REPORT
OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ON ITS OVERSIGHT VISIT TO
BRANDFORT AND GROOTVLEI CORRECTIONAL CENTRES FROM 21 TO 23 JANUARY 2008, DATED
22 FEBRUARY 2008
A Portfolio
Committee on Correctional Services delegation undertook a three-day oversight
visit to Brandfort and Grootvlei
Medium A and Medium B Correctional Centres in the
1.2 Delegation
The parliamentary
delegation comprised Mr D V Bloem
(Chairperson), Mr S Mahote
(ANC MP), Mr M Cele (ANC
MP), Rev L Tolo (ANC MP), Ms W Ngwenya
(ANC MP), Mr E Xolo (ANC
MP) and Mr H Cupido (ACDP).
The delegation was assisted by Mr S Makeleni (Assistant) and Ms C Balie
(Committee Secretary).
The delegation
visited certain sections of the relevant centres and
also spent some time interacting with officials, management, inmates, and
representatives from the departments of social development, safety and security,
justice as well as the Parole Board in the area.
2.1 BRANDFORT CORRECTIONAL CENTRE
·
Tour of the
facility
i) Kitchen and hospital section
The delegation
toured the centre’s kitchen and hospital sections as
well as the juvenile and male sections. At the time of the visit to the kitchen
six inmates were working in that unit. When asked about their experience of
imprisonment, they commented that while freedom is definitely preferable, their
relationship with warders was good and based on mutual understanding.
The delegation was
very impressed with the immaculate condition of the hospital section. Accurate
records of medicines administered were kept. The conditions in the section
promoted health and well-being.
ii) Interaction with juveniles
The delegation
visited the juvenile cells, and was shocked to find that the inmates had access
to centrally-controlled televisions sets. There was a visible electrical wire
that the delegation was concerned could pose a threat to the safety and
security of the inmates. Some of the young offenders were wearing neckties –
another potential threat. The Head of the Centre
explained that the offenders were normally provided with ties for court
appearances after which they were meant to be returned. The delegation insisted
that the necktie be taken from the inmate immediately.
The Committee was
particularly shocked by one case. “John Mhkize” was a
young man of about 18 or 19 who has been in constant conflict with the law.
When he was first arrested (for theft) he could neither speak nor understand
spoken language. It was later learnt that he had grown up alone in the veld and that he had had no contact with other people.
After he had served his sentence for the first offence, he was granted parole
and released to the care of a religious group but also stole there thus
breaking his parole conditions. He was promptly re-arrested. This pattern was
repeated one or two more times. He has since learnt to speak with the
assistance of a fellow inmate, but the pattern of re-offence continues. It was
also clear that he has no real understanding of court procedures or the meaning
of imprisonment. He has no ID number and no official name. When he was first
arrested the arresting officers combined their names and surnames so that there
could be a way of identifying him. The Committee was shocked that his case had
not been addressed by Social Development in whose realm it clearly fell. The
matter will have to be addressed urgently.
Mr Mahote, Ms Ngwenya and the
Chairperson addressed the young men and urged them to upon their release ensure
that they did not end up in prison again. They were the future of
iii) Interaction with sentenced males
The Committee’s
interaction with the sentenced males was very revealing. Many complained of the
ineffectiveness of both the Legal Aid Board (LAB) lawyers as well as the
independent prisons visitors (IPVs) of the Judicial
Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP).
Rev Tolo and the Chairperson addressed the offenders and said
that
·
FINDINGS
a) Overcrowding: Brandfort Correctional Centre is relatively small and can accommodate 214 inmates.
It has 8 cells, two of which accommodate ATDs. While
the 6 cells accommodating sentenced offenders are not overcrowded, it is the unsentenced cells that are a cause of concern. At the time
of the visit these two cells accommodated 103 of the 220 sentenced and unsentenced offenders at the centre.
The centre is trying to manage the overcrowding by
ensuring that children and juveniles sentenced for a year or longer are sent to
the Kroonstad Correctional Centre
where they can attend school, and by transferring some ATDs
to the Hoopstad Centre. The
situation required intervention.
b) Escapes: Brandfort has to date
reported 1 escape in the 2007/08 financial year. The escaped inmate was
re-arrested almost immediately. Three officials have been implicated in the
escape. Their cases are still pending
c) Suspensions: The three officials implicated in the above-mentioned
escape are the only officials who have to date been suspended in the 2007/08
financial year. Normally suspensions are lifted as soon as internal
investigations have been completed. The professional council of the DCS would
improve the ethical conduct of officials.
d) Vacancies: Brandfort has a vacancy rate
of 15, 38% (10 posts). All 10 vacant posts are financed. The Centre’s establishment has been increased to accommodate
the implementation of the 7-Day Establishment come the 2008/09 financial year.
CVs for candidates to fill the posts have already been received and the gross-
and short listing is underway. The posts will have been filled by the end of
the financial year.
e) Overtime: The implementation of the above-mentioned 7-Day
Establishment requires the gradual phasing out of overtime. Brandfort
hopes to have, by 1 July, fully implemented the 7-Day Establishment which would
make overtime obsolete. The Committee noted that curiously the 2007/08 budget
made no provision for the overtime which will only be phased out completely by
2008/09.
The fact that
overtime was being phased out was a source of grave concern to the staff at the
facility. Overtime has been an important supplement to staff salaries. They
feared that up until the official phasing in of the 7 Day Establishment they
would be expected to work overtime but would not get paid for it. The Committee
agreed that officials could not be expected to work without compensation.
The management
agreed that the phasing in of the 7-Day Establishment would have a number of
implications. To be more effective the Department would have to increase working
hours to 2 12-hour shifts. Officials would have to work for 45 hours to qualify
for a day off. The phasing out of overtime will happen and there was a clear
need for the necessary discussions between the unions and their members to
begin. Officials working in the areas of security and rehabilitation would get
paid accordingly and clear career-pathing would take
place.
f) Salaries: The Regional
Commissioner said that the management was aware of the poor salaries officials
were being paid. The gap that will be left by the phasing out of the overtime
will be addressed with assistance from Parliament and National Treasury.
