Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services Quarterly Report July to September 2012

Meeting report

Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services Quarterly Report 1 July to 30 September 2012
There was no formal presentation of the written Quarterly Report for 1 July to 30 September 2012, by the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS), as it had been circulated in advance.

Mr Adam Carelse, Chief Executive Officer, JICS, noted that the report included an executive summary, which highlighted that the Inspecting Judge would focus on children during his tenure. The JICS had facilitated workshops about children in conflict with the law. Another focus would be efforts directed towards providing Independent Correctional Service Visitors with accredited training. The report included information on inspection findings; recommendations; actions taken and outstanding issues during the period under review.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) remarked that the report was professional. He asked for information on how the JICS staff had grown.

Mr Carelse replied that there had been a staff complement of 35 when he was appointed, but since then all 44 funded posts were filled. Capacity had been built in Legal Services, where the number of staff had been increased from 3 to 13. There were 24 fixed contract posts, representing just over half the total number.

Mr Selfe referred to problems that the JICS and the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had with the Department of Public Works (DPW) about leases. He certainly did not want the JICS “out on the pavement”, as had happened to the DCS in Johannesburg in the recent past

Mr Carelse responded that the JICS had deliberately phrased the report to note that lease contracts for Cape Town and Centurion offices had not been renewed, for the fourth consecutive term. Since 2009, the lease arrangements had proceeded on a month to month basis. The DPW could not finalise the matter. Pressure was being applied to the DPW regularly. It was uncomfortable to be housed together with the DCS, as it affected the JICS independence. The JICS was meeting with the DCS about the matter.

The Chairperson asked if the matter had been escalated to the Deputy Minister, seeing that the JICS was his responsibility.

Mr Carelse replied that it had, and a meeting was held between the Inspecting Judge and the Deputy Minister.

Mr Selfe referred to the complaints process, monitoring and investigation. He noticed a degree of tardiness on the part of Heads of Centres to finalise matters, and there was a note that various information was outstanding. He asked what the general trend was, when it came to handing over investigation reports to the JICS.

Mr Umesh Raga, National Director of Legal Services, JICS, replied that it became apparent that there were reports outstanding in relation to the complaints. Mr Carelse had met with the DCS Chief Operations Officer some months before. The DCS Head Office undertook to monitor its staff responsible for reporting. Although that there had been improvement in certain quarters, but there remained lapses overall. Quarterly reports were sent to the DCS National Commissioner and Chief Deputy Commissioners and Regional Commissioners. The JICS consistently noted that monitoring by the DCS hierarchy was not good, although there were pockets of cooperation among Heads of Centres. Some regions were doing better than others. Performance in the Eastern Cape, under its current leadership, was exemplary.

Mr Selfe noted that there had been workshops mentioned as part of the decision by the Inspecting Judge to focus on children. The workshops were not dealt with in reports. He asked if value had been added by these.
 
Mr Carelse responded that the JICS was developing a tool to monitor performance at juvenile centres. There had been a summary of surveys by Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs) in the Annual Report. Recommendations would be based on facts gathered. The development of the tool had been workshopped. The Judge projected the timeline for 2014.

Mr L Max (DA) asked about the filling of vacant posts. 

Mr Carelse replied that a level 9 policy and research position had been filled on 31 October. Vacancies were filled within 60 days.

Mr S Cele (ANC) referred to page 9 of the report. He asked if a doctor had been found, and if the problem of transport for Independent Correctional Centre Visitors was now sorted out. With reference to page 11, he asked if there were currently enough juvenile classrooms.

Mr Lennard De Souza, Unit Manager, Investigations, JICS, answered that permanent doctors could not be appointed at small centres. There was currently a doctor appointed on contract. The DCS had approached National Institute for Crime and Rehabilitation of Offenders (NICRO) about transport, but they could not afford to assist. Transport service numbers were given to ICCVs. At Boksburg the DPW was responsible for building more classrooms for juveniles. The DCS was saying that it was a long term project. Heads of Centres had to identify how many juveniles had to be trained. Juveniles were transferred to other centres for training when necessary.

Mr Cele asked about IT problems referred to on page 12.

Mr De Souza replied that the IT controller had been on site at Victoria West.

Mr Cele said that he was not satisfied with the answers. He felt that the problems had not been adequately addressed. The JICS had to highlight what was outstanding.

Mr Carelse responded that monthly reports were sent to the DCS. When the JICS met with the Portfolio Committee, there had not always been full responses to these reports, although the JICS was trying to insist that responses be given within the time frame.

The Chairperson remarked that there was a lack of coordination. The Portfolio Committee wanted properly finalised quarterly reports. The JICS had to work on that.

Mr S Abram (ANC) said that there was a Constitutional obligation to uphold the rights of inmates. The constant refrain about the DCS was the lack of social workers, nurses and doctors, and it was apparently that mentally ill prisoners were not always kept apart from others. The people in charge of inmates had to see to it that the proper Constitutional rights were granted to all inmates.

