Report of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional
Services on its 2 and 3 February oversight visits to the Mangaung, New
Kimberley and Grootvlei Correctional Centres, dated 10 March 2010.
1. Introduction
1.1 On 2 and 3
February a delegation of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services
undertook an oversight visit to Mangaung Correctional Centre, one of South
Africa’s two public private partnership (PPP) correctional centres and the New
Kimberley Correctional Centre which was near completion at the time of the
visit and was designed for delivery on the detention and rehabilitation ideals
contained in the White Paper on Corrections (White Paper) of 2005. Both centres
are located in the Department of Correctional Services’ (DCS) Free
State/Northern Cape region.
1.2 Concerned
about the large number of sentenced and unsentenced children and juveniles
imprisoned, the Committee paid a brief visit to the juvenile section at the
Grootvlei Correctional Centre in
1.3. As stated in
the Committee’s report on its first official oversight visit to the Pollsmoor
and Malmesbury correctional centres in the Western Cape, most of South Africa’s
correctional centres pre-date 1994 and their structure is not conducive to the
implementation of the rehabilitation and reintegration ideals and strategies
contained in the White Paper. Central to the success of these strategies is
unit management, which requires the division of a correctional centre into
small manageable units ensuring appropriate supervision and monitoring of
offenders. This not only limits security risks, but also facilitates the
implementation of the necessary development and rehabilitation programmes,
while ensuring that detention is safe and secure and that the treatment and
care of offenders did not violate
1.4 The
Committee is committed to seeing the entirely state-owned New Kimberley
Correctional Centre, with its promise of the successful rehabilitation of
offending behaviour and reintegration of offenders, become the embodiment of
the objectives contained in the White Paper. It has agreed to ‘adopt’ the
centre, and will accordingly follow its progress very closely, particularly
given that future centres will be modelled on it.
2. Delegation
2.1 The
delegation that visited Mangaung Correctional Centre on Tuesday, 2 February
comprised the following Members:
Mr V
Smith (ANC, Chairperson), Ms W Ngwenya (ANC), Ms M Mdaka (ANC), Ms N Phaliso
(ANC), Ms F Nyanda (ANC), Mr Z Madasa (ANC), Mr A Fritz (DA), Mr J Selfe (DA)
and Ms C Blaai (COPE).
2.2 The
delegation that visited the New Kimberley Correctional Centre on Wednesday, 3 February
comprised the following Members:
Mr V
Smith (ANC, Chairperson), Ms M Mdaka (ANC), Ms N Phaliso (ANC), Ms F Nyanda
(ANC), Mr Z Madasa (ANC), Mr A Fritz (DA), and Ms C Blaai (COPE).
3. Context
3.1 In October
2009 the Committee met with both the Mangaung and Kutama Sinthumule
correctional centre management as well as the DCS to be briefed on the PPP
centres’ operations and challenges. It was agreed that site visits to both
centres would be invaluable as far as gaining a better understanding of their operation
and the treatment of offenders detained there. Due to time constraints the
Committee could however only visit one of these centres in February, and the Mangaung
Correctional Centre was selected partly due to a number of inmate uprisings it
had experienced in recent months.
3.2 Construction
of the New Kimberley Correctional Centre started in November 2006 and has been
plagued by numerous delays in its completion, which made completion by November
2008 impossible. It finally started admitting offenders on 11 January 2010, and
will continue doing so in phases as from 16 February 2010 when the centre is
expected to have been handed over by the contractor. The centre is expected to
have been filled to capacity by 15 May 2010. The Committee thought it necessary
to visit the centre to gauge its readiness to start operating fully, and given
that it may become the prototype for future prison construction in
3.3 Given the
large numbers of children detained at Grootvlei Correctional Centre, and its
proximity to the Mangaung Correctional Centre, the Committee agreed to also pay
a short visit to that Centre, specifically to assess the conditions under which
child and juvenile offenders are detained.
4. Mangaung Correctional Centre
4.1 The Mangaung
Correctional Centre is situated outside
4.2 Mangaung Correctional
Centre is a maximum security facility housing 2 928 sentenced adult male
offenders (agreed to in the contract and therefore never exceeded). 1 217
offenders are serving sentences of 20 years or longer, 800 of them are “lifers”.