The Department of
Public Service and Administration has asked the DCS to implement the 7 Day
Establishment by 1 July 2008, thus overtime will be paid up until the end of
June. Since there will be no overtime paid after that, if follows that the
longer shifts required by the 7 Day Establishment should be accompanied by
better salaries. In addition the money that would in the past have been spent
on overtime would now be used to recruit more staff.
g) Prison labour: The delegation is
concerned that inmates spend a large amount of time in cells and was
particularly shocked to find that the cells are fitted with
centrally-controlled television sets! While the delegation visited six inmates
helped in the kitchen and the delegation was told that some of the Brandfort inmates are being sent to work at some police
stations in the area. Most inmates however remained idle in their cells.
h) Inter-sectoral cooperation: The delegation
noted that the Head of the Centre took part in many
meetings and discussions with the relevant role players. Such interactions are
very important as ‘corrections’ is a societal concern, requiring joint efforts.
i)Ramp access: The delegation is
concerned that while the facility had ramps, they were not situated in such a
way that they gave easy access from the parking areas to the centre.
j) Assault register: In the 2007/08 financial year 2 offender-on-offender
and 1 member-on-offender assault were reported. This is a cause of concern and
it is hoped that all assaults are recorded and documented as required by the
relevant legislation.
k) Unions: The delegation noted that, when asked about it the
management explained that both the Public Service Association (PSA) and Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union
(POPCRU) were active at the centre, yet the briefing
made no mention of such union activity.
l) Independent
Prison Visitors (IPVs) and Legal Aid Board (LAB): The delegation noted with concern that the presentation
made no mention of either the JIOP’s IPVs or the lawyers from the Legal Aid Board (LAB).
m) Mentally ill: The delegation was interested in the case of the 1
mentally ill offender at the centre.
Unfortunately the management of the facility could not indicate whether the
inmate in question developed the mental illness while incarcerated or whether
his condition might have contributed to his offending behaviour.
n) The briefing
revealed that most of the inmates at the centre are
black and that there are few coloured and white
offenders. The management explained that the most common offence related to
stock theft. The white and coloured offenders are
from
o) Housing subsidy: DCS officials are entitled to a housing subsidy of
about R500 per month. This meant that it is almost impossible for them to buy
property in Brandfort where houses cost about R600
000. Staff asked whether it would be at all possible for the Committee to
assist in arguing for a better housing subsidy. Staff at the Leeuwkop facility had the same concerns. Property in that
are was also not affordable and the situation was such that the DCS was now
considering closing that facility. At Brandfort there
were only 4 houses available to staff. Those not accommodated are forced to
rent which was not cost effective.
Management added
that considering other more pressing needs, the Department and government were
trying to move away from providing accommodation/housing allowances.
p) Opportunities
for advancement: Staff were frustrated by the lack of opportunity for advancement
within the Department. They have been told that if they want a position they
should apply, yet applicants never seem to have any success. The situation is
frustrating since there is no acknowledgement of their experience and loyalty
to the Department. This is made more evident when appointments are made from
outside, with apparent disregard for the suitably-qualified and experienced
officials amongst the existing staff. This was a particular concern for the
nursing staff who felt that they were not receiving the recognition they
deserved. The delegation felt that
although salaries were negotiated with the DPSA, promotions were handled by the
Department itself, and that therefore the DCS should take responsibility for
how it handles promotions.
q) Annual
Increment/Persal scale: Officials raised numerous concerns related to
promotions, salary scales and recognition awards (“prestasie”).
Many feel that their contributions were not rewarded with acceptable salary
increments and performance bonuses. Some were concerned that they have been at
the same salary notch for many, many years.
r) Performance
Assessments and “Prestasie”: Many officials felt that the performance assessments
for performance bonuses were not fair and that favouritism
had an impact on who received these bonuses. Some officials (some of whom have
been with the centre for 16 years) have never
received performance bonuses.
Merit bonuses are
awarded annually but only to 25% of officials per salary level. Supervisors
write performance reports for moderation by the moderation committee. If
performance is found to not have been worthy, no award is made. In the past
there have been allegations of favouritism. It was
curious that a person could not get a performance bonus for 16 years, yet his
supervisor is not called upon to explain that official’s lack of performance
over that long a period.
A supervisor
confirmed that the moderation committee charged with making the final decision
is often not qualified to assess the reports. It was felt that the moderation
committee was given free rein because they were not compelled to qualify the
points they awarded. In addition, the fact that the award was largely dependant
upon a written report meant that those who had good writing skills and could
express themselves well in English were advantaged. The situation was such that
officials did not even apply for these awards anymore.
The Regional Commissioner
explained that there are a number of criteria that need to be met for the award
to be made. A recommendation had to be made and a report submitted for
assessment. If the performance evaluation made by the supervisor did not
correspond to example the performance evaluation made by the auditor general,
the mediation committee was forced to adjust it. He went on to assure the
delegation that only knowledgeable people served on the mediation committee.
s) Transport: The moratorium on the transport of officials was
presenting a problem. Many officials who work night shifts risk their lives travelling to and from work. Those centres
that applied before the moratorium was instated had that benefit. In one case
an official has been travelling from
The management was
of the opinion that those officials working night shifts had to be provided
with transport and the Department was trying to address the matter. They
explained that the moratorium on government transport was a decision taken
nationally and was instated in 1997. At that time the Department of Public
Service and Administration had queried why DCS enjoyed the benefit while other
departments such as SAPS, did not. It was then decided that unless the
application had been made prior to the moratorium, no transport would be
provided and no applications considered. Since the decision was based on a
public service and administration policy, an intervention had to come from that
Department. It was added that the unions active at the centre
were aware of officials’ concerns and they ought to take the matter up at the
relevant bargaining council.
t) Injuries on
duty: Officials were
frustrated that, because the DCS has been delaying payments to the medical aid,
they cannot get the care they need when they are injured while on duty.
u) Students: The Committee was
shocked to learn that there was a trainee who has had the student status for
the past three years and has not graduated. He has made inquiries and lodged
complaints but has had no success. The matter as well as how his late
graduation would impact on his salary adjustment had to be resolved. He was
frustrated and pleaded with the Committee for its assistance.
