Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons Annual Report: briefing

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE

Itinerary (IPV Nominations, September – October 2005)
Offenders in Custody - 30 August 2005

SUMMARY
The Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP) briefed the Committee on its Independent Prison Visitors (IPVs), structure and awareness campaigns, as well as on some legal issues that affected prisoners.

Members were concerned that not enough was done to assist all prisoners in South Africa since most of the Inspectorate’s attention appeared to be focused on the Western Cape. Concerns were also raised that in the recruitment of IVPs, the JIOP excluded rural communities.

MINUTES

Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons briefing
Mr Michael Prusent (IPV Manager) briefed the Committee on the function of the Independent Prison Visitors. IPVs would in future be recruited from non-governmental as well as community-based organisations. The IPVs were appointed by the Inspecting Judge for a period of three years. They visited prisons regularly, interviewed prisoners and recorded their complaints. Each prison should have an IPV appointed to it. They reported to a regional co-ordinator.

Mr Albert Fritz (National Manager Inspections) reported that the Inspectorate had been very involved in creating public awareness. He said that the Booklet, "Women in South African Prisons" produced by the Inspectorate in December 2004 as a contribution to the "16 Days of Activism" Campaign was one of the year’s highlights.

Ms Dudu Luthuli (National Manager Support Services) briefed the Committee on the organisational structure of the JIOP. On 1 October 2004 the first Regional Office was opened in Centurion. This was the first step towards increasing the Inspectorate’s regional presence.

Mr Umesh Raga (Judicial Inspectorate: Legal Services) informed the Committee that from 15 July 2005 prisons were required to submit mandatory reports for every death, every case of solitary confinement and segregation, and every incident in which mechanical restraints (other than handcuffs and leg-irons) were used.

He said that the change to Section 79 of the amended Correctional Services Act could possibly result in fewer medical releases. The Act stipulated that a prisoner could be released in the final stages of a terminal disease (2-3 months before death). This clause would have to be amended to allow the exercise of discretion. He reminded the Committee that release for medical reasons would naturally be subject to certain conditions.

Transfers remained a problematic area. Prisons had different security classifications and were therefore governed by different procedures. Transfers were also often granted in order to subvert the course of justice.

In 1995 the death sentence was declared unconstitutional. At present there were still 97 prisoners held under death sentence warrants. Their sentences were yet to be converted. The Inspectorate was trying to speed up this process because the privileges afforded to those sentenced to death were low.

Discussion
Ms S Chikunga (ANC) was concerned that the criteria for the appointment of IPVs excluded many rural communities. Very often these communities did not have NGOs and CBOs that were organised in the way they would have been in urban areas. She pointed out that 95% of the people in her constituency were unemployed. Did the Inspectorate’s criteria for appointing IPVs not discriminate against these communities? The Chairperson added that it appeared as though farm children were being sidelined.

Mr Morris responded that the JIOP was required by law to publicly call for nominations for IPVs. It had to approach NGOs and CBOs. He said that in recognition of the differences in rural and urban communities there had been some changes in recent years. The Inspectorate had, on some occasions, called for nominations in rural areas and very often, large numbers of applications were received for just one vacancy. They wanted to avoid such large-scale disappointment.

IVPs were assigned to a prison. Often there were no prisons in remote areas. The IVP would then be required to commute. Since the position did not include travel costs this would be an additional expense. He stressed that the Inspectorate was not discriminating against rural communities and assured the Committee that it would find a ‘best practice’ that included rural areas so as to improve their recruitment process.

Ms Chikunga said that she appreciated the extension of the IPVs contracts from two to three years. Could an IPV reapply after his or her three year contract came to an end? Did the JIOP review their performance? Mr P Khoarai (ANC) also requested clarity on the term of the IPV contract.

Mr Morris said that an IPV could not be appointed for two consecutive terms. He noted that being employed for longer than three years could affect their effectiveness. It was feared that after too long a period IVPs might become ‘institutionalised’. During their tenure, the IPVs received skills training that might assist them in finding employment once their contract expired. Currently many former IVPs were Chairpersons of Prison Boards and many were employed within the Office of the Inspectorate.

Mr E Xolo (ANC) asked whether any officials were allowed to disregard a prisoner’s request to be transferred closer to their homes. This appeared to be happening often. What was the procedure that needed to be followed?

Mr Prusent said that the highest number of requests with which the IPVs dealt was transfers. Many prisons had been approached to facilitate transfers so as to assist in lowering the population in some facilities. Mr Morris added that 80% of the awaiting trial detainees in the country were held in only nine prisons.

The Chairperson asked whether the regional co-ordinators were gender representative. Mr Fritz said that only one of the six inspectors employed by the Inspectorate was a woman.

Mr Kuarai said that many of the cases that had enjoyed the attention of the JIOP were in the Western Cape. Other provinces also struggled with overcrowding and other problems. What was the Inspectorate doing about these cases?