4.3 The Centre
operates on the concept of unit management and is divided into housing blocks,
accommodating inmates in either single or double cells. Each unit is managed by
a single warder. Units and other facilities are linked through a number of
“streets” used to access workshops, educational facilities, sports fields,
kitchens etc.
4.4 Offenders
are transferred from centres across the country and all of them are assessed
upon admission to ensure that they are assigned a structured day programme best
suited to their rehabilitation needs.
5. New
5.1 Unlike the Mangaung
Correctional Centre, the New Kimberley Correctional Centre, which falls in the
DCS’ management area is fully state-owned and managed.
5.2 The medium
security centre will accommodate 3 000 male offenders, serving sentences of 5
to 40 years. The centre comprises three 1 000-bed housing units. Talks are underway
to have one of the 1 000-bed units accommodate female offenders, and the other,
male juvenile offenders. At the time of the visit the Centre accommodated 237
male offenders in a single cell block. These inmates were transferred as part
of a trial-run to determine the prison’s readiness to start filling and running
the centre.
5.3. In line with
the objectives of the White Paper, the centre will operate on a unit management
system, and has been designed specifically to make that possible. In addition
to the state of the art educational, vocational, health and other facilities,
the centre comprises three housing units, each divided into twelve 240-bed cell
blocks. Movement between housing units and other facilities happen via a
central “street”, which is closely monitored from the centre’s state of the art
security control room.
6. Grootvlei Correctional
Centre
6.1 At the time
of the visit the Grootvlei Medium A centre, where child and juvenile sentenced
and unsentenced offenders are housed, accomodated 7 sentenced boys under the age
of 18, and 540 sentenced juveniles. The Centre housed 1 200 unsentenced
juveniles, accommodated in cells of up to 80 each.
7. Observations
7.1 Mangaung
and New
7.1.1 Apart from
the weekly meetings around operational matters between Mangaung Correctional
Centre’s Head and the DCS controllers on site, G4S and the DCS have monthly
‘high level’ meetings to discuss issues related to service delivery. These
interactions notwithstanding, the Managing Director reported that communication
between his company and the DCS could still be improved particularly to
facilitate greater stakeholder involvement and more frequent exchange of ideas
to ensure that best practices on both sides are shared.
7.1.2
The
Mangaung Correctional Centre ascribed the incidents of unrest experienced over
recent months to the reclassification process. According to Section 29 of the
Correctional Services Act of 1998 an inmate’s security classification is
determined by the extent to which he or she presents a security risk, and
determines whether the sentence or remainder of the sentence would be served in
a maximum or minimum security centre. Reclassification is determined via a tool
introduced to correctional centres in August 2006. In November 2008 the
National Overcrowding Task Team (NOTT) reported that the tool was not being
utilised at Mangaung, and recommended its immediate implementation. This was
not done and in July 2009 inmates embarked on a hunger-strike in protest. At
the subsequent consultation process between the DCS and the private contractors
it was agreed that the tool would be implemented. The Centre is confident that
it has dealt with the unrest and would in future be able to avoid such
protests, but could not confirm that the reclassification challenges at
Mangaung have been addressed. The Committee was assured that no unnecessary
force was used in containing and suppressing inmate protests.
7.1.3
The Mangaung Correctional Centre expressed
concern about its ability to implement in line with the President’s
announcement on World Aids Day 2009 that anti-retroviral drugs would now be
available to all HIV positive persons with CD4 counts of 350 or lower. While
this development is welcomed in the fight against HIV/AIDS, there are concerns
about how it would be implemented and the costs associated. At the time of the
visit the DCS and G4S had not reached an agreement as to who should bear the
cost of the implementation.
7.1.4
Mangaung Correctional Centre employs one
social worker for every 300 offenders and reported that their retention is much
better than that of DCS correctional centres where the working conditions and
heavy workload often result in an inability to attract and retain such and
similar professionals.