The Head of the Centre reported that he was doing his level best to address
the matter. The grievance was sent to Grootvlei in
September or October of 2007.
The Area
Commissioner responded that he had only heard of the matter that day when he
spoke with the official in question. He had assured the official that he would
be able to meet with the official responsible for such matters. Should the matter
still not be resolved, then the area commissioner would have to address it
himself. He assured the Committee that if he had known about the matter he
would have addressed it much earlier.
v) Nurses: The nurse at the facility is a professional nurse with
primary health care qualification. Their salary notch has been moved to R130
000 p/a but that information has not filtered down to
them.
Resolution 1 taken
in 2007 contained a condition that looked into the salaries paid to all
professionals, following which the Occupational Specific Dispensation (OSD) was
developed. In 2001 all nurses did a professional health care course which
raised them up to a specific salary. The DCS confused their nurses saying that
nurses within the Department were general nurses, when in fact they were
professional health care providers since they could administer medicine.
General nurses were compensated at a lower level.
Clarity should be given regarding this matter.
w) Communication
between staff and management: The delegation
noted that staff had during the interaction raised a number of complaints. One
of these complaints was that they seldom, if ever, received feedback when they
laid complaints or made enquiries. They were also not being kept up to date
with regards to developments that affected them. Interestingly, during that
interaction, management was able to immediately give the responses officials
had been awaiting for, for up to months! This pointed to a breakdown in the
communication between the two groups. Members were interested in learning
whether staff meetings happen regularly and whether officials were given
regular feedback and information.
The management of
the facility was able to confirm that correspondence was shared if it was of a
serious nature. Not such pressing information was placed on notice boards.
Personnel and management meetings were held regularly. The minutes of the last
meeting could be made available to Members.
x) Transfers: Officials complained that when requests
for transfers are made, they are readily declined or not responded to.
Management tried to explain that the region was faced with the problem that
they invest in officials’ training and development, only to find that within a
month of being appointed they request transfers. The Department merely asks
that if you have been offered a position, you take it up and then stay with the
centre for a decent amount of time so that they can
get a return on their investment. It was also important to bear in mind that if
you were come from a different region and are appointed there, you have taken
an employment opportunity from someone in the area for whom the travelling would not have been a problem.
2.2 GROOTVLEI MEDIUM A CENTRE
·
Tour of the
Facility
i)
Child Awaiting
Trial Detainees
The delegation
first visited the child awaiting trial detainees and was shocked to find that
they had committed very serious crimes ranging from armed robbery and hijacking
to child molestation.
When probed by the
delegation as well as the SAPS Regional Commissioner it was revealed that at
least one of the boys accused of hijacking had been recruited to a hijacking
ring allegedly run by foreign nationals. They were also able to buy firearms
for as little as R300.
The delegation
addressed the youngsters and urged them to tell the truth about the
circumstances of the crimes they stood accused of. They should be honest about
how they got access to firearms, who recruited them and where these people
could be found. They were young and ought to be in school learning so that they
could contribute to a strong and safe
ii) Juvenile Awaiting Trial Detainees
The delegation
addressed the assembled 556 juvenile ATDs after
having given a few of then opportunity to give the delegation an idea of why
they were in prison. Almost all of them felt that they had been wrongly
accused. One boldly stated that due to poverty and unemployment he felt that he
had no choice but to commit to a life of crime: upon his release he will return
to crime as he had no other option.
The delegation made
clear that poverty was no excuse for committing crime: none of the members of
the delegation came from wealthy backgrounds, yet not one of them had ever
considered crime. They had fought and were imprisoned,
many had died for a better
ii)
Adult ATDs:
The delegation
entered a cell that was very overcrowded. Inmates were lying in bed as there
was little else they could do. In this cell too a centrally-controlled
television set was mounted on the wall. Inmates complained of LAB
representation especially that they never had opportunity to meet with the
lawyers and that when they appeared in court lawyers were often ill-prepared.
iv) Parole Board Offices
The Chairperson of
the Parole Board gave the delegation a tour of the newly completed parole board
offices. The entrance was very welcoming and was decorated with plants and
posters on the walls. Everything was freshly painted and clean.
The Chairperson of
the Parole Board brought the delegation’s attention to the toilet offenders
were expected to use. It was opposite the receptionist’s office which had a
glass wall facing the toilet which offered no privacy: apart from the gate
leading into the ‘room’ it had no door but only a three walls of approximately
1,5 metres in height. It was
utterly inappropriate and when the matter was raised with the management, the
only response was that that kind of structure was the standard for offenders.
The delegation also
felt that the gates and locks were inappropriate since they still created sense
of imprisonment even as offenders were being prepared for life outside of
prison. The gates and toilet at the back of the office were in stark contrast
to the welcoming atmosphere created as one entered the offices.
·
FINDINGS
a) Gender representivity: The Committee noted with concern that the
senior management of Medium A was entirely male and that at junior management
level there was only one woman. This was in blatant contravention of government
policy in terms of gender equity. The situation cannot be accepted. The Area
Commissioner said that as he was not responsible for the appointment of those
in management positions he could not take responsibility for the lack of gender
representivity among managers. It was pointed out
that appointments were made as positions became available, positions to be
filled by women did not become readily available.
b) Child ATDs: The Committee was
concerned about the number of unsentenced children
and juveniles at the centre. Their crimes are as
serious as armed robbery, assault and rape and that also affects the
possibility to divert them. While there are programmes
for children who have been released on parole, these require social workers to
run effectively. The Department of Social Development’s place of Safety in the
Upon arrest
children should be assessed to ascertain where they can be diverted, but
ultimately the decision to remove children from prison lies with the court.
The delegation was
curious as to why the assembled social workers, correctional; officers, and
other stakeholders thought the reason was that most of the children at the
prison were black and so few were white, Indian or coloured.
