Report of the
Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services on its 2-6 August 2010 oversight
visits to the Leeuwkop, Pretoria Female, Rustenburg, New Kimberley, Durban
Westville and Ebongweni correctional centres - dated 26 January 2011.
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report comprises
four parts: an introduction, the background to the visits, the visiting
delegation’s observations, and lastly the Portfolio Committee on Correctional
Services’ (the Committee) recommendations.
1.2. The Committee undertook a
week-long oversight visit to correctional centres in the
1.3 The report was compiled
drawing on observations made during the oversight visit, information gathered
during meetings at Parliament, interactions with the Portfolio Committee on and
Department of Public Works (DPW), as well as a questionnaire filled out by heads
of centres prior to the visits.
1.4 The report should be
read along with the Report of the Portfolio Committee of the Portfolio
Committee on Public Works, which details maintenance-related and DPW- specific
recommendations.
1.5 Upon adoption, the
report will be submitted to the DCS, DPW and Judicial Inspectorate for
Correctional Services (JICS) for comment and implementation.
PART TWO: BACKGROUND
AND CONTEXT OF VISITS
2.1 The 2 and 3 August
visits to the Leeuwkop and Pretoria Female correctional centres comprised
orientation briefings by centre management, a tour of the facilities,
interactions with sentenced and unsentenced inmates, service providers,
correctional officials and, where possible, correctional supervision and parole
board (CSPB) chairpersons.
2.2 The 4 to 6 August visits
were jointly undertaken with the Portfolio Committee on Public Works and were
largely aimed at evaluating progress made in the addressing of maintenance and
infrastructure-related challenges observed during the Portfolio Committee on
Correctional Services’ May 2010 oversight visits to the Rustenburg, Durban
Westville and Ebongweni correctional centres. It was agreed that the New
Kimberley Correctional Centre that began admitting offenders in February 2010,
and was “adopted” by then Correctional Services’ Committee, should also be
visited as, despite being brand new, a number of maintenance and other
challenges have been reported at the centre.
2.3 Given the consistently
highlighted difficulties related to the DPW and DCS’ relationship, and the
consequent difficulties in addressing maintenance-related challenges, the
Committees agreed that the executive management of the two departments should
accompany the delegation on these visits as they would be expected to account
for failure to make reasonable improvements by the end of the 2010/11 financial
year.
2.3 Leeuwkop Correctional Centre
2.3.1 The Leeuwkop
management area is situated approximately 30 kms from
2.3.2 The area can
accommodate 3 089 male offenders and at the time of the visit accommodated
approximately 4 783 sentenced offenders: 1 053 at Medium A, 792 at Medium B, 1
283 at Medium C and 1623 at the Maximum Security Centre. Though all the centres
are over-populated, the Maximum Centre experienced the worst levels of overcrowding.
2.3.3 At the time of the
visit the correctional centres in the area operated on a 2x12 hour shift
system.
2.4
2.4.1 The
2.4.2 The Centre was designed to accommodate 166
offenders, but at the time of the visit accommodated 256 sentenced and 70
unsentenced offenders. Eight of the sentenced and one of the unsentenced
offenders were incarcerated with their babies, whose ages ranged from 2 weeks
to 20 months. The population included six unsentenced juveniles, 16 unsentenced
‘youths’, 40 sentenced “youths” and two children, one sentenced and one
unsentenced.
2.4.3 The Centre had a financed staff
establishment of 103, and at the time of the visit had 20 vacancies. The Centre
had no social worker.
2.4.4 All centres in the management area have
implemented the Seven-Day Establishment (7DE), and all but the Female centre
operated on a 2 x 12 shift system. Owing to acute staff shortages over
weekends, the Female Centre operated on a 5- shift system during the week, and
a 4-shift system over weekends.
2.4.5 The delegation also visited the workshops where
Members interacted with sentenced offenders from the Pretoria Local and Female centres
working in the upholstery, textile, woodwork and steel workshops.
2.5.1
Rustenburg, New
2.5.1 The Committee has had a
number of interactions with the DCS on its maintenance challenges. Two of these
were joint meetings with the Portfolio Committee on Public Works and involved
both the DCS and the DPW.
2.5.2 The Committee’s May visit
to the Rustenburg, Ebongweni and Durban Westville correctional centres revealed
maintenance challenges that emphasised the urgency with which the working
relationship between the DCS and the DPW needed to be addressed. Poor
maintenance and infrastructural weaknesses compromise security as well as
humane conditions of detention. When boilers are broken, as in the case of the
Rustenburg and Ebongweni correctional centres, inmates do not have access to
hot water, and food preparation is compromised. Owing to poor ventilation the
Ebongweni Correctional Centre completed in 2002 at a cost of more than R500
million, has occupancy of less than 50%. In addition to having resulted in the
centre not operating optimally, the lack of ventilation could have serious
consequences should there be a breakout of an airborne disease. Broken windows,
even if they are too small for an inmate to escape through, pose a threat to
safety, as shards of glass can be used against fellow inmates and staff. Faulty
access control equipment can lead to serious security breaches: the Durban
Westville escapees had allegedly managed to scale the electronic fence because
it was not working at the time. Leaking roofs, damaged walls and broken
toilets, are harmful to health and promote the spread of disease. Taps that are
left to run for even just hours cost the State dearly in natural and financial
resources.