Mr Abram noted an intended focus on children, and said there were workshops devoted to that. He asked the JICS if it had focused on the implementation of the Child Justice Act by the DCS, during its inspection visits.

Mr Abram referred to Oudtshoorn Medium A, mentioned on page 13. He asked if the centre was registered as an educational institution. He asked how many juveniles there were.

Mr Abram added that another refrain related to the DCS was the limited number of inmates involved in productive activity. Self-sufficiency, through inmate work, was the way to go, to make useful citizens out of the inmates, during their sentences. The centres that the PC visited were simply “warehouses” in which prisoners were locked up for 23 hours of the day. He said that the old proverb was true, and that an idle mind was the devil’s playground. Criminal acts were planned inside prison. The DCS had to tell the Committee what Heads of Centre could do to remedy the situation. The DCS had to be asked to highlight the problems on which the JICS were reporting. He did not believe that the Committee was being told exactly what was in fact happening. He quipped that talk was cheap, and regrettably he was still hearing the same things that had been said in 2009. There was no change for the better. The DCS had to clearly state its challenges, as this department was not even carrying out the basics. Some time, he feared that the DCS would be sued for failing to do its duty. He thought it would be better if the DCS would tell the Committee frankly that it could not do the job.

Mr Zachariah Modise, Chief Deputy Commissioner, DCS, responded that not every jail had a school, as the schools for juveniles were regionally based. Where there were no schools, inmates were transferred to regions that had schools. Oudtshoorn had no school, but the region was trying to establish a school there. Correctional Centres were being overwhelmed by juveniles, and those centres had not been built with them in mind. The next phase would require that entire centres be dedicated to juveniles or to women. The challenge was that most juveniles held in remand had not been sentenced, and hence were not eligible for the same programmes as those sentenced. The situation with regard to remand detainees would be looked at.

Mr Abram thanked Mr Modise for that response. If the next phase was to consist of a focus on specialized centres for juveniles and women, there had to be a breakdown of plans, so that the Committee could fight to obtain a budget for them.

Mr Abram remarked that in South Africa medical doctors had to do community service as part of their training. He suggested that some of them should be deployed at correctional centres. It might present difficulties to deploy them in remote rural areas, but in urban centres it could be done.

Mr Modise responded that the DCS agreed with that, and would tell the Committee how many social workers, doctors and nurses had been seconded through the Department of Health.

The Chairperson asked the JICS if it wanted to respond to what had been said.

Mr Carelse replied that it would be better to leave the answer to the DCS.

The Chairperson asked if questions should be shelved for the DCS.

Mr Abram remarked that he was wary about deferring matters. The JICS was at the coalface, and could tell the Committee about how things had to be done. The JICS was pointing out what was wrong, but from the DCS side there were only promises. He was quite convinced that nothing was being done to improve things at Oudtshoorn, for instance. He asked, with some exasperation, how long everyone would continue to fool themselves. The Committee was hearing that the JICS were taking trouble to try to address issues, but nothing was happening from the DCS side. It was not the purpose of Parliament to have to listen to empty talk.

Mr Carelse replied that the DCS challenges were the shift system and the high vacancy rate, which led to an inadequate staff presence. Inmate lives were in danger, and rehabilitation activities such as work and farming could not proceed, given the shortage of staff.

Mr Abram reiterated his question whether the DCS workshops on children and inspections looked at compliance with the Child Justice Act.

Mr Carelse replied that ICCVs had to be trained for specific purposes. There was a two-year project devoted to that already under way.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked about the DCS’s view on those suffering from mental illness. The question was why the mentally ill ended up in correctional centres at all. She asked if inmates had been mentally ill when they entered prison, or whether they developed the mental illness during their sentences.

Mr Raga replied that there were different degrees of mental illness. Psychotics did not belong in prisons, but there was a lack of proper facilities for them in the country. Provincial health departments were responsible for them. Remand detainees who waited for a bed at Valkenburg mental hospital sometimes had to wait for months. There was, in general, a lack of psychiatric care and medicines for the mentally ill in prisons.

The Chairperson remarked that Mr Raga seemed to be suggesting that it was for psychologists to decide whether the mental illness developed in prison. However, if mental illness was at all evident at the time of sentencing, the judge had to be informed of that. The mentally ill were vulnerable people and that had to count as a mitigating circumstance. The DCS would have to come up with recommendations about the fact that there were no facilities for the mentally ill. This matter had to be properly dealt with and the challenges addressed.


Mr Modise admitted that the DCS struggled with the mentally ill. Some of those with mental conditions would break things or assault other people. The trauma of incarceration could contribute to mental illness. Remand detainees had to be referred to mental institutions, if there were signs of mental illness. Some had to be referred to Valkenburg, so that the medical experts could provide a report for sentencing.

Ms Ngwenya asked what was done to separate the mentally ill from other inmates. The report indicated that mentally ill inmates were housed in communal cells. She asked how they were identified, and criticized that this indicated that the administration was not doing its work properly.

