Report: Provincial Visit to Gauteng, dated 18 September 2001:
Contents Paragraph
Introduction A
Lindela Repatriation Centre
Background B
Findings C
Conclusion D
Recommendations E
Department of Home Affairs
Background F
Findings G
Recommendations H
Annexure I
The Select Committee on Social Services reports as follows:
A. Introduction
A delegation of the Committee visited the Lindela Repatriation Centre and the Department of Home Affairs in Gauteng on 24 and 25 May 2001. The aim of the visit was to -
* critically assess the living conditions at the Centre, to investigate allegations in the media about human rights abuses at the Centre, and to see in which way the Committee could intervene to address problem areas; and
* ascertain progress made with the new system of the ID smart card at the Department.
The delegation, under the leadership of Ms L Jacobus (ANC - Gauteng), included -
* Ms N S Ntlabati (ANC - Free State);
* Mrs E C Gouws (DP - Eastern Cape);
* Mr T H Sogoni (UDM - Eastern Cape); and
* Mr J Horne (New NP - Northern Cape).
Ms M Mukhuba, Committee Secretary, accompanied the delegation.
Lindela Repatriation Centre
B. Background
The Lindela Repatriation Centre was established in 1996. It is the only centre of its kind in the country. There has been a continuous outcry in the media about the treatment of inmates at the Centre. A number of instances of abuse, including physical and mental abuse of inmates, had been reported. It is also alleged that inmates' human rights were being violated and that the living conditions were appalling. Illegal activities allegedly committed by staff, such as the tearing up of legal papers and other documents, had also been leveled against officials who ran the centre.
The visit included a meeting with management and staff as well as a tour of the facility.
C. Findings
1. Overview by Mr J L van Vuuren, Project Leader/Deputy Director: Home Affairs
The Centre is a place where illegal immigrants are kept prior to deportation to their countries of origin. Within 72 hours, the Centre's officials should be able to classify from which country an immigrant comes. The official's only source of information is the arrestee himself or herself. It is common for arrestees to provide officials with inaccurate information, because they fear deportation. The information is sent to the relevant Embassy or High Commission as well as to the Department of Home Affairs. Once this has been done, the official prepares the repatriation documents to facilitate deportation.
The Centre functions with four computers, three cameras, three fingerprint scanners and an identification card reader, which are integrated into a database. The database information includes -
* Name and surname;
* Date of birth;
* Photo capturing on an individual basis;
* Fingerprint identification;
* Date and place of arrest;
* Date of admission;
* Date of release; and
* Country of origin.
The information is then stored on the identification card given to the inmate on admittance. Upon release, this card is scanned into a separate computer and the inmate's fingerprints are read on the scanner again. The identification card is kept on file at the Centre for administration purposes.
Up to 4 000 people can be accommodated at the Centre. About 1 500 people are deported every month. The South African Police Service brings about 90% of the immigrants to the Centre from various police stations, mostly from ones in Gauteng. However, immigrants are also brought from police stations in other provinces along Gauteng's border. The remaining 10% are brought to the Centre by Home Affairs officials, who often travel from as far as Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban, Umtata, Richard's Bay, etc. Immigrants are repatriated, almost on a daily basis, to border posts, Johannesburg International Airport and Lanseria Airport. Furthermore, a train departs weekly to Mozambique from the railway station next to the Centre.
2. Site visit
The delegation had an opportunity to observe the kitchen, ablution facilities, sleeping quarters, dining hall, sports field and recreation centre.
Accommodation
The delegation was presented with a document compiled by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA), which ruled out all allegations against the Centre that had appeared in the media (see Annexure A).
Inmates were free to move around inside the Centre, but they were not allowed to leave unless they were being repatriated to their countries of origin.
Food
An amount of R 21,81 per day was allocated to each inmate for meals.
Different menus for breakfast, lunch and dinner were on display on the walls next to the kitchen. Meals were prepared in the kitchen and then transported to the dining hall for distribution. There was also a canteen, where various things are sold.
Bedrooms
The sleeping area was divided into a section for men and women. Children under 10 were kept with their mothers. There was also a crèche for toddlers. During the visit the crèche was closed because there were not enough children. Each room had a number of bunk beds. Upon arrival, the inmates were allocated a room with a bed and blanket. One of the inmates said that the blankets had lice and bugs. The officials indicated that the inmates themselves brought these lice and bugs into the Centre. Blankets were sent to the dry cleaners twice a month.
Mattresses were constantly being damaged, and this was evident in the men's section. The damaged ones were replaced regularly. Women had their own television room. Toilets and showers were inside their rooms. Personal toiletries for women were provided on a daily basis and baby formula, bottles and teats were provided for mothers with babies.
Health service
The Centre had a clinic with one nurse on duty every day and a doctor who visited it on a daily basis. The nurse saw about 100 people per day. At around 10:45 on the day of the visit, the nurse had already seen over 50 persons.
Security
There was an electric perimeter fence as well as a run with dogs. The facility was also monitored by close circuit television and cameras. Surveillance tapes recorded by these cameras were kept for 30 days. The officials indicated that even though there was tight security, inmates sometimes did escape. Some of them hid on the day of deportation to escape the scheduled deportation.