2.5.3 Following their June 2010
interaction, both the Correctional Services and Public Works Committees
acknowledged the complexities inherent in the DCS’ relationship with the DPW,
and agreed that without the necessary leadership and commitment from senior
management in both departments, the long overdue Service Level Agreement (SLA)
will be as ineffective as the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that has
governed their relationship for the past three years. The joint meeting held on
2 June 2010 convinced both committees that without their urgent intervention,
service delivery in terms of maintenance was unlikely to improve, thus further
compromising security in correctional centres and costing the State billions of
rands when, for instance, centres procured at great cost, present maintenance
challenges owing to shoddy workmanship.
2.5.4 Given the situation
illustrated above, it was agreed that a joint oversight visit be undertaken to
the centres listed as well as to the recently completed New Kimberley
Correctional Centre which at completion cost the State R839 million and which is
already riddled with maintenance challenges.
2.5.5 The Directors-General and
the relevant senior management officials of both departments accompanied the
parliamentary delegation in order for them to witness first hand the consequences
of poor decision-making. They are expected to develop an action plan for the
speedy finalisiation of the long overdue DPW-DCS SLA, and to ensure meaningful
progress in addressing the severe challenges at the four centres by February
2011 when the Committees intend to undertake follow-up visits.
PART THREE: OBSERVATIONS
3.1 Maintenance
3.1.1 Both the DCS and DPW made
great strides in attending to some of the matters identified during the
Committee’s May oversight visit. These improvements are welcomed, as they
translate to better working conditions for officials, and better conditions of
incarceration for inmates. The speed with which some matters could be addressed
after the May visit, confirms the Committee’s suspicion that what lacks most
when it comes to the DCS’ service delivery, is lack of will and decisive
leadership. There are in excess of 230 correctional centres in the country, and
despite its best efforts, the Committee will not be able to visit all of them
during its term, and therefore service delivery should not be dependent on the
Committee’s chance discovery of where it is lacking. As often reiterated in
interactions with the DCS, the Committee is a strategic partner to the DCS, its
only interest being ensuring the humane detention of inmates and the adequate
management of State resources, financial and otherwise.
3.1.2 Officials at all centres visited complained
of the DPW’s lack of and/or slow response to complaints lodged via its
maintenance hotline/call centre. Leeuwkop correctional centre had for instance
lodged a request for the maintenance of the cold room and boiler at the
Juvenile centre as early as January 2010, yet 8 months, and numerous follow-up
queries later, no response was received. The justification that the cold room
had been installed by the DCS itself, and that therefore that department should
take full responsibility for its repair, was rejected.
3.1.2 Many correctional centres visited reported
major challenges with boilers. The delegation was assured that the DPW treats
reports of broken boilers as emergencies. The DPW has performed an audit of all
boilers at correctional centres that have reached the end of their lifespan,
and the DCS had been informed of the centres affected. Gas boilers would be
replaced with electric ones.
3.1.3 The DCS was responsible for the repair and
maintenance of minor maintenance matters costing up to R30 000 per line item,
but the department reported that given the pressures of overcrowding, the
general poor condition of many centres and the destructive nature of the vast
majority of inmates, that amount is often not enough.
3.1.4 All centres visited during the May
oversight visit reported numerous improvements made since that visit. At the
Rustenburg Medium A Centre, for example, the cold room had been completely
repaired and was fully functional at the time of the visit. The refurbishment
of the kitchen had started and is scheduled for completion by the end of
December 2010. Gas boilers would be replaced by electric ones. All leaking taps
and broken toilets were reportedly repaired, however during the tour of the
facility the delegation came across a urinal and toilet in that inmates and
officials confirmed had been broken since as far back as 2006.
3.1.5 The Durban Westville Correctional Centre
provided a detailed report on progress made in the addressing of maintenance
challenges reported and observed during the May visit. Leaking taps, toilets
and showers, and broken windows had reportedly all been repaired, and
maintenance was ongoing as the need arose. Although the Youth Centre has since
June had hot water, two boilers were still not operational at the time of the
visit: one would have been fixed by mid-August, while the other was to be
repaired through a RAMP contract which at the time of the visit had not yet
been awarded. At the Medium A centre, the sewer line had collapsed allowing
water to run into the storm water system. The delegation was appalled at both
the DCS and DPW’s lackadaisical attitude towards the situation which poses a
real threat to the heath of officials and inmates: at the time of the visit no
interim measures had been put in place and the tender for the restoration of
the sewer line had only days before the visit closed. A further cause for
concern related to the tautwire fence, which had been installed at great cost, but
has not been operational since its practical hand-over. The contract for the
replacement of the intercom system had been awarded and was set for completion
by November 2010.
3.1.6
Ebongweni Super Maximum Correctional Centre management
reported a number of improvements since the May visit: ventilation system,
climate control and hot water challenges were to be addressed by mid August,
the repair of the under floor heating which has never been operational would
commence by 1 October and would be completed through a RAMP project. There was
no service contract for the generators the centre often has to rely on, and
their repair is funded from the unplanned maintenance allowance. The centre
reported that the repair and maintenance of all kitchen equipment at the medium
centre were included in the Electrical and Mechanical RAMP, and that most of
the challenges have been addressed. The ceiling that was collapsing at the time
of the May visit has been repaired and the remaining minor leaks at both the
medium and super maximum centres were being addressed. The Super Maximum centre
was built on a steep slope. The floors which have not been properly treated for
adequate grip, pose a serious occupational health and safety risk and would be
attended to through a RAMP project as soon as funds became available. A
contractor has been appointed to address the centre’s sagging sewer line, and
minor blockages will be addressed as the need arises.
