with the Committee, commenting that as government, it sometimes struggled to observe some of its shortcomings as it carried out its responsibilities.

The Department noted the Committee’s views on the work it was doing, and would ensure it would provide written responses on the issues raised regarding what was required from the DCS.

He took comfort from the remark that the Committee would assist by taking a serious look at the DCS’s budget.

He explained that the Department had taken the decision to take the 19 000 deserving parolees out of its centres, through the Presidential pardon, because of overcrowding. The idea was that by the time these people were to be ready for release, they would have undergone the rehabilitation programmes. It had discovered that they were not all ready, and it had become difficult for the DCS to develop the programmes for the parolees to be released as soon as it would have wanted to. The lockdown restrictions had prevented performance of the kind of work that was required to ensure they met the criteria.

As the DCS released them, there were those who also had to be released to Community Corrections because of the normal processes they had to follow. This did not mean that there would be readily available space for the newly released beneficiaries to come out, as it had to rely on some of the halfway houses. The fact that it also had to lease accommodation from private individuals was not doing it much good as a centre, as the Department had to have full control of the premises it utilises. For example, the centres need internet connection, and some of them needed cables, but the DCS was not in a position to install them in premises it did not own. Hence, the kind of support it needed from the Committee on the budget was very much appreciated and important.

He agreed with Members that it should not spend a lot of time training people to behave in a manner that was common sense -- that officials should not have sexual relations with the people they worked with, especially people who were under their care and people who were vulnerable. He emphasised that this was totally unacceptable, and the DCS would not want to be seen spending too much of the State’s resources on this. The question of discipline was at the core of the kind of work it would have to do, and the kind of people they were as men and women in brown uniform.

He responded to Prof Msimang’s point that the fact that so few had been caught or detected was an indication of the ineffectiveness of the DCS’ detection mechanisms. He did not think that should be the test as to whether it was effective or not. The irony of it was that with some of the people who had been caught, the information had been revealed because of the illegal possession of gadgets by people inside the centres. If there was no smuggling of that kind of device -- for example, at Ncome -- the DCS would not have been aware of what had happened. This was a kind of twisted situation, where it had got information because people had done something illegal.

The matter of social integration was a very important issue on, and needed the support of Members of Parliament (MPs) from all parties. The Department would welcome invitations from MPs whenever they went to do constituency work with their communities, so that they could assist the DCS in educating and making the public aware of the need for people who had undergone the rehabilitation programmes in the Correctional Centres, to be accepted by their families, the communities, as well as the business community. There was a tendency by people in general that having a criminal record automatically meant that a person was not entitled to work, to be employed, and to be given business opportunities. That was not the case. There were only specific instances where such people were not allowed. The law did not allow the DCS to reemploy those people, yet everyone else was expected to do that. Education and awareness campaigns were necessary so that it did not appear to the public that this was only a matter for the Department of Justice, and Correctional Services in particular. It had to be understood that this was a government policy that must be promoted and accepted.

Chairperson’s closing remarks

The Chairperson said the Committee would like the Department come back and put the spotlight on the three programmes -- rehabilitation, social integration and Community Corrections. It wanted a much more detailed discussion on them. The DCS should come back and indicate where things stood with rehabilitation. The Committee also wanted to know the infrastructure rfequired, the issues of budget as mentioned by the DM, and what the bottlenecks for these kinds of programmes were. The Committee should be aware that rehabilitation was not just a Correctional Services matter and that there were many other role-players, so that it could address the entire situation.

The DCS should come back to indicate, once it had identified the problems that prevented the Department from focusing on its core mandate, what it would propose as the next steps. This would help, because Community Corrections was "a big elephant," and the approach had to be addressed a bit by bit in order to succeed. There was a lot of connection between those three programmes, and while the others were not unimportant, this matter was becoming a key priority considering that it revolved around the Department’s mandate.

The Committee would come back to the DCS with details on what it should prepare, and would set aside time to address those issues.

The meeting was adjourned.