The delegation was alarmed to learn that the cases of children who were not
black were finalised quicker and that they are often
diverted to outside programmes. Often a white child
who has committed a serious crime will be diverted to an outside programme while a black child who has committed a less
serious crime will be sent to prison. Sometimes whether a child’s parents are wealthy or not also plays a role.
c) Alternative
Sentencing: The delegation was adamant that offenders who had committed
petty offences should not be detained in prison.
d) Vacancies: The Committee was
shocked to learn about the high vacancy rate among professional staff at the
Medium A Centre. The 61%
vacancy rate is unacceptable especially considering the number of inmates at
the centre. It is clear that there is a problem and
that should be addressed as soon as possible. Head Office has approved more
financed posts and that was given as the cause for the very high vacancy rate.
CVs for gross and shortlisting have been received and
the interviews will have been held by the end of the quarter.
The JIOP pointed
out that once the new sentencing reforms come in to play additional staff will
be needed. It is clear that salaries would have to be addressed as that was the
biggest stumbling block.
Posts are
advertised internally and if an appointment is made from among the existing
staff it automatically creates a new vacancy. A possible solution would be to
reach a compromise that positions should be filled from internally as well as
externally. Officials are not happy that positions will be advertised
externally and thus there was pressure from unions and staff to make
appointments internally.
e) Disciplinary
cases: Only three of the
disciplinary cases (those at Brandfort) were related
to escapes.
f) Deputy
Chairperson of the Parole Board: There is serious
concern about the vacancy of the position of Deputy Chairperson of the parole
board. The panel charged with making the appointment had come from Head Office.
This was a matter of concern to the delegation. Three of the MPs in the
delegation had been involved in the interview process in their provinces. It
was decided that the national office would have to explain the situation as
well as the composition of the interview panel.
The Head of the Centre explained that although the Portfolio Committee had
been invited, they were unable to attend. Some Chairpersons were appointed
after that process, but some positions could not be filled as no suitable
candidates could be found. The law required that Head Office was part of the
panel. The Chairperson of the parole board had raised concern about the fact
that Justice and SAPS were not represented on the panel. Victims were invited to
participate through notices posted at substations.
g) SAPS
participation: The Committee raised concern about contradictory remarks as
to whether SAPS was cooperating with DCS or not. The SAPS Regional Commissioner
explained that that their cooperation ranged from feeding schemes, soccer
matches, ensuring that street children went to school and that where they are
in conflict with the law they were diverted. The MEC for social development
committed R50 million to appoint social workers at some police stations. He
felt that all role players had to take part in the national crime prevention
strategy. Additionally there was a need for transformation on all levels so as
to fight against corruption and favouritism.
h) Non-compliance
with policy and procedures: The Committee was interested as to why
there was non-compliance with DCS policy and procedures. The area commissioner
confirmed that there was a serious need to address the matter of work ethic
among officials. Problems have always been there and it has a lot to do with
the organisational culture. Part of the problem was
that excuses such As work-related stress is common and thus management have to
manage officials as though they were children rather than adult professionals
who are employed to perform a particular task.
i) IPVs: Although not mentioned the IPVs were functioning at the centre
and they had access to all sections. The IPVs were
mandated to check conditions and humane treatment of inmates as well as to
ensure that social work matters and parole issues are attended to.
There are 2 IPVs at Grootvlei and 3 at the
private prison at Mangaung. Brandfort
had no IPV as the prison is small enough for it to share an IPV with another
facility, but at present no such an appointment has been made. Nominations were
received in September 2007 but no suitable candidate was found and thus the
VCCO is currently attending to issues at that prison.
The JIOP detailed
the major complaints they received: accessibility of LAB lawyers resulting in a
lack of sufficient and timeous consultation and in
case has been opened via the DCS inmates often had to struggle to get progress
reports.
The Chairperson was
surprised that the JIOP failed to raise the fact that the IPV who had been at Mangaung had had to leave that facility because he had been
intimidated because he had blown the whistle on some of challenges facing that
prison.
The SAPS brought
the delegation’s attention to the fact that that day was the first time they
had heard of the IPVs.
j) Staff meetings: Staff meetings are held with staff and managers.
Management executive meetings take place on a weekly basis and monthly
management board meetings are held. Staff are notified
of meetings 14 in advance and the agendas are set with much input from staff.
The area commissioner hosts quarterly staff meetings.
i) Unions: At the Medium A centre too
Management made no mention of union activity or their relationship with
management. The PSA and POPCRU are active at the prison. The labour relations forums deal with matters of mutual concern
and the outcomes are sent to the regional offices. The management of the centre were unable to explain why
the unions failed to have monthly meetings: there has been no such meeting
since January 2007. The Area Commissioner has also never heard of new shop
stewards having been appointed. The fact that concerns were addressed before
they required union intervention might be a reason for the lack of union
activity.
j) Stakeholder
relationship: It was not clear
to what extent stakeholders worked together to achieve positive outcomes.
k) Sentencing: There was widespread concern not only within the
delegation but also among the other stakeholders that sentences often did not
seem to speak to the crime that had been committed. The DCS was face with a
dilemma in this regard: sentencing was done by justice, and the DCS has no
option but to imprison an inmate for the length of time stipulated by that
sentence.
l) Social
reintegration: The delegation was made aware that many ex-offenders still
faced many difficulties upon released. Apart from the fact that there was much
unemployment, employment is even made more difficult by the stigma attached to
having been in prison. This ‘social rejection’ makes reintegration almost
impossible and increases the risk of recidivism.
m) Staff
accommodation: The management
reported that while Grootvlei did offer staff
accommodation, there was not enough to cater to the need. The Department of
Public Works (DPW) unfortunately has no choice but to prioritise,
and housing for DCS staff does not feature very highly on their list of
priorities. Accommodation was a thorny issue, but they assured the delegation
that assistance has been sought.
n) Inmate Skills
Development: Certain projects are run to ensure that inmates learn
skills that would enable them to work for themselves upon their release. The
impact of such projects are minimised by the stigma
attached to imprisonment: ex-offenders often cannot find employment, not
because they did not have the skills but because they had been in prison.