3.1.7 The delegation received reports from both
the DCS and the DPW on maintenance challenges experienced at the New Kimberley
Correctional Centre. While the DCS admitted that greater oversight and
management was necessary, its report was vague as to what had resulted in the
damage to kitchen equipment, infrastructure, laundry equipment, etc. The DPW’s
report had clearly pointed to acts of gross mismanagement: much of the damage
appears to be the result of improper use of equipment, negligence, and even
deliberate acts of destruction.
3.1.8 The DCS-commissioned IT installation at the
New Kimberley Correctional Centre was of particular concern: despite the DPW’s
requests that the installation be done earlier, the DCS failed to insist that
the contractor do so. The project provided special sleeves for the IT network,
but power skirting and cables were nevertheless positioned over the floor.
Furthermore, given the late installation, ceilings and ceiling board supports
had had to be cut and removed to create a passage for the IT installation.
Despite clear instructions to keep security rooms at low temperatures, these
rooms are reportedly often heated to well above the recommended temperature.
This causes serious damage to the equipment, and IT failures in this room could
seriously compromise security. In addition it appears as though no one had
ensured that that the IT installation and equipment met the required standards.
3.1.9 At its February 2010 visit to the New Kimberley
Correctional Centre the Committee had recommended that toilets be built in all hospital
wards, so as to reduce security risks at night time when fewer staff were on
duty to accompany sick offenders to the toilets located outside wards. Members
were taken aback that, despite this recommendation, nothing had been done to commence
the project, and that the wards could therefore still not be used.
3.1.8 The DPW and DCS have not yet been able to
conclude their SLA, and their relationship remains informed only by a
memorandum of understanding (MOU), It is believed that the absence of the SLA,
with each party’s responsibilities clearly defined, has contributed to many of
the challenges in addressing the DCS’ maintenance needs. The absence of a
3.2 Facilities
3.2.1 The
3.2.2 The structure accommodating juvenile and
child offenders at Leeuwkop was erected in 1983 as a temporary structure to house
pre-release offenders. Being a zinc structure, it is very cold in winter, and
very hot in summer. It has 24 cells, accommodating 620 juvenile and 14 child
offenders, aged between 15 and 19 years. It has no dining facility; inmates are
forced to have their meals outside in the courtyard, in a structure that has a
corrugated roof only, no walls and gives no protection in inclement weather.
The facility is dilapidated and, the Committee believes, wholly unsuitable for
the humane detention of offenders.
The DCS had in 2002
acquired 892 hectares adjacent to the Medium B centre for the construction of a
3 000 bed new generation correctional centre. The environmental impact
assessment (EIA) done at the time revealed that an endangered frog species was
resident on the land, and because it was a protected species, construction had
to be abandoned. Suspicions regarding the motivation for that decision are rife
particularly following the consequent emergence of a residential development in
the same area.
3.3 Human Resource Management
3.3.1 The DCS continues to report challenges as
far as the recruitment and retention of staff. On the day of the visit the
Pretoria Management area for example reported a 6:1500 official to offender
ratio. According to the DCS this challenge stems, in part, from the fact that
although the DCS is in the JCPS cluster, salaries and benefits are negotiated
in the Public Service Bargaining Council resulting in discrepancies in what
police and correctional officials earn. The distinction between centre-based
and non-centre based officials poses a further challenge. Artisans complained
that although they were originally employed as correctional officials, and
despite the fact that they, through the workshops they run, also work directly
with offenders, did not share the same benefits as those officials charged with
guarding inmates in cells. Persistent challenges in recruiting and retaining
professionals are ascribed to the fact that teachers and other professionals are
compelled to join the DCS at the entry level for correctional officials.
3.3.2 The DCS reported that the 2x12 shift system
impacted negatively on the roll-out of rehabilitation programmes, as well as on
the work of case management committees (CMC). In addition to compromising the
security of inmates and staff, rehabilitation as well as the timeous
consideration of offenders for parole, the shift system has had a very negative
impact on staff morale, leading to low productivity and sick-leave abuse.
3.3.3 Interactions with
officials revealed that concerns regarding the occupational specific
dispensation for educators, social workers and artisans remained. Information
regarding its implementation is still not shared with staff regularly, leading
to misunderstandings, confusion and frustration.
3.3.4 The Committee is very concerned about the
numerous allegations of unfair labour practices by the DCS. During the May 2010
oversight visit the Committee had been alarmed that officials’ feared
victimisation as a result of them sharing their concerns with the Committee.
The delegation was deeply shocked that following the May visit, one official who
had been particularly vocal, had allegedly been harassed and intimidated.
3.4 3 August 2010 incident at the New
3.4.1 During its February 2010 visit to the New
Kimberley Correctional Centre the Committee had raised concerns regarding the
ability of new recruits to manage the inmate population likely to be
incarcerated at the centre. It had then recommended that “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”. Furthermore it was feared that warders’
inexperience and insensitivity might make them prone to behaviour that may
incite acts of violence among inmates. This recommendation went unheeded, and
officials’ inexperience may have contributed to the as the 3 August incident
during which inmates took officials hostage and caused millions of Rands worth
of damage to one of the Units at the centre.