The Chairperson asked why everything appeared to be centred on Pollsmoor. Thohoyandou faced one of the greatest problems regarding overcrowding. Where were the regional co-ordinators situated? He added that all prisons in the country needed to have the same services.

Mr Fritz said that five co-ordinators were in Cape Town while one was based in Centurion. Judge Fagan said that all prisoners had an IPV and that they reported to the regional co-ordinators who then responded to their needs. He added that perhaps they needed to be more ‘hands-on’. Mr Morris said that the Inspectorate needed direction from the Committee. A number of Inspectors had been employed and that number had not been increased. Regional Co-ordinators visited the prisons nine times a year.

Mr Chris Giffard, an independent researcher contracted to the JIOP, said that he was employed to assist inspectors in forming profiles. He added that much work was centred on Pollsmoor because it was selected as a pilot site. He said that the idea was to profile all prisoners. Once all the profiles had been done updating them would be easy.

Mr L Tolo (ANC) enquired how the Inspectorate was going about ensuring community involvement. Mr Fritz said that public awareness was vital because if common myths about prisoners were not eradicated there would be an uphill battle ahead.

Mr Xolo asked what could be done about a prisoner who had approached him about a transfer. The inmate was in a Johannesburg prison and had requested a transfer to a prison closer to his home. It was possible to arrange an exchange since the prison to which he wanted to be transferred held a prisoner who wanted to be transferred to Johannesburg. A simple exchange would have been possible. Three months later, despite promises to look into the matter, the Member had received word that nothing could be done about the request.

Mr Raga said they would be able to offer assistance in the matter. Although the Department had guidelines for how to deal with requests for transfers there were still officials who did not adhere to these. The JIOP used practical considerations when assessing requests for transfers. How long had it been since a prisoner had been visited by his family? What were the costs involved in travelling to and from the prison?

Mr N Fihla (ANC) said that the practice of the warder and the police assessing an offender upon his or her arrest, as used in a pilot project in Port Elizabeth, was a good practice. Government had introduced a system whereby Departments would work together to achieve goals. Awareness campaigns were necessary. The Committee had been involved in one such campaign at the University of Port Elizabeth. More such campaigns would not only educate the Community but would also assist in lowering the numbers in prison.

Judge Fagan responded that the co-operation between the SAPS and DCS in Port Elizabeth was superb. Upon arrest offenders were assessed and the prosecutor then decided whether to withdraw the charge or not. He said better co-operation was definitely needed across the country. He agreed strongly that community awareness programmes were necessary. Preventing crime was better than dealing with it later. His office was involved in a number of these campaigns. Mr Morris added that IPVs were required to dedicate four hours a month to awareness projects. The Inspectorate was looking at increasing it to ten hours.

Mr S Moatshe (ANC) added that one needed to create awareness to ensure the humane treatment of all prisoners and ex-prisoners. This would assist in combating recidivism and over-crowding. Was the Inspectorate leading by example by employing ex-offenders? The Judge said that his office definitely employed ex-offenders.

Ms Chikunga noted that the report stated that no blame could be attached to the DCS for the ongoing problem of overcrowding. Did this statement imply that DCS was doing its best to deal with the problem?

The Judge accepted full responsibility for the statement. He said that compared to the blame that could be attached to other parties, the blame attached to the DCS was minimal. The Chairperson emphasised that the JIOP had to be ‘open, frank and fair’ when dealing with the DCS. Mr Khoarai said that, in order for the report not to be considered false, the sentence would have to be removed. The Chairperson responded that removing it would be costly. The Committee would report on the JIOP’s Annual Report, and it would be debated in Parliament.

Ms Chikunga asked why the organisational objectives included in the 2003/2004 annual report had been omitted from the 2004/2005 report. Had the objectives been achieved? Were the JIOP’s strategic objectives supported by its budget?

Mr Moatshe asked whether the Inspectorate had any measures in place to ensure that its recommendations were implemented.

The Judge said that the Inspectorate was still working towards its goals, and developing ways to follow up on trends. The IPVs were assisting in this regard since they ensured that the Inspectorate had eyes in every prison. No budgetary constraints could be reported.

Ms Chikunga said that the monitoring of the IPVs should be improved. She asked why there had been such a tremendous increase in the number of complaints heard by the IPVs.

Mr Giffard said that one could not use the increase in the number of complaints as a measure of the satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the service as proved by the IPVs. One could only use the figures to assess trends. There were many factors that could have contributed to the increase.

Mr Khoarai enquired whether the IPVs received any trauma counselling when necessary. Mr Morris said that IPVs were generally well accepted. Last year there was one attempted rape in Durban. The IVP received counselling after the incident. There were not many incidents or complaints, but a stronger support system was needed.

The Chair added that the nature of the work the IVPs were required to do made counselling a necessity. He asked how often IVPs received an increase in their salaries. He appealed for an increase, so that they could at least afford medical care and counselling should they need it.

The Judge said that IPVs were currently paid R50 per hour. An increase could be recommended.

