Correctional Services Act: review

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
29 May 2007
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT: REVIEW

Chairperson: Mr D Bloem

Relevant documents:
Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998

SUMMARY
The Committee engaged in informal discussions on possible amendments to the Correctional Services Act. Members were encouraged to raise concerns on issues that pertained to the Act. Much discussion ensued over the overcrowding in prisons and members considered alternative ways to alleviate the problem. Major concerns were raised over the mandate of the Office of the Inspecting Judge and its ability to oversee Correctional Services. Members were in agreement that the Act needed to be strengthened in this regard as the Office was considered not to be functioning effectively. The Committee felt strongly that the Office of the Inspecting Judge should investigate corruption and murders in prisons. Members also felt that the Act was silent on the grading of prisoners. Concerns over the mixing in prisons of minor and serious offenders were raised. It was also felt that a different parole system was needed for minor and serious offenders.
 
MINUTES
The Chair noted that it had been three years since the Committee’s inception and felt that members were experienced and equipped to suggest changes to the Correctional Services Act. It was felt that the Act needed to be amended as certain areas required change. The Chair opened the floor to members to raise issues of concern.

Mr Bloem referred to section 40 of the Act dealing with the provision of work to inmates and asked what the stumbling block was for Correctional Services in this matter. Mothers and babies in prisons as well as inmates serving life sentences were also identified as issues that needed to be looked at.

The Chair felt strongly that section 85(2) dealing with the mandate of the Office of the Inspecting Judge was another issue that needed addressing. He was of the opinion that the Office was merely acting as reporting agent - reporting on complaints of inmates to the heads of prisons. Killings in prisons were a serious issue but that the Committee had received no feedback from the Office of the Inspecting Judge over the issue. The Office only reported on overcrowding in prisons. The Office needed to be empowered in the same manner as the Independent Complaints Directorate to be able to take action. The Act did apparently provide that the Office be independent and have oversight over Correctional Services. The Office as it was now was no longer effective. The Jali Commission had made recommendations about the ombudsman and the Committee would consider these.

The Chair said that it was important to review SA’s parole policy. It should not have a fit-one-fit-all approach. A parole policy should be tailored according to the gravity of the crime that was committed. It was unacceptable that a person committing a petty crime and a person committing a grievous crime should have the same parole policy applicable to them. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development needed to be strengthened in this regard.

Mr J Selfe (DA) agreed with many of the issues that had been raised by the Chair. However there were two issues that had not been mentioned: restitution and community corrections. The Act needed to be more explicit on restorative justice. Alternative sentences in the framework of community corrections could go a long way in alleviating the overcrowding in prisons. He asked what the exact status of the draft amendment bill was. He had concerns about the independence of the Office of the Inspecting Judge as well as the serving of sentence time, over which the Minister had powers in terms of the Act.

The Chair explained that there was no draft bill before the Committee and there was no document as yet to speak of. He noted that the Committee was merely having an internal discussion on possible concerns that the Committee had with the current Act.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) stated that the Act did not say much on children. She also said that the Act should be more explicit on the procedures to be followed on the burial of inmates that have died. It was explained that she had to assist with the burial of an inmate from Krugersdorp prison that had been a resident from her constituency.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) said that overcrowding in prisons was a major problem. SAPS had become over enthusiastic in making arrests due to the spiralling crime rate. The result was that many persons guilty of minor offences were being imprisoned. A structure needed to be put in place to deal with these issues. A pilot project in this regard had been started and maybe it was time to expand on the idea. He proposed that each prison have officers from the departments of Safety and Security, Justice and Constitutional Development and Corrections to decide on the appropriateness of imprisonment for a specific crime. He asked why persons who could not afford to pay fines were being imprisoned. He proposed that a structure be put in place to deal with the issue. The intention behind the formation of the Office of the Inspecting Judge had been to inspect everything on Corrections. He referred to a comment made by Judge Fagan that the investigation of corruption in corrections did not form part of Office of the Inspecting Judge’s mandate. The investigation of corruption did indeed fall within the mandate of the Office of the Inspecting Judge. Day parole was another alternative worth considering. A great number of persons would qualify and the Act needed to provide for it.