3.4.2 The August visit revealed that the deployment
of largely inexperienced female offenders in units have led to their victimisation,
harassment and intimidation by offenders. The bulk of the staff, male and
female, had no more than 2 years’ experience and had up until the 3 August
incident, performed their duties without the necessary monitoring and
evaluation. Eighty-four officials have since been deployed to supervise the new
recruits and officials at the old Kimberley Correctional Centre have committed
themselves to providing the necessary support to the new recruits. The Northern
Cape/Free State region has committed itself to ensuring that at least half of
the officials will be experienced correctional officials able to provide
supervision and guidance to inexperienced officials.
3.4.3 The investigation into the 3 August riot
had revealed that the Head of the Correctional Centre (HCC) had been negligent
in the manner in which he had handled inmate grievances and complaints. Contrary
to what is required, he had failed to regularly visit units to interact with
inmates and to receive inmate complaints. He had further committed himself to
resolving the complaints he had received before the incident in unrealistic
timeframes that he was not able to adhere to, thus further frustrating inmates.
The HCC had further failed to ensure the installation of “mailboxes” where
grievances could anonymously be posted. Preliminary investigations indicated
that the HCC’s failure to adhere to complaints/grievance procedures was a major
contributing factor.
3.5 Communication/Grievance
procedures
3.5.1 Inmates at all centres visited complained that
their complaints and grievances were not being attended to. According to
officials at the Leeuwkop Correctional Centre, that centre only has one
independent correctional centre visitor (ICCV), stationed at the Maximum
Security facility. Inmates regularly complain of ICCVs either not visiting
centres or being ineffective. Inmates lodging complaints with the Committee
deny that processes for receiving and attending to complaints are adhered to.
3.5.2 Many inmates complained of having no or
very little access to public telephones making it difficult to contact their
relatives and legal representatives. A further matter of concern was officials’
apparent censoring of correspondence beyond what the usual security measures
demanded.
3.5.3 Inmates at all centres
complained of being subjected to a whole manner of abuse if, during parliamentary
committee visits, they expose improper behavior by officials/complain of
ill-treatment or poor conditions of incarceration. At the New Kimberley
Correctional Centre many inmates complained of warders, unit managers and the HCC
treating them poorly and refusing to listen and attend to their complaints.
There were also numerous allegations of inmates having been assaulted by
officials. The HCC’s failure to respond to inmates requests for a meeting at
which to discuss their grievances had for instance resulted in the 3 August
riot that saw warders being taken hostage and extensive damage to their unit. More
than one inmate indicated that the heavy-handed treatment he received at the
centre, made him feel that he was in a maximum security, rather than a medium
security facility.
3.6 Development
3.6.1 Unlike rehabilitation programmes, education
and training programmes are not compulsory and many inmates refuse to
participate. The Pretoria Female Centre tried to involve youth in programmes,
but because many of the programmes require a basic level of competency, many
inmates are unable to benefit from them. It is hoped that increased cooperation
between the departments of education, labour and the correctional services will
result in better particpation.
3.6.2. Though the Leeuwkop Juvenile Centre centre
had 692 juvenile offenders at the time of the visit, it could only accommodate
200 in classrooms. The centre managed to secure two additional temporary
structures that could be used pending a permanent solution for the
infrastructure challenges. Approximately 80 juvenile offenders who are
attending classes are detained in separate cells, to ensure that they have
opportunity to study. Such enrolment is voluntary. Offenders raised concern
that despite their efforts to rehabilitate, upon release they will face
prejudice because of their past criminal behaviour. Officials’ major concern
related to the fact that participation in educational programmes was not
compulsory even for children. Although all education programmes are marketed at
the end of the year, many offenders are not interested and therefore attendance
remains low. Should the DCS’ efforts to revive the construction of the new
centre on the land adjacent to the current juvenile centre be successful,
educational needs will be better met.
3.6.3 Concerns about the roll-out of work and
education programmes at the Rustenburg Correctional Centre remain. Inmates
refuted officials’ claims that a structured day programme was in place, and
workshops still appear to be operating below expectation. In addition, although
denied by officials, it appeared as though a separate structure on the grounds,
ostensibly operating as a inmate workshop, is in fact a workshop where inmate-labour
is used for private gain.
3.7 Care
3.7.1 During most of the interactions with inmates,
the delegation received complaints about inadequate health care and
unprofessional behavior form nurses in particular. At the New Kimberley
Correctional Centre, which has a state of the art medical centre, the Committee
received complaints of rude, intimidating and unhelpful medical staff; one
inmate, despite obviously having a serious medical condition, had allegedly
consistently been refused medical care. At the Rustenburg Correctional Centre,
an inmate was suffering from serious eye damage, which could have been
prevented, had he received timeous medical attention.
3.8 Rehabilitation and Reintegration
3.8.1 Many of the inmates
interviewed complained of never having had for sentence plans developed that
would guide their rehabilitation while incarcerated. Where sentence plans were
in place, many inmates complained of not taking part in any social work,
psychological or other programmes aimed at facilitating the rehabilitation and
eventual reintegration.
3.8.2 Interactions with inmates at the New Kimberley
Correctional Centre revealed that a structured day programme comprising
vocational training, rehabilitation and education programmes was practically
non-existent. Inmates complained that many had agreed to being transferred to
the centre on the premise that they would receive better treatment, and would
have better opportunity for rehabilitation. This did not materialise and
created widespread dissatisfaction and frustration.
3.9 Correctional
Supervision and Parole
3.9.1 Inmates at all centres complained
about and had queries regarding the correctional supervision and parole system.
Such queries also make up the bulk of the written requests and complaints the
Committee receives from inmates across the country. It appears as though many
offenders are ill- or totally uninformed about how the parole system functions.