7.1.5
At the Mangaung Correctional Centre all
offenders are assessed upon admission to ensure that structured day programmes
allowing for school, work programmes, vocational, rehabilitation programmes are
developed according to the rehabilitation needs of each offender.
7.1.6
All offenders incarcerated at the New
Kimberley Correctional Centre will have sentence plans designed to map their
rehabilitation programmes. Corrections Assessment Officers will assess
offenders upon admission and will compile sentence plans for the case
management committee’s approval. Once approved correctional interventions
officers will be responsible for ensuring implementation of sentence plans. The
Committee was assured that this process will be followed once phased admission
of offenders commenced after the hand-over of the centre.
7.1.7
The Committee was impressed by the general
cleanliness of the Mangaung Correctional Centre’s grounds and facilities. Each
inmate is responsible for keeping his cell clean and tidy and graffiti is
strictly prohibited.
7.1.8
The Committee was pleased to see that
inmates at both centres were involved in work activities. At the New Kimberley
Correctional Centre inmates were tending the gardens while others were busy
with cleaning duties in and around the correctional centres. The facility has a
fully-equipped kitchen that will make extensive use of inmate labour and no
nutrition services will be outsourced.
7.1.9
The delegation is concerned that on the day
of the visits to the New Kimberley Correctional Centre, there was evidence of
offenders smoking in areas other than the designated smoking zones, with
officials apparently having very little ability or inclination to prevent it.
7.1.10 At the
time of the visit most of the financed posts at the New Kimberley Correctional Centre
had been filled. The majority of staff members were employed from the areas
surrounding the centre, largely because, apart from the head of centre and his
deputies, it is unlikely that officials will be accommodated on the prison
grounds.
7.1.11 Nutrition
services at the New Kimberley Correctional Centre will not be outsourced, and
although the soil at the centre is not conducive to agriculture, vegetables
will be provided by the other centre in the vicinity.
7.1.12 As is
the case at the Mangaung Correctional Centre, the New Kimberley Correctional Centre
will be cashless with neither officials nor inmates being allowed any money,
thus limiting the opportunity for bribery and other forms of corruption.
7.1.13 The Regional Commissioner agreed that the Judicial Inspectorate for
Correctional Services (JICS) played an important role as far as reporting on
deaths and gangsterism, ensuring the humane treatment of offenders, the
diversion of juveniles and the addressing of the needs of unsentenced
offenders. The New Kimberley Correctional Centre’s Head of Centre reported
however that officials felt that their conduct was reported on, and that their
efforts at maintaining discipline were frustrated at times. There were also complaints
that independent correctional centre visitors (ICCVs) were not
performing and were compiling fraudulent reports.
7.2 Grootvlei
Correctional Centre
7.2.1 The
delegation was alarmed by the conditions in which sentenced and unsentenced
children and juvenile inmates were accommodated. Apart from the overcrowding,
cells were dirty and in a state of serious disrepair with leaks, faulty taps
and broken toilets. The conditions were unhygienic and likely to contribute to
the spread of disease.
7.2.2 Although kept
in cells separate from those of the adult sentenced population, child offenders
are wearing the same orange uniform meant for adult sentenced offenders.
8. Recommendations
8.1 Category of offenders incarcerated at
the new generation prisons
8.1.1 Both new
generation centres visited were designed to accommodate adult male offenders
serving relatively long to life sentences. While all offenders should be
provided with care and development programmes, the roll-out of such programmes
to juvenile and those serving short sentences should be prioritised, as they
stand to benefit most, given that such programmes are designed to reduce
recidivism. The region has already submitted a proposal that one of the New
Kimberley Correctional Centre’s housing blocks be converted for the
incarceration of juvenile offenders, and the Committee eagerly awaits the
outcome of that process. The DCS accordingly explore all avenues that would
enable them to accommodate juvenile and short-term offenders at both the PPP
correctional centres, the New Kimberley Correctional Centre as well as all
future new generation centres.