Recreation facilities
There was a library that used to provide newspapers and magazines to inmates. Most of the material had been stolen and the library was subsequently closed. There was also a playground where inmates could play football and other games. There were also a number of pay phones in both sections for use by inmates. A Vodacom facility was located in the men's section, but women were also allowed to use it.
Communication with inmates
There was an induction programme conducted by an official for new inmates on their day of arrival. The person who did the induction could speak some of the languages commonly spoken and understood by the inmates.
D. Conclusion
1. The level of compliance with human rights principles regarding the living conditions and the basic human rights of the inmates appeared to be satisfactory.
2. The Centre was in a very impressive condition, neat and very different from prison conditions.
3. Food for inmates met the nutritional requirements.
4. The women's section was cleaner and more organised than the men's section.
5. The clinic did not have adequate equipment for health workers to fulfil their duties. If an inmate was in a serious condition, he or she was taken to the nearest hospital under the supervision of a security guard.
6. Ms Jacobus indicated that the delegation was satisfied with the conditions at the Centre. It was the complete opposite from what was reflected in the media.
E. Recommendations
1. Staff should be protected against diseases that are brought to the Centre by inmates.
2. Inmates should undergo check-ups for illnesses or diseases before they are admitted to the Centre.
3. The Department of Home Affairs should assist the Centre by providing more staff and infrastructure in order to run the facility more effectively.
4. Additional health care personnel should be deployed to the Centre.
5. The Departments of Home Affairs and of Safety and Security should clarify whose responsibility it is to provide security for deportees.
6. The Department of Home Affairs should take strong disciplinary action against officials who engage in any form of corrupt practice.
7. An HIV/AIDS awareness programme should be implemented.
8. Foreign missions should be encouraged to respond timeously to requests for information by officials of the Centre.
9. The Centre should be allocated its own budget and administer it, and should give an account of its expenditure to the Department of Home Affairs.
Department of Home Affairs
F. Background
The delegation met with officials at the Department of Home Affairs in Pretoria.
G. Findings
1. Overview by Mr J R Chavalala, Chief Director: Strategic Planning and Service Delivery, Home Affairs, and other officials
The officials briefed the delegation on the smart card ID system. Discussions were taking place between the Departments of Home Affairs, of Health, of Social Development and of Transport in order to include personal information from these departments on the smart card. Discussions will also have to take place at Cabinet level before final approval is given for the system to be implemented.
It will take about 18 months from the date of Cabinet approval to conclude the process of procurement and contracting. Once the contract is approved, it will take a further nine months before the first card is issued, because the technology to produce the card is currently not available in this country. Malaysia and Finland currently have this technology. The envisaged date for the issuing of the first smart card is the beginning of 2003.
H. Recommendations
1. The Department should expedite its discussions with the relevant departments.
2. The Cabinet should agree on the information that should be captured on the smart card.
3. The tender process should begin as soon as possible in order to meet the envisaged date of 2003.
I. Annexure - Findings by BCCSA, published on 21 May 2001
"MESSAGE TO CLIENTS, STAKEHOLDERS AND STAFF OF BOSASA
"BROADCASTING COMPLAINTS COMMISSION FINDS IN FAVOUR OF DYAMBU AND BOSASA"
1. You may be aware that Dyambu Operations (Pty) Ltd, now called Bosasa, was in part the subject of A defamatory Carte Blanche programme broadcast on the evening of Sunday 7 May 2000. At the time we stated our intention to pursue every avenue to preserve our good name and in fact laid the whole matter before the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA).
2. We are delighted to tell you that the BCCSA has not only upheld the complaint of Dyambu Operations but has also censured Carte Blanche for contravening its Code of Conduct. A retraction was read on Carte Blanche yesterday evening the 20th May 2001 and published in the national press, the retraction and full judgment will be available on M-Net's website for the next two weeks.
3. The findings are as follows:
The commissioners (Prof Kobus van Rooyen SC with Dr Willem de Klerk and Rathu Mokgoatheng) found that negative comment on the Lindela facilities did not take fair and balanced account of all related material facts.
They found that the broadcast ignored several positive facts about the centre, which were brought to the producer's attention. For example, it failed to mention several facilities, including a fully equipped clinic with a doctor and qualified nurses, a well-equipped games room, four TV rooms, a soccer field, public telephones, a fully stocked canteen and a dining hall serving fully balanced and well prepared meals.
4. The commissioners reprimanded M-Net for its negligence in not affording Dyambu Operations any opportunity of responding to negative and critical statements despite having promised to do so.
5. The commissioners also found that M-Net was negligent in not making reasonable efforts to fairly present significant alternative points of view by not having broadcast a responding statement by Dyambu Operations.
6. It also confirmed that there had been no improprieties in the award of the tender by the Department of Home Affairs in 1996.
7. The enquiry concluded that the impression created in the programme that politicians, including Dr. Lindiwe Sisulu, had an interest in Dyambu Operations, the company awarded the tender to manage the facility, was unfounded.
8. The enquiry further concluded that the impression created that there were improper dealings in the company structuring of Dyambu Operations, was also unfounded and could easily have been explained by a corporate lawyer as being in accord with ordinary corporate law.
9. While regretting that the occasion should never have arisen in the first place, it is pleasing that our efforts have led to a satisfactory resolution of this unfortunate affair, and has completely vindicated us of these allegations...."