Many assume that once they had served the minimum sentence in terms of the
legislation under which they were sentenced, they should be granted parole.
3.9.2 The Leeuwkop correctional centres were
served by two Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB) vice chairpersons.
The CSPB’s and case management committee’s CMC’s work was further hampered by
severe capacity constraints: the CSPB had no Chairperson and the CMC often had
to surrender its staff when there are staff shortages in security areas.
Although the Rustenburg CSPB reported no challenges, and no backlog the
interaction with offenders revealed much ignorance about and dissatisfaction
with the process.
3.9.3 All CSPB chair-and vice chairpersons agreed
that poorly resourced and understaffed CMCs and the DCS’ shortage of social
workers resulted in delays in the receipt of all the reports necessary to make
informed rulings. The fact that case files were managed manually resulted in a
protracted process, causing further delays and backlogs.
3.10 Transfers
3.10.1 The Committee receives numerous complaints
regarding apparently unprocedural transfers and /or delays in processing
transfer-requests. These were reiterated during interactions with offenders
during oversight visits. The DCS admitted that the transfer process was hardly,
if ever adhered to. Inmates were seldom informed of transfers and are even more
seldom provided with the reasons for their transfer.
.
3.11 Release of seriously ill inmates on
medical parole
3.11.1 The Pretoria Correctional Centre had an
accredited wellness clinic as well as a fulltime doctor. When considering
whether a seriously ill inmate should be paroled for medical reasons, the DCS
takes into account a number of factors
including whether the inmate has a support system that would be able to provide
him or her with the care needed. Sometimes families are unable and unwilling to
take in their ill relatives, in such cases medical parole would be inhumane. Only
seriously ill inmates qualify for medical parole and where they cannot be
released to the care of their families, the DCS does all it can to refer them
to hospices.
3.12 Profile/Security classification of inmates
3.12.1 The New Kimberley Correctional Centre is a
medium security facility, but interaction with inmates soon revealed that a
number of inmates who ought to be maximum security inmates, were detained at
the centre. Mixing medium and maximum offenders seriously compromises security,
and impacts on the success of rehabilitation initiatives.
3.12.2 On 18 August the DCS reported that a complete
profiling of inmates detained at the centre was underway. Inmates would be
classified in terms of the crimes they had committed, and first-time offenders
will be separated from the rest of the inmate population. Serious offenders
with lengthy sentences and “lifers” would be transferred to centres better
suited to their needs.
3.13 Gang strategy
3.13.1 Interactions with inmates at the New
Kimberley Correctional Centre revealed a very definite gang presence, with an
official alarmingly being accused of being a member of a prison gang. The DCS reported
that the newly appointed HCC had been redeployed from the Upington Correctional
Centre where he had had considerable success in managing gang activity. Once the
reclassification exercise had been completed, identified gang members would be
diverted to centres where their activity could be curbed.
3.14 Vulnerable
offenders
3.14.1 The Department raised a number of challenges
related to the verification of child offenders’ ages. Where an offender is not
in possession of an identity document (ID) or birth certificate, his or her age
has to be verified by a medical professional. Offenders often reduce their ages
in the hope that this would result in a lesser sentence. The DCS admitted that
it needed to focus attention on managing age categories. At Leeuwkop although
accommodated in separate cells, juveniles and children share meal and exercise
time in the same courtyard as adult offenders. At least one child offender
interviewed, reported that because of the fights targeting younger, more
vulnerable offenders, he never spends exercise time outside of the cell.
3.14.2 The large number of awaiting-trial detainees
(ATDs) encountered at the Rustenburg Correctional Centre, Pretoria and
Durban-Westville was ascribed to the DCS not being able to release ATDs because
bail has either not been set owing to the serious nature of the crimes they
stood accused of, or because the DCS and South African Police Service (SAPS) did
not have reliable addresses, thus increasing the risk of them absconding should
they be released on bail. In many cases bail had been set, but offenders had no
means of paying it. Delays in police investigations and court proceedings made speedy
judgments and sentencing impossible.
3.14.3 Gauteng has the biggest concentration of
women offenders, and it would be best to detain all women, including mothers
with children, at a centre that was centrally located. Although the
Johannesburg facility is also not entirely suitable, conditions there are more
humane and therefore the DCS decided to transfer all women and women with
babies to that facility. Suitable state-owned land was available at
Attridgeville. The needs analysis has been done and the process of public
consultation was underway. The DCS has taken best practices in other countries
into consideration.
3.15 Self-sufficiency
and inmate labour
3.15.1 The delegation raised concern about the DCS’
failure to make adequate use of the resources available to it, in particular
agricultural land. The Leeuwkop facility was built on land suitable for
agricultural activity for example, but was under-utilsed partly because maximum
security inmates could not participate in work activities. It is hoped that the
improved relationship with the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs will
result in more work programmes and improved agricultural productivity.
3.15.2 While many offenders were
involved in work activities at Leeuwkop, Rustenburg, and Pretoria, the numbers
remain low. This is partly owing to the DCS’ difficulty in attracting and
retaining artisans, but also to a certain degree, owing to the inappropriate
use of facilities. Offenders that have maximum security classification are not
permitted to work, and therefore where centres on agricultural land are used to
accommodate such offenders, agricultural work programmes can for instance not
be offered. It was also reported that offenders are more interested in learning
trades, and participating in programmes other than agriculture-based ones.