Mr S Mahote (ANC) referred to the obligation of inmates to work in terms of the Act and said that the unionisation of inmates was something to be considered. He suggested that amenities for inmates in prisons should be looked into as many complaints had been received. The accountability of the Office of the Inspecting Judge to the Committee should be strengthened.

Ms N Nawa (ANC) said that awaiting trial prisoners was an issue that needed attention as many waited up to ten years before getting to trial.

Mr E Xolo (ANC) stated that the Department of Safety and Security had community liaison forums in place. He asked why Correctional Services did not have an equivalent structure in place for when an inmate was released. A department official should liaise on a case to case basis with magistrates, prosecutors, etc where minor offences were concerned.

Mr Bloem proceeded to read out some of the points made in the recommendations of Judge Jali. He noted that Judge Jali stated that the original drafters of the Act had the intention that the Office of the Inspecting Judge should oversee the department. Judge Jali stated that it had been Parliament that had required a change to be made the original draft of the Act in relation to the mandate of the Office of the Inspecting Judge. He could not remember why the Committee in 1998 would not have wanted the Office to oversee the department. He added that the Committee would also look into the accountability of the Office.

Mr Fihla commented that in the past the Minister had the power to intervene on the issue of overcrowding of prisons.

Mr Selfe said that from what had been discussed, the Committee would come up with a very radical re-look at the Act. He asked what process the Chair had in mind to deal with the issues that had been raised.

Mr Bloem responded that the Minister would firstly have to table the bill. The department would thereafter brief the Committee. The Committee would then call for public hearings for comment on the bill. He explained that the exercise that the Committee was presently engaged in was in preparation for when the bill arrived. He added that it would be the first time that the present Committee would be dealing with a bill. No bill was officially before the Committee at present.    

Mr Fihla asked whether an Act had been passed for the creation of prisons. He felt that the issue of creation of prisons was important to consider. He could not understand why the C-Max prison had been built in central Pretoria. It should have been built as far away as possible from towns. The Committee must identify prisons that could be upgraded to C-Max status provided that they were situated in outlying areas. 

Ms Nawa referred to section 43 of the Act, which provided that a prisoner must be imprisoned as close as possible to where the prisoner had resided. The section made no room for transferring the prisoner to a prison further away.

The Chair commented that the Department had been taken to court in the past for not abiding by the provisions of that section.
  
Mr Xolo proposed that the chairpersons of parole boards should be visited at least once every quarter to checkup on whether they were performing their duties. He wanted it to be entrenched in the Act.

Mr Bloem said that the grading of prisoners needed to be included in the Act. It was unacceptable that inmates guilty of minor offences should mix with rapists and murderers. He commented that Helderstroom prison had been considered to become a C-Max prison. He could not understand why the project had been stopped. If prisons were located in outlying areas, prisoners would think twice about escaping.

Mr Mahote felt that some of the issues discussed overlapped with other departments such as  Justice and Constitutional Development and Safety and Security.

Ms Nawa referred to section 74 of the Act, which dealt with the formulation of parole boards. Many of the places the Committee had visited did not have parole boards that were well represented.

The Chair responded that an officer of SAPS and the Department of Justice should sit on the parole board. He recommended that the Committee ask the Department whether parole boards were functioning in terms of section 74 of the Act.

Mr Bloem felt strongly about SA’s parole policy and the Office of the Inspecting Judge. He emphasized that the Office should be an independent body tasked with oversight over the Department. The Office of the Inspecting Judge was not functioning effectively. Corruption in prisons was an issue that the Department was trying to grapple with. The Department could not investigate itself. Hence the need for an independent body to oversee it.

Ms Nawa referred to section 40 of the Act which provided that prisoners “may elect” the type of work they wished to do. She felt it wrong to give prisoners a choice and suggested a change be made.

The Chair said that once the bill was before the Committee, issues would be debated in great detail and the Department would be engaged.

The meeting was adjourned.