Mr Moatshe asked what was being done about those offenders who were held in isolation at Mangaung. What would be done about the infamous ‘dark room’? The Chairperson asked whether the JIOP was aware of the prisoner who had died at Mangaung in February.

Mr Fritz said that a full inspection would be done concerning the segregation of prisoners. Mr Raga said that anecdotal mention may have been made of the ‘dark room’ but no verification had been received. He added that private prisons such as Mangaung tended to ‘out define’ themselves. Mangaung prison suggested that, in accordance with Section 30 of the Act, prisoners were being segregated for their ‘development’ and not as punishment. Since their definition of segregation did not correspond to the Department’s, they did not report cases of segregation as required. Mr Raga had no knowledge of the death in February. It might be that the case was reported but a case number would be necessary in order to locate it. Mr Prusent added that IVPs were complaining about a lack of co-operation from prisons in the Free State.

The Chairperson said that it was worrying that the JIOP was not aware of the situation at Mangaung. This confirmed the statement by the IPV at the prison that he was not being taken seriously. A full investigation should be made into the fact that a death occurred at Mangaung in February, yet in September no one at the JIOP knew about it.

Mr Morris said that in terms of Section 1 of the Inquest Act any unnatural death had to be reported to the SAPS who would then launch an investigation. The Department of Correctional Services would run its own investigation. The Judge said that if any Members heard of any offences they should inform the Inspectorate.

Mr Tolo noted that the report made mention of a number of ‘unnatural’ deaths. What were the causes of these deaths? The Judge said that ‘unnatural’ merely referred to any accidental death, suicides or murder. ‘Natural’ death resulted from illness.

Mr Xolo mentioned that he had witnessed that in Thohoyandou 59 inmates shared one cell. It had only one shower that had been blocked for some time. Officials blatantly refused to clear the blockage. Was anything being done to improve the conditions in prisons? Most inmates spent the whole day in their cells without any form of activity.

Judge Fagan said that the numerous reports of prisoners not doing anything were very worrying. He said that he agreed with his British counterpart that a prisoner should never be idle.

Mr Moatshe asked whether there were IPVs at all prisons. Mr Prusent answered that all prisons should have an IVP. If a prison did not have one it would probably be as the result of a resignation or a transfer. Until such positions were filled the regional co-ordinator was supposed to attend to the needs of the prisoners.

The Chairperson was interested in what had become of the recommendations made in the annual report. Did they receive positive response? Were they acted upon? R14 million was spent on the JIOP. Was government taking its recommendations seriously?

The Judge said that no follow up was done on the recommendations. The recommendations in the previous report had been incorporated in magistrates’ manuals. The JIOP tried to persuade all relevant parties to act on its recommendations. They had succeeded in getting the much-needed special remissions.

The Chairperson was dissatisfied by the fact that the Committee still had not received the amendments to the Correctional Services Act. He said that the Judge and the presenters were quoting from an Act that the lawmakers still had no copy of. Judge Fagan assured the Committee that they would receive copies as soon as possible.

The Chairperson said that with their vision change could occur. He appealed to the Judge and the JIOP to ‘stay neutral’ because without neutrality their goals would not be achieved.

The meeting was adjourned.


Appendix A:

JUDICIAL INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS REGIONAL CO-ORDINATORS

GAUTENG PROVINCE
Hendrik Theron Cell: 082 692 8630
Office: 012-663 7521

FREE STATE PROVINCE
Thabo Phashe [Free State] Cell: 082 331 8128
Office: 012-663 7521

LIMPOPO / MPUMALANGA PROVINCES
Sipho Zitha Cell: 082 331 7719
Office: 012-663 7521

NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE
Vusi Lesimola Cell: 082 331 8077
Office: 012-663 7521

NORTH WEST PROVINCE
Henry Skaka Cell: 082 338 0912
Cell: 083 692 3697
Office: 012-663 7521

WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE
James Daniels Cell: 082 331 7884
Office: 021-421 1012 X 117

EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE
Tembelani Hlalukana Cell: 082 377 7838
Office: 021-421 1012 X 104

KWAZULU-NATAL
Sicelo Mkhwanazi Cell: 082 331 8026
Office: 012-663 7521

Appendix B:
EXPIRY DATES OF IPV CONTRACTS

PROJECT A

EASTERN CAPE: 01/03/2004 to 28/02/2007
FREE STATE: 01/02/2004 to 31/01/2007
KWAZULU NATAL: 01/02/2004 to 31/01/2007


PROJECT B

GAUTENG: 01/02/2003 to 31/01/2006
LIMPOPO: 01/02/2003 to 31/01/2006
MPUMALANGA: 01/02/2003 to 31/01/2006

PROJECT C

NORTH WEST: 01/07/2003 to 30/06/2006
NORTHERN CAPE: 01/07/2003 to 30/06/2006
WESTERN CAPE 01/07/2003 to 30/06/2006