PART FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Maintenance
and Facilities
4.1.1 As mentioned above and in
the Committee’s May 2010 oversight report, poor maintenance and infrastructural
weaknesses compromise security as well as the humane detention of sentenced and
unsentenced offenders. The Committee, aware of the complexities inherent in the
DCS’ relationship with the DPW, nevertheless emphasises its dissatisfaction
with the delay in the finalisation of the long overdue DCS-DPW SLA. The SLA is
a blueprint for how resources will be spent in order to maintain assets such as
buildings and equipment for example. The absence of such an SLA and maintenance
plans for each centre, reflects poor management nationally, which in turn is
echoed at centre-level. In addition to
ensuring those maintenance needs that fall within its scope are addressed
immediately, the DCS, because it is charged with the safe and humane detention
of inmates, must ensure that serious maintenance issues are reported
immediately, and that the necessary pressure is applied to ensure their speedy
resolution. The National Commissioner must, by 28 February 2011, provide the
Committee with the DCS’ assessment of the draft SLA, clear timeframes for when
any negotiations to amend it will be finalised as well as an indication of when
the SLA will be signed.
4.1.2 Concerns about the DCS’
apparent nonchalance in the awarding of contracts to service providers remain.
The visit revealed numerous instances where vast amounts of money were paid to
service providers who essentially failed to deliver the products/services they
undertook to deliver e.g the tautwire fence at the Durban Westville
Correctional Centre, the under-floor heating system at Ebongweni Super-Maximum
Correctional Centre and the shoddy IT installation at the New Kimberley
Correctional Centre. The DCS appears to take little care to ensure that
safeguards protecting it from poor service provision are built into contracts. The DCS must ensure that service providers
that have delivered sub-standard services are reported to the relevant
authorities so that they suffer the necessary penalties and, where necessary,
are prohibited from doing business with the State.
4.1.3 The DCS and DPW’s failure
to address matters such as lowering sewer lines with the urgency they demand, points
to a total disregard for the human dignity of both inmates detained and
officials working in centres where water quality is compromised, there is poor
ventilation and occupational health and safety standards are not met. While all maintenance matters should be
addressed as soon as they arise, matters that can compromise the health and
safety of officials and inmates should be treated as emergencies e.g. the lowering
of sewer lines at Durban Westville and Ebongweni Correctional Centre.
4.1.4 Despite the New Kimberley Correctional
Centre having been filled almost to its full capacity, construction was still
underway at the time of the visit. The
DCS and DPW should provide a detailed report on all construction-related
matters that are still outstanding, including the addition of toilets in the
hospital wards, when they will be finalised as well as the related cost
implications.
4.1.5 While the Committee believes the entire
Leeuwkop juvenile centre wholly unsuitable for the accommodation of offenders,
it realises that pending the total renovation of the centre or the construction
of a new centre, inmates will be housed there. The excuse that because the
structure is temporary and that therefore its maintenance cannot be
prioritised, is unacceptable. The DCS
should ensure that maintenance challenges rendering the facility even more
inhumane should be addressed as a matter of urgency i.e. broken windows should
be repaired, a suitable solution to the dining arrangement should be found and
the repair of the cold room and boiler should be prioritised.
4.1.5 The Committee welcomes
the Gauteng region’s discussions around the construction of an exclusively
female centre that would cater to the needs of female offenders, the biggest
concentration of which are found in that region. Such a centre would also
provide adequate care to mothers incarcerated with their babies, thus minimising
the impact of incarceration on babies born in detention. The DCS should provide the Committee with regular updates on progress
made in ensuring better conditions of incarceration for female offenders,
including those incarcerated with their babies.
4.1.6 The DPW and DCS should
explore all possibilities available to them for resuscitating the Leeuwkop New
Generation Correctional Centre. An update
on this exercise, as well as the progress made in the construction of the four
additional new generation correctional centres should be provided by 31 March
2011.
4.2 Human Resources Management
4.2.1 The Committee reiterates
its support of the DCS’ migration to a 7DE and the consequent phasing out of
overtime but remains convinced that the apparent universal implementation of a
2x12 shift system short-sighted and ill-advised. The number of concerns raised
by staff around compromised security and the impact staff shortages have on
case flow management are matters of extreme concern. The Committee had in May recommended that the DCS should, as a matter
of urgency, perform an audit of each centre’s staffing requirements to ensure
that the shift system used at each centre is specific to that centre’s needs
i.e. ensures maximum security of both inmates and staff and does not compromise
service delivery. The outcome of this exercise and remedial action taken should
be submitted to the Committee by 31 March 2010.
4.2.2 Allegations of
intimidation of those officials who have complained to the Committee are viewed
in a very serious light and will not be tolerated. The allegations made during
the visits echoed the numerous written correspondence to the same effect
received from staff since the Committee took office. The relevant Human Resource policies governing sexual harassment,
leave, performance management, disciplinary proceedings and whistle blowing
should be strictly adhered to. The flouting of these policies does not only
impact on staff morale and service delivery, but also has a negative impact on
the DCS’ image when its actions and decisions are successfully challenged.
4.2.3 The delegation was
appalled by the blatant and shameless misrepresentation of facts, and
disrespect shown to Members of Parliament, by some officials during the visit.
As mentioned in previous oversight reports, persistent allegations of official-collusion
in escapes and other breaches, officials’ vicious assaults and torture of
inmates, absenteeism, ill-discipline and corruption, emphasise the need for
intensified training around the role and conduct of the ideal correctional official,
as defined by in the the White Paper on Corrections. Retraining of old staff, and the training of new recruits should be
prioritised, and should focus on instilling in officials ”an attitude of
serving with excellence, a principled way of relating to others, and above all
a just and caring attitude” (White Paper, Paragraph 8.2.3).