8.1.2 Concern was
raised that the centres visited only accommodated men and that therefore male
offenders only will benefit from the state of the art rehabilitation services
offered at the centres. Cognisant of the fact that women make up a small
percentage of South Africa’s prison population and that correctional centres
accommodating women had to adhere to the United Nations Minimum Standards for
the detention of women, and that such adherence would require certain
structural adjustments, the Committee nevertheless recommends that ways in
which women can also be accommodated at the centres be explored, so that they
too could benefit from the programmes offered there.
8.2 Transfers
8.2.1 Interactions
with the offenders transferred to the New Kimberley Correctional Centre since
11 January revealed that many were transferred without having been adequately
prepared for the experience of incarceration at the new Centre, or without
being given sufficient opportunity to communicate their transfer to their
families. The Committee accepts that the delays in the installation of the
telephone lines may have contributed to the latter, and recommends that regions
transferring offenders to the new centre will ensure that offenders are
adequately briefed and that they have opportunity to communicate with their
families in order to ensure that family contact, which forms an integral part
of their rehabilitation and reintegration, is not compromised. Transfers should
be managed responsibly as inmates’ understanding of the benefits of incarceration
at the centre is key to the success of the care, development, rehabilitation
and other programmes offered. In addition, everything should be done to ensure
that the 7 offenders who have to write supplementary matric examinations and
who were transferred to the centre from
8.2.2 Inmates at
both centres complained of long waiting periods before the outcome of their
transfer requests are communicated to them, and that often such requests are
rejected. Most transfer requests are motivated by inmates’ need to be closer to
their families for visitation purposes. The DCS should ensure that all
transfers to any centres in the country are done within the prescribed rules
and regulations and that as far as possible, such transfers should not jeopardise
rehabilitation and reintegration efforts.
8.3 Inmate
Labour
8.3.1 The Committee
remains ardent advocates of inmate labour which it believes will not only curb
idleness, but could, if managed well, result in greater self-sufficiency at
centre level. More inmates should be involved in productive activities for the
greater part of the day. The Committee recognises that the legislation
currently places certain limitations on the DCS as far as its ability to
enforce participation in work programmes and educational programmes, and
recommends that future reviews of the legislation consider these sections
carefully to ensure greater productivity on the part of offenders.
8.4 Development, Care and Rehabilitation
8.4.1 While the
programmes intended for the New Kimberley Correctional Centre are most
impressive, their success will rely entirely upon all offenders at the centre
having tailor-made sentence plans catering to their rehabilitation needs. Such
plans and their implementation rely on the DCS’ ability to attract and retain
the necessary professionals and artisans to do assessments and run education
and work programmes. The Centre should ensure that, in line with the objectives
of the White Paper, all offenders admitted are assessed in order to develop the
sentence plans which will inform the types of programmes and interventions they
need for their rehabilitation.
8.5 Personnel
8.5.1 The Committee
agrees that staff at the New Kimberley Correctional Centre should as far as
possible be new to the correctional system to ensure that the correctional
culture envisioned in the White Paper thrives and is not corrupted. Measures
should however be put in place to ensure that the largely new and inexperienced
warders are equipped to manage an offender population that is likely to be very
familiar with incarceration and may attempt to manipulate and take advantage of
warders’ lack of experience. Special care should be taken to ensure that
gangsterism does not take root among offenders.
8.6 Number-gangs
8.6.1 While the
Committee appreciates the management of the New Kimberley Correctional Centre’s
reluctance to acknowledge the influence prison gangs may have once gang members
are transferred to the centre, for fear of giving gangs more authority, it
believes a more detailed strategy for how to deal with the influence of prison
gangs is necessary, particularly given that most of the staff employed at the
centre are new recruits who could potentially be manipulated and taken
advantage of by the hardened criminals likely to be transferred to the centre.
8.7 Health care
8.7.1 The DCS -G4S
dispute about who should pay for the provision of ARVs to offenders with CD4
counts lower than 350 should be resolved as a matter of urgency, to ensure that
service delivery is not compromised. The Department of Health should also be
negotiated with to determine to what extent it can assist to lower the DCS’
costs in terms of health care provision.