Businesses still need to be sensitised around this
matter.
o) Restorative
justice: Restorative justice methods could be employed to contribute
to the reduction in overcrowding and was marketed on a continuous basis. The
Chaplain has been marketing it at the maximum security prison and social and
spiritual workers should market it to victims and communities at large.
An important aspect
of restorative justice relates to the perpetrator accepting responsibility for
what he or she had done. All justice cluster stakeholders should ensure that
the Victim Empowerment Charter was made a success.
q) Social workers’
access to Mangaung private prison: The JIOP found
unacceptable that social workers’ access to Mangaung
prison was sometimes restricted. The IPV responsible for Mangaung
would be contacted for a response. It was pointed out that the regional
commissioner had no jurisdiction over the APOPS prisons as they reported to the
national office. The matter needed urgent attention.
r) Medical release: There were no applications for medical release at Grootvlei. Many offenders who could qualify are left to die
in prison instead of being released to the care of their families. Doctors feel
that they should not be forced to compromise their reputations and work by
releasing someone on medical parole when he or she might recover and re-offend.
This is a problem in all areas. The matter was sent to the area commissioner
for his intervention but a response was still being awaited. The Regional Commissioner
undertook to look into matter and to speak to the doctors as well as the parole
board.
s) “Dark room” at Mangaung: The Committee had
received reports from IPVs of a cell at Mangaung prison referred to as “the dark room” and in which
inmates are allegedly isolated. A suicide attempt had allegedly been made while
in there. The JIOP had investigated the matter and would forward the report to
the Committee.
t) Community
Corrections Forums: Concerns were raised about the fact that community
corrections forums were not functioning. It was not clear as to whether this
could be ascribed to ineffectiveness or a lack of a clear framework of
implementation from Head Office.
u) Parole boards: The Committee was alarmed to hear that information made
available to parole boards was often too incomplete for them to make their
decisions. In addition a social workers’ report was often not included in an
offender’s case file.
v) As was the case at
Brandfort the day before, the Committee again noticed
that the vast majority of inmates at the centre were
black. The SAPS Regional Commissioner pointed out that the impact abject
poverty should not be underestimated. Although poverty is not a reason to commit crime, it was a major
contributing factor especially when it came to petty offences. These offenders
often could not afford bail or legal representation.
2.3. GROOTVLEI MEDIUM B
·
Tour of the Centre
Due to pressures of
time the Committee was not able to visit cells on the last day of their visit.
It was felt that bearing in mind the concerns raised by officials, time should
be taken to visit the SONDOLO control centre as well
as the visitor’s reception area.
i) SONDOLO IT Access control
The access centre has been operational since 2006 and the SONDOLO
contract will expire in 2011. Officials are meant to be trained to take over
the function when that time comes, but no such training has commenced. When the
contract expires, it is suspected that a new training contract would be signed.
Officials had complained about the congestion at the entrance, and it was
decided that another turnstile would be installed. SONDOLO staff manned the centre: they worked in shifts and there was always one
person on standby duty in case of emergency.
The delegation was
concerned that because no DCS officials were involved or being trained there
was a security risk. It was also not clear who would be held accountable should
security be breached. The matter had to be discussed with Head Office as it was
totally unacceptable.
ii) Visitor’s centre
The delegation was
appalled at the state of the visitors’ waiting area – it was small and could
not accommodate more than two visitors – others would have to wait outside
where there was no shelter against rain or sun. There were no seats or bathroom
facilities. The state of the waiting area was unacceptable and the delegation
could not understand how the office of the parole board could have been built
while renovation of the waiting are was clearly needed. Members also supported
the suggestion that it be moved from the back of the centre
to the front.
·
FINDINGS
a) Overtime: As was the case at Brandfort,
staff complained that they had received much distorted information regarding
the phasing out of the overtime. They were particularly interested in whether
there would be a possibility of them being paid a special allowance for working
more hours.
b) Salaries: Officials were
curious as to when salary adjustments would be made. Officials were expected to
perform well, yet their services were not acknowledged. Discrepancies among
what equally qualified and experienced white and black officials earned was
also a major problem.
c) Human Rights Organisations: Officials were
concerned that while many human rights organisations
fight for the needs of inmates to be addressed, they do so with apparent
disregard for the conditions under which officials have to work. They requested
the delegation to inform such organisations to make
submissions around how officials should combat crime without
”tampering” with inmates’ rights.
d) Unit management: Officials thought it ironic that while the new unit
management did not allow officials a lunch break, inmates were guaranteed three
meals a day.
e) Media and the
image of the DCS and its officials: The media painted
a very negative picture of the DCS, accusing them of corruption and aiding
inmates. The National Department then immediately and on air, responds that the
officials will be fired. This was inappropriate, since normal procedure
required that certain processes were followed. Rash utterances made to the
media created a false impression of all DCS officials as corrupt and
unprofessional.
f) Merit awards: The officials were quite bold in stating that when it
came to merit awards the quality of their work was of little or no importance.
Merit awards were awarded based on one’s allegiance to certain managers. It was
suggested that an audit of everyone who had received performance bonuses since
1994, be done: such an audit would probably reveal that the recipients remained
the same.
g) Career
advancement: As was the case at Brandfort
officials were frustrated by the fact that their experience appeared to count
for very little when it came to promotions or appointments. Some improved their
education on their own but did not receive any kind of recognition. It was a
source of frustration that one could work for 20 years and study to improve
one’s qualifications but not be promoted.
Some complained
that professional specialised training was a futile
exercise, since one was often assigned custodial duties irrespective of one’s
education.
h) Ill treatment of
nurses: A nurse who had
started at the centre in 1999 complained of her
continued ill treatment by both inmates and officials. She was assaulted by an
offender in 2004 and although she reported it immediately nothing has been done
about it. Although she is a health care professional who is allowed to dispense
medicine, she does not get paid according to that qualification. In addition
she was falsely accused of having aided an escaped convict. She requested a
transfer but received no response. She added that she had applied for the
position because she wanted to work at Grootvlei, but
the current circumstances made it very difficult.