4.3 Conditions
of incarceration
4.3.1 At all centres visited
inmates complained of their queries and grievances not being responded to. It is vital to ensure that complaints are
addressed, and where frustrations are the result of misinformation, inmates are
informed of their rights and the limitations to those rights. Failure to
respond to complaints regarding treatment and conditions of incarceration,
increase frustration and as was proven by the 3 August riot at the New
Kimberley Correctional Centre, pose a threat to security.
4.3.2
The JICS is charged with monitoring the conditions of
incarceration and ensuring that these are humane and not in violation of the
law, and DCS policies. Interactions with inmates on site visits as well as
written and telephonic appeals to the Committee reveal much inconsistency in
how policies are applied, violation of laws and in many cases very poor
conditions of incarceration. While these allegations confirm existing concerns about
the DCS service delivery, they also draw attention to the JICS’ limited capacity
to impact positively on conditions of incarceration. As the JICS plays a major role in ensuring humane detention, all
measures aimed at strengthening it, including a legislative review, should be
investigated. The National Commissioner must, by 28 February 2010, provide a
progress report on the DCS’ exploration of ways in which the JICS’ can be
allocated its own budget and be sufficiently resourced to perform the functions
it is mandated to perform.
4.4 Vulnerable categories of inmates
4.4.1 Although children should ideally not be
incarcerated in correctional centres, where there is no other option, all
children under the age of 18, and juveniles between the ages of 18 and 24 must,
in terms of the law, be accommodated separately from each other, and the adult
population. This appears to be applied inconsistently and is a matter of
extreme concern as it poses a threat to the safety of both child and juvenile
offenders. The JCPS cluster should take
joint responsibility for ensuring that ages are verified, and the DCS must
ensure that child, juvenile and adult offenders are accommodated separately.
4.4.2 As stated in previous reports, the
Committee accepts that, other than in exceptional cases, child offenders should
not be incarcerated, and that the provision of education and other programmes
is not the DCS’ responsibility. It must be emphasised however, that where
children are in its care, the DCS must collaborate with stakeholders that share
the responsibility of caring for delinquent children, in order to ensure that
their needs are met, and that incarceration does not further damage them. It is
hoped that the Child Justice Act, operational since April 2010, will result in
greater co-ordination of such efforts. The
DCS must provide quarterly updates on the number of children in incarceration,
the length of their sentences as well as efforts made to divert them to
alternative sentences/places of safety.
4.4.3 The Committee welcomes the transfer of
mothers incarcerated with their babies from the Pretoria Female Centre to the
more appropriate Johannesburg Correctional Centre. Efforts to establish a
correctional centre specifically for women, and those incarcerated with their
babies, should be redoubled in order to ensure that this category of offenders,
and particularly the babiesdetained with their mothers, receive appropriate
care.
4.4.4 Far too many remand detainees are remain in
detention simply because they cannot afford bail or fines set by courts.
Considering that it costs approximately R198 per day to accommodate an
offender, detaining persons with fines or bail amounts as little as R300 and
who have committed petty crimes and do not pose a threat to society for any
period is unjustifiable. The DCS, though not solely responsible for the high
number of remand detainees in its centres, must spearhead interventions aimed at lowering the remand population, as it is
feeling its impact most, and therefore the Committee welcomes the Correctional
Matters Amendment Bill currently before it, as it seeks, amongst others to
improve the management of remand detainees. The
DCS should ensure that HCCs make use of section 63A of the Criminal Procure Act
allowing them to apply for the release of suspects on a warning rather than
bail, or to have their bail conditions changed. The JCPS should also encourage
the use of plea-bargaining processes available to it.
4.5 Care,
Development, Rehabilitation and Reintegration programmes
4.5.1 The DCS is experiencing a
severe shortage of staff that play key roles in rehabilitation efforts i.e
social workers, psychologists, educators and artisans to run vocational
workshops, teach inmates etc. The continued small budget allocations to the
rehabilitation, care and development, and reintegration programmes further
jeopardise successful roll out of rehabilitation efforts. As recommended in previous reports on the DCS’ budge , the budget must
be aligned with its rehabilitation and reintegration objectives. The DCS must
reconsider and increase its targets for developmental interventions and make
the requisite allocations to its Care and Development, Social Reintegration and
Corrections programmes. These programmes are integral to the reduction of
recidivism, which is the only measure for determining the DCS’ success in
“correcting” offending behaviour and rehabilitating offenders.
4.5.2 The 5% reduction in the
correctional sentence plan (CSP) backlog envisaged for the 2009/10 financial
year is woefully low and reflects the DCS’ lack of commitment to providing all
offenders with the CSPs that will map their rehabilitation. Oversight visits,
and JICS reports reveal that participation in rehabilitation, education and
development programmes, even where sentence plans have been compiled, remain
extremely low. In the absence of true commitment to sentence planning it is
clear that the DCS will not be able to meet its rehabilitation objectives, and
that the culture of using correctional centres to ‘warehouse’ offenders, resulting
repeat-offending, is likely to continue. The
DCS should, as a matter of urgency, develop a strategy for the fast-tracking of
the development and implementation of sentence plans. Such a strategy should
draw on all resources available to address the backlog, including close
cooperation with non-government organisations and other relevant stakeholders
with expertise in the area. The DCS’ quarterly reports to the Committee must
include updates on progress made in this regard.