8.8 Delays
in completion of the New
8.8.1 The construction of
the centre has been plagued by a number of delays. The Department has been
assured that the facility would be handed over by 15 February 2010 and is
committed to completing all transfers to the centre three months thereafter.
The Committee hopes that there will be no further delays, and that the
Department and offenders will be able to reap the benefits of a centre that is
likely to, at completion, cost more than R890 million, as soon as possible.
8.8.2 Delays are ascribed
to weather conditions, scarcity of steel as well as labour unrest but the
Committee is unconvinced that these could have resulted in a two-year delay in
the completion of the facility. Care should be taken to ensure that future projects
are not unnecessarily delayed as these delays have huge cost implications for
the State. Furthermore, the exact causes of the delay in the New Kimberley
Correctional Centre should be investigated, and those responsible should be
held accountable.
8.9 PPPs’
accountability
8.9.1 In the past the PPP
centres reported directly to the national Department, but would now, like other
correctional centres, report to the region they fall under. The DCS controllers
on site at the PPP centres should ensure that contractual and legislative
obligations are adhered to.
8.10 Children
and Juveniles detained at the Grootvlei Correctional Centre
8.10.1 Children should be diverted or where
there is no other option detained in secure care centres designed especially
for them so that their specific needs can be met. While the Committee welcomes
interventions put in place to reduce the number of incarcerated children, there
remains a need for greater cooperation between the departments of Social
Development, Justice and Constitutional Development and Correctional Services.
At the
Grootvlei Correctional Centre children did not participate in any programmes.
While the Committee accepted that children should not be incarcerated and that
the provision of programmes and education to them was not the DCS’
responsibility, the fact that they were in its care, requires the DCS to
partner with departments that shared the responsibility for caring for delinquent
children, to ensure that their needs are met, and that incarceration did not
damage them further. It is hoped that the Child Justice Act, that is to come
into operation in April 2010, will result in greater coordination of efforts to
ensure better care for children in conflict with the law.
8.11 Care and maintenance of facilities
8.11.1 The Committee
observed leaks in the roofs of some of the units visited at the New Kimberley
Correctional Centre. The departments of Correctional Services and Public Works
should ensure that all such repairs are completed prior to the facility being
handed over, and that maintenance is not neglected after.
8.11.2 In addition
everything should be done to ensure that offenders do not contribute to the
destruction and tarnishing of the centre. Grafitti should be prohibited and penalties
imposed for destruction and defilement of cells.
8.11.3 The Head of
Centre should ensure that the Centre’s no smoking policy is strictly adhered
to, and that smoking only takes place in designated areas. Non-adherence not
only poses a risk to lives and safety of inmates and staff, but also
compromises discipline within the Centre.
8.11.4 Concerns were
raised about the absence of toilets in the hospital wards and the security risk
that it poses. While the Committee is satisfied with the interim measures to
manage the situation, it recommends that the installation of toilets in the
wards be prioritised.
8.12 Parole
8.12.1 The 237
offenders currently incarcerated at the centre include offenders sentenced
before 2004, who are eligible for consideration for parole after having served
a third of their sentence. These offenders should be processed as a matter of
urgency to ensure that they appear before the parole board as soon as possible.
8.13 Reclassification
8.13.1 The
reclassification of inmates at the Mangaung Correctional Centre should be
addressed as a matter of urgency particularly because it is prescribed by law
and one of the requirements contained in the White Paper, and also because inmate
uprisings such as the ones experienced at the centre, pose a security risk. All
centres should be compliant in that regard.
8.14 Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional
Services
8.14.1 At the time of the visit the JICS was
unfortunately not present to comment on allegations of misconduct on the part
of the ICCVs. The Committee does feel however that ICCVs should be screened or
vetted and their performance assessed on a regular basis. Furthermore a
relationship of mutual cooperation should be encouraged between JICS and DCS
officials to ensure that the ICCVs’ necessary presence is understood and does
not cause unnecessary strain and suspicion.
9. Acknowledgements
The Committee would
like to express its appreciation for the co-operation of the management of the
Department’s Free State/Northern Cape region and specifically that of the
officials at the centres visited.
Report
to be considered.