Another official
had applied for a position as nurse and after her appointment that status was
changed to correctional officer. She feels that she has been moved from pillar
to post. She has none of the basic things she needs to perform her duties: she
is required to submit monthly reports but has been installed in an office that
has no computer equipment, no telephone, etc. Complaints have been made to the
supervisor but nothing has been done to address the situation.
i) Poor management: many officials
felt that there was a need for managers to be trained in how to manage. Many
officials were treated with disrespect because managers treated Grootvlei “as if it was their own”.
j) Inmate behaviour: Officials were pleased about the
Committee’s stance as far as inmates and their rights and privileges were
concerned. Many inmates were difficult to control, precisely because they
confused their rights with their privileges.
k) Safety and
shifts: An official raised
concern about the fact that as little as 8 officials are expected to guard up
to 150 inmates. This is risky especially since often a female official has to
guard the only-male inmates. He stressed that it was a practical concern that
should not be misunderstood as sexist.
l) Staff meetings: Medium A staff were
especially concerned about the fact that no staff meetings were held and that
therefore their concerns were not being heard.
m) Bursaries: While bursaries were offered to better their
qualifications, applicants are often told that there were no funds. This made
folly of any efforts at self development.
n) SASSETA: As was the case at Brandfort,
officials complained that SASSETA took its time to deliver entry level
certificates and often disregarded time frames.
o) Technical
skills: Many officials felt that they had qualifications that could
be used to rehabilitate inmates. Instead of making use of these skills, the DCS
opted to outsource services.
p) Intimidation: One staff member
told of the intimidation she has suffered since she was accused of having been
a corrupt official. She had been with the DCS for 27 years and in 2001 was
demoted to CO1 level. She has submitted a number of grievances but they did not
get addressed. Her intimidation, especially at the hands of the Head of the Centre, continued.
q) Overcrowding: It was well known
that overcrowding was a major problem. It placed stress on inmates, staff and
infrastructure, yet the DCS had no choice but to admit more inmates on a daily
basis. Those who committed petty crimes should not be in prison and foreign
nationals should serve their sentences in their own countries.
r) Community
involvement: The delegation’s attention was brought to the fact that
very young people were now committing very serious crimes. There was a need for
greater community involvement in preventative and rehabilitative programmes.
s) Severance
packages: there had been talk of severance packages offered to older
staff. Many had applied but have received no feedback. Once such packages have
been granted those officials would make way for younger staff to be promoted to
their positions.
t) Disciplinary
processes: Many disciplinary cases were not fairly handled and result
in court cases costing the DCS much money. Some of these cases are unjust and
end with the DCS losing costly court cases.
u) Sondolo: The tender for
access control which had been awarded to SONDOLO IT, which was part of the
BOSASA group was also a bone of contention as it
created made officials feel as though they were being treated as inmates. The
officials felt that the Department should not renew the contract once it
expires as it created unnecessary friction.
v) Danger
allowance: Officials were
concerned about the rumours that the danger allowance
paid to officials working in the area commissioner’s office would be scrapped.
It was felt that as soon as one set foot in the prison grounds one’s life was
in danger and thus all officials irrespective of the section they worked in
ought to receive the danger allowance.
w) Over expenditure: The overspending was ascribed to hospital and doctor’s
fees, and the increased food rations required for the increased number of
inmates.
The delegation was
concerned that Grootvlei had to supply the private
prison in the region with medication despite the fact that that prison had a
budget of R300 million, far more than the R25 million allocated to Grootvlei. Management explained that Grootvlei
was an accredited site and had a responsibility to provide medication to those
who needed it. Grootvlei gets its ARVs
from the Department of Health at no cost. Mangaung
claims that also “has problems” with its budget.
x) Case management Committee: The Chairperson of
the Parole Board reported that although case management committees (CMCs) hold quarterly management meetings Medium A was often
not represented. The Area Commissioner explained that a decision had been taken
that to make the committee more effective he would from now on chair those
meetings.
The backlogs
experienced resulted from the fact that the CMC was not functioning as it
should. Building the capacity of those serving on the CMCs
was the major challenge. The lack of capacity impacted on report writing
especially. It was hoped that since now for the first time CMCs
would be funded these challenges would be addressed.
A number of
professionals need to assess an inmate upon arrest,
his sentencing as well as once he or she enters into the system. A well
compiled sentence plan provides a good basis to work from.
The delegation
raised a concern about the fact that despite the fact that the CMCs were not functioning well at all, the presentation
indicated that they functioned optimally.
y) Petty offenders: It was made clear
that imprisoning unsentenced offenders with small
bail amounts placed a burden on tax payers.
Magistrate van Rooyen explained that part of the challenge around popularising alternative sentencing methods was that
magistrates and judges were independent and that thus they could not be forced
to use particular sentences.
The Criminal
Procedure Act’s S62(f) process is in place, and where
there was no compliance with this provision reports must be sent to the
relevant authority so that offenders that fit the category could be released.
He had requested such reports from Grootvlei almost
three years ago but none had been received. Had he received them he was certain
that he would have been able to release up to 150 inmates a day. Ensuring that ATDs were released rather than kept in prison was a joint
DCS and justice responsibility. The fact that reports were not forthcoming from
the centres could be related to their understaffing.
The delegation
thought that, considering the levels of overcrowding at the prison the failure
to submit the reports constituted a serious act of negligence.
Efforts to
alleviate overcrowding would only work if all role players worked as a unit.
While magistrates and judges were independent and enjoyed that independence,
their stubborn refusal to use alternative sentences became the burden of the
DCS.
The Department of
Justice was able to confirm that an agreement was made about three years
earlier that those offenders with bail of less than R1 000 had to go through
the S62(f) process. This made it obligatory for
magistrates to release offenders on their own recognisance,
or to parental supervision. Prosecutors should also be brought on board.