4.5.3 The new generation centres are designed
specifically to give life to the rehabilitation and reintegration ideals
contained in the White Paper on Corrections. These projects are embarked upon at great expense, and therefore the
DCS should ensure that they are managed and staffed by personnel suffienctly
experienced and capable to ensure that offenders at these centres enjoy maximum
benefit of these resources. The new generation correctional centres should
ideally be used for the nincarceration of young, medium security offenders,
women and those serving short sentences.
4.5.4 The August oversight visit emphasised that
the DCS continues to perform poorly in providing care to ill inmates thus
violating its mandate, and exposing itself to costly legal challenges. As
stated in previous reports, the oft-repeated excuse that owing to its inability
to recruit and retain medical professionals, the DCS cannot provide medical
attention to those in its care, is no longer acceptable. The DCS should be at the forefront of collaborative efforts to provide
better health care to inmates, improve the recruitment and retention of medical
professionals, and where necessary explore creative interim measures to ensure
that inmates’ medical needs are met.
4.6 Correctional
Supervision and Parole
4.6.1 The Committee welcomes
the work done by the Ministerial Task Teams appointed to assess the current
status of parole, particularly those cases where offenders have not been
considered for parole despite having served their minimum periods, as well as
the parole status of “lifers”. As those
sentenced before 2004 are subject to different parole conditions to those
sentenced post 2004, the DCS should ensure that all offenders have access to
information about, and understand the parole processes applicable to them, and
everything should be done to ensure that no one remains in incarceration beyond
what is absolutely required.
4.6.2 The Committee regrets
that the new CSPB chairpersons and vice chairpersons have not yet been
appointed. These appointments should take
place as soon as possible, and efforts should be made to ensure that CSPBs are
well-resourced thus ensuring that they are able to perform the duties
effectively. In addition the DCS should drastically improve its planning so as
to ensure that the processes preceding the appointment of statutory bodies are
completed in good time.
4.6.3 The practice of deploying
officials charged with case management to security duties as the need arises,
should be avoided as this impacts negatively on case flow management, and the
parole process as a whole. The laborious
process of compiling case files manually should be streamlined and computerised
to ensure greater efficiency and limit opportunities for human error.
4.6.4 HCCs have powers to approve
parole for eligible inmates serving sentences of two years or less. The DCS must submit a report detailing the
extent to which HCCs apply these, and the numbers of offenders that have been
paroled as a result thereof, by 31 March 2011.
4.7 Transfers
4.7.1 As on previous visits,
inmates raised a number of concerns regarding the DCS application of its
transfer policy. The Committee remains concerned about the large number of
inmates who are being transferred without explanation or being given opportunity
to notify their families. Denying
inmates, particularly children and juveniles, opportunity to inform their
relatives/guardians of their whereabouts cuts them off from the social networks
and possible support systems vital to reintegration efforts. Section 6 of the Correctional Services Act
(1998) compels the DCS to ensure that all sentenced and unsentenced inmates
notify their next-of-kin of their incarceration and/or transfer, and should be
strictly adhered to.
4.8 Increased
inmate labour and self sufficiency
4.8.1 As on its previous
oversight visits, the Committee was struck by the high level of inmate
inactivity. Save for the few engaged in vocational and educational programmes,
inmates spend most of their days in often severely overcrowded cells. Most
alarmingly this was the case at both the Rustenburg Juvenile Correctional
Centre of as well as the New Kimberley Correctional Centre which was designed
specifically to provide the necessary vocational and educational programmes
envisaged in the White Paper on Corrections. The Committee remains an ardent
advocate 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 current legislation places certain limitations on the DCS’ ability to
enforce participation in work and educational programmes, and recommends that
future reviews of the legislation consider these sections carefully to ensure
greater productivity on the part of offenders.
4.8.2 While
it acknowledges the potential security risk when involving inmates in work
activities, the Committee believes that with adequate management, inmate labour
could assist in increasing the DCS’ self-sufficiency, lowering some of its
operational costs, particularly in those areas that are currently being
outsourced. Correctional centre-based farms, factories and workshops should be
utilised fully. The skills and work ethic developed through work programmes
will further rehabilitation and reintegration objectives. The Committee recommends that the DCS explores the conversion of some
of its centres to “centres of expertise” specialising in certain trades or agricultural
activities thus enabling the optimal use of limited resources, and the more
equitable distribution of work programmes.
4.9 Profiling
of inmates
4.9.1 The DCS should prioritise
the profiling and re-classification of inmates at the New Kimberley
Correctional Centre. Wrongful classification exposes first-time and petty
offenders to abuse by, and the influence of, serious maximum security offenders
as well as a prison gangs, thus negatively impacting on their rehabilitation.
As centres’ security measures differ depending on the profile of the inmates
meant to be detained there, mixing categories of offenders could result in
serious breaches, as was apparently the case during the 3 August riot at the
New Kimberley Correctional Centre. The
DCS should ensure proper profiling of offenders, ensuring that habitual and
serious offenders incarcerated in centres not used for the inacarceration of
first time offenders. As a further precautionary measure, the DCS should ensure
that known gang members are separated from those offenders not involved in gang
activity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Committee
expresses its appreciation to the regional management of the DCS’
Limpopo/Mpumalanga/North West, Kwazulu Natal, Eastern Cape, Free State/Northern
Cape and Gauteng regions, and especially the management and staff at the
centres visited, for their co-operation during the visits.
Report
to be noted