The delegation felt
that the matter of judges who unnecessarily increased bail amounts so that
offenders were kept in prison would be taken up with the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development. The JIOP was aware of these judges too.
The Centre must also provide the Committee with the
necessary details regarding those offenders who qualify for release.
The JIOP held
quarterly stakeholder meetings aimed at alleviating the plight of ATDs. They agreed that the NPA had to also come on board,
as it yielded much power when it came to whether an offender would be remanded
in custody or not.
The Department of
Social Development also ran a number of programmes
that address the matters raised during the interaction. The social development
official identified lack of understanding of legislation was a major stumbling
block. In addition departments sometimes became very territorial and that led
to poor coordination and delays in finding solutions to problems.
The Regional
Commissioner explained that the DCS did not have the budget or the capacity to
deal with ATDs. He emphasised
that should they be expected to take up that responsibility, it should be
accompanied with the necessary budget, infrastructure and training.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Overcrowding: The Committee recommends that more
be done to reduce the number of ATDs at the centres visited. Such a reduction will require a
multi-facetted approach drawing on the cooperation of all sectors involved:
police, justice, correctional services and social development. It is imperative
that only those offenders who pose a threat to society are incarcerated.
Offenders who can be diverted should be diverted to rehabilitation programmes outside of prison, community corrections, etc.
More must be done to ensure that the magistracy and judiciary are sensitised to the burden ATDs
represent within correctional centres. Section 62(f)
of the Criminal Procedures Act should be used wherever applicable to ensure
that the ATD numbers which contribute substantially to overcrowding in
correctional centres across the country are kept to
the absolute minimum. Children should, as far as possible be diverted to
alternative programmes.
The visit confirmed
that while there is some cooperation between the major role players - the
departments of Justice, Safety and Security and Correctional Services - more
must be done to ensure that all possible alternatives to prison sentences are
explored and used as that would result in a reduction in the number of
offenders sentenced to prison-time and would thus ease overcrowding, which
hampers rehabilitation and reintegration programmes,
thus increasing the risk of recidivism.
2) Prisoner rights and privileges: Throughout the
visit the delegation stressed that while offenders shared basic human rights
with non-offenders, those rights should not be confused with privileges.
Privileges must form part of a reward system so that they are earned. Rights
had to be demanded but privileges must be earned.
3) Prison labour: The delegation was,
as always appalled to see inmates spending entire days in overcrowded cells and
advocates for a return to a version of the pre-1994 inmate labour.
The Committee under no circumstances recommends that offenders’ human rights be
compromised or disrespected but feels that prison work will positively
contribute to their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. It will also
be a way of reducing the pressure on already overcrowded cells and
infrastructure. Inmates must be encouraged to give back to society: they could
for instance tend gardens, grave yards, be involved in the building of parks
for children, build vegetable gardens in communities, schools etc. Such
activity would foster a good work ethic, social responsibility and would even
assist in developing skills that could play a role in curbing recidivism.
4) Assault register: The Committee recommends that care
be taken that as per the legal requirements all assaults are recorded and
investigated. The JIOP must report on these assaults to the Committee.
5) Medical Parole: The delegation was disappointed to
learn that many gravely ill offenders die in prison because doctors are
reluctant to release them in medical parole. The Committee recommends that
doctors are sensitised to the reasons why medical
parole is granted. Offenders who are seriously ill and are expected to die
should be released on medical parole so that they can die with dignity and
among their loved ones.
6) Offender Assessments: Offenders must, as
required by the legislation, be assessed upon their entry into correctional centres so that the best sentence plan could be developed
in each case. The Committee realises that there are a
number of constraints in this regard (i.e. overcrowding, under staffing but
stresses that measures to achieve the desired level of compliance be put in
place immediately.
7) “Dark Room”: The JIOP must investigate the allegations
of the alleged ‘dark room’ at Mangaung Correctional Centre and must submit its report to the Committee.
8) Independent Prison Visitors: The JIOP is
charged with monitoring and ensuring that inmates are detained under humane
conditions. It uses IPVs as its eyes and ears on the
ground: they visit prisons and report on inmate complaints and concerns. For
this reason it is integral that all correctional centres
have IPVs attached to them and that the IPVs are adequately capacitated to perform their duties.
The Committee is concerned that although both centres
visited had IPVs, their presence there and relationship
with the management was such that it did not warrant a mention in any of the
presentations. Inmates complained of their apparent lack of efficiency. The
JIOP must report to the Committee on matters related to the IPVs:
how they are nominated and elected, vetted and monitored.
9) Legal Aid Board: As in the case of the IPVs, inmates complain that the lawyers from the LAB offer
them little of any support. The Committee acknowledges that with the large
number of ATDs, the LAB are faced with certain constraints
and challenges, but feels that urgent and long standing cases must be prioritised. The Committee will also raise the concerns
with the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
10) “John Mkhize”: The Department of
Social Development must investigate his case and report the findings and
outcome to the Committee as soon as they become available. He does not belong
in prison as his particular needs cannot be addressed there.
11) Mentally ill offenders: The delegation
noted that both centres counted mentally ill persons
among their inmates. Upon arrest offenders who are mentally ill must be
referred to appropriate places of safety or institutions. Where, such as
possibly in the case of “John Mhkize” at Brandfort, a mental condition is a mitigating factor that
should be taken into account, the relevant social development of health
officials should be called on for assistance. This would not only be humane
treatment, but would also ensure that only those offenders who should be in prison
are in prison.
12) Escapes: While suspensions and investigations
resulting from official complicity are often reported on, little is ever heard
of the outcome of these investigations i.e. whether criminal action or
disciplinary action has been taken or whether an official has been dismissed.
The Committee recommends that decisive and consistent action be taken in these
cases as official-collusion poses a direct threat to security.
13) Suspensions: The Committee recommends that
drastic action be taken to ensure that cases in which officials have been
implicated are dealt with swiftly so as to ensure that suspensions are not long
drawn-out affairs. Investigations must be fast-tracked (without compromising
their outcomes) so that matters can be resolved and the DCS can continue with
its mandated task. In 2006/07 the DCS spent R9,7
million on salaries to officials who were on suspension. This is unacceptable.
The Committee will in February meet with the DCS to discuss the matter and to
learn what measures have been taken to ensure that it be addressed forthwith.
Whether or not the Committee has received clarity on this and other matters
related to 2006/07 expenditure, will have an impact on the Committee’s
decisions around the 2008/09 budget.
14) Vacancies: The Committee recommends that the vacancies
in the Department be addressed as a matter of urgency. The Committee has urged
the Department to do its own recruitment and not to leave it to recruitment
agencies who did not understand the dynamics within the DCS. Making sure that
all vacant posts are filled would also relieve officials of some of the stress
and frustration associated with being understaffed.
15) Overtime: The Committee recommends that overtime be
budgeted for especially because up until the phasing in of the 7 Day
Establishment, officials will still be working overtime and should be paid
accordingly. This could not be left unbudgeted because control over spending is
of integral importance.
16) Discrimination: The delegation is conscious of the
fact that it had listened to staff complaints and had not asked management to
respond to some of the allegations that were made. What was clear is that the
relationship between management and staff was strained, and that discrimination
on racial grounds was cited as a possible cause. The delegation had also noted
that while white officials had also been part of the staff meeting held at Grootvlei, not one had participated in the interaction.
This was a cause of concern as all DCS officials had a responsibility and a
duty to work together to transform that Department. The Committee cannot make
recommendations as far as inter-personal relationships but recommends that
management takes all necessary measures to ensure that issues such as favouritism, and discrepancies in salaries,
that contribute to the strained relationship are addressed.
17) Gender Equity: The delegation was disappointed to
see so few women in management positions. The Government’s policy in this
regard was very clear: men and women should be equally represented. The
Committee will keep a close eye on developments in this regard and recommends a
speedy attempt to ensure gender equity and representivity.
18) Unions: the Committee recommends that regular union
meetings take place. Unions are an important go-between staff and management
and could assist in the many challenges particularly around communication and
feedback that officials raised during the visit.
19) Housing subsidy/accommodation: The Department
must explore the options available so that officials can be provided with
better subsidies/ accommodation. The Department knew how much officials at
various levels got paid and had to realise that one
could not earn R3 500, and be expected to spend R1 000 on rental accommodation.
Housing allowances or alternatives had to be raised as matter of urgency in the
relevant bargaining council.
20) Opportunities for advancement: The Committee will
raise this matter with the National Commissioner in order to ascertain where
the problem was. The Department was experiencing difficulties retaining staff
as well as acquiring skilled professionals such as nurses, and cannot afford to
lose dedicated staff because of lack of recognition whether through
performances bonuses, promotion or salary increases.
21) Performance Assessments/“prestasie”:
The
Committee will raise this matter with the National Commissioner. It was not
acceptable that officials worked and no appreciation and recognition of their
work was being shown. The Committee recommends that the application process be
revised so that officials are able to submit reports in a language with which
they are comfortable and are able to best express their performance
achievements and challenges.
Performance awards
are a way of service recognition, as well as morale boosters. The Committee
recommends that the process be monitored, that an audit be
done of who has been rewarded since 2004. The Committee will propose that
should it not be possible too conduct the performance award process in a manner
that was fair, that process must be made away with completely.
22) Transport: The Committee recommends that the issue of
a travel allowance or subsidised transport for DCS
officials be addressed as soon as possible. Officials’ safety had to be prioritised particularly because the nature of their work
requires that they work in shifts.
25) Trainees: The Committee recommends that the Area
Commissioner report back on the status of the trainee who had been working for
the DCS as a student for three years without having graduated.
26) Assaults on officials: The delegation
thought it deplorable that an assault on official that took place almost four
years earlier still has not been resolved. The fact that the victim is a nurse
who wants to work at the Centre, despite the
challenges nursing staff and other professionals face, makes it even more
unacceptable. The matter must be addressed forthwith and a report submitted to
the Committee.
27) 7 Day Establishment: Staff must be kept
abreast of any developments related to the implementation of the 7 Day
Establishment because its implementation would impact on what up until now has
been a source of additional income for officials.
28) Relationship between management and staff: The strained
relationship between management and staff must be addressed as a matter of
urgency. Officials work under tremendous strain and should be treated with the
respect they deserve. Managers must manage in manner that promotes the smooth
running of centres, and not in a way that isolates
staff.
29) Inter-sectoral
cooperation: While the Committee was pleased to hear that management took
part in many intersectoral forums, it recommends that
the heads of the centres ensure that once they have
attended meetings with other role players that information is filtered down to
the staff. The Committee is pleased that different role players are talking to
find solutions but stressed that offenders too should take part in some of
these discussions.
30) Facilities: The Committee recommends that at Brandfort ramp access from the parking area which
especially in winter can become muddy and difficult to traverse be improved. It
is important that officials, inmates and visitors with disabilities can easily
access the facilities.
31) Grootvlei Visitor’s Centre: The Committee recommends that urgent action
be taken to renovate and even relocate the visitor’s centre.
It should be a relatively welcoming and comfortable space where offenders’
families can wait. It must provide shelter from the elements and must be secure.
32) Sondolo IT: The Committee will
discuss this matter with the National Department as a matter of urgency. While
outsourcing might be understandable in certain circumstances, the outsourcing
by DCS of a security function is matter of concern. The fact that no DCS
officials have been trained to take over the function is unacceptable and has
to be addressed immediately.
33) Alternative Sentencing: The Committee
agrees that once a crime has been committed appropriate punishment should be
meted out. Considering
but would also lower
overcrowding and thus the costs of the DCS. It did not make sense that a person
should spend even a day in prison (at R123 per day) for having stolen a pair of
shoes to the value of R50! The Committee believes that if one has committed a
crime one must be arrested, but the justice cluster had to work with the DCS to
ensure that only those who had to be in prison were in fact imprisoned.
Report to be
considered.