Mr Carelse responded that 58% of inmates were not medically examined on admittance, and 54% did not receive immediate treatment. The JICS recommended a more specific monitoring of health services.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) remarked that rehabilitation trends in all centres had to be identified and summarised. The JICS had to meet with the Department of Health. There were many colleges and auxiliary nurses who had to be made aware of the need for health services. Many inmates left centres more traumatised than before. Beds at Thoyandou Correctional Centre were stacked in threes, for shortage of space. She pointed out that some inmates were even being traumatised in a Centre of Excellence. Ms Phaliso encouraged the JICS to “sharpen its teeth”, make its point strongly and make a difference by refusing to accept what was currently happening.

Mr Carelse responded that the Inspecting Judge and himself had in fact attended to the matter of stacked beds at Thoyandou, and had refused to leave until the triple bunks had been dismantled. The Inspecting Judge had said, on the previous day, like Ms Phaliso, that there had to be a summary of trends, as Ms Phaliso suggested. The JICS was attending to the matter of juveniles held, and the amounts of bail set, for what was really petty theft. The JICS was writing to magistrates about that to bring about change.

Mr M Mnguni (COPE) asked what the report meant when it was noted that accommodation issues had been addressed. He was not happy with the phrase “recommendations had been adequately addressed”. This did not tell the Committee what had been done about issues raised. The JICS had to be clear about hindrances to its work. He noted that the JICS was not fully independent, and the way in which this compromised its work. However, he wanted more specifics of areas in which the work was hindered. Mr De Souza had spoken very generally. The Committee wanted specifics about what had happened on which day. It was intolerable if the DCS staff obstructed JICS in its work. He asked that the next report must provide far more detail.

The Chairperson noted that the JICS wanted an indaba about how it could strengthen its hand. Mr Mnguni’s questions could be asked there. The interaction was scheduled for the first meeting the following year. He agreed that the JICS was not strong enough for corrective action. There had to be a workshop, that also involved the DCS and the Minister.

Mr Cele asked about an inmate who made an allegation, as referred to on page 22 of the report, that he had been shot with rubber bullets in his cell six years previously.

Ms Veounia Grootboom, Complaints Manager, JICS, replied that the inmate had lodged the complaint on 5 July 2012, and the JICS took action the next day. The incident had happened in 2006, and it was necessary to go to the archives for more information.

Mr Cele noted that an official had been removed from his post as a result of the allegation, and asked where he had been moved.

Ms Grootboom replied that the official no longer worked for the DCS.

Mr Cele asked about an inmate who had been assaulted because he was wearing Nike takkies instead of prison shoes. He asked if the DCS provided shoes to prisoners.

Ms Grootboom replied that the incident had occurred at Witbank, and that the JICS had asked for a full report. The official implicated in this still worked for the DCS.

Mr Modise added that shoes were provided to inmates on admission. However, if it was a struggle to provide certain shoe sizes, the Head of Centre could allow inmates to use their own shoes. Shoes were made at Witbank Centre. The JICS would be supplied with a report. If there had indeed been assault, there would be criminal charges laid.

Mr Abram referred to the situation at Kutama Sinthumule, referred to on page 17. The DCS controller had not been connected to the server since February 2012. There was also an allegation that inmates’ gratuity had not been increased during the preceding ten years.

Mr Abram referred to an inmate at Boksburg Medium A who had committed suicide because he was frustrated with the slow progress of his parole application, as set out on page 19. He asked how many people there were who were frustrated about their parole, and stressed that details had to be know about how many inmates qualified for parole, who had not applied or did not know their rights regarding parole. This was a dangerous situation as people would go to extremes. Processors were not attending to parole, and were keeping people in limbo. The Committee had heard that parole boards did not meet. He stressed that those accepting a job had to accept the responsibilities that went with it. Oversight was necessary, to isolate those who were not performing, and those who were lazy had to be removed.

Mr Modise responded that the DCS had to have its own server. If the server was down it was impossible to work with the controller. The DCS could not classify inmates or administer parole when the server was down.

Mr Abram asked about the rights of inmates that might have been compromised at the Public/Private Partnership (PPP) prisons.

Mr Raga responded that the Director of the PPP prison at Kutuma had raised the matter of no increase in gratuities with the Inspecting Judge. It had been referred to the Chief Deputy Commissioner (Incarcerations) in the DCS. A letter had been written to Mr Johan Smallberger. Ms Sello, Acting Chief Deputy Commissioner, had responded that this had been proposed for the budget, but that had not been done. The matter would be referred to the Committee.

The Chairperson remarked that when it suited the PPPs they designed their own affairs, but they waited for the DCS to implement other matters, such as the gratuities.

Mr Modise responded that the PPPs had to follow DCS policy in the matter of gratuities. The DCS could pronounce on levels and how much had to be spent. He noted that the DCS had a Chief Deputy Commissioner who dealt with PPPs.

The Chairperson told the JICS that the Committee now had a better sense of what the issues were that the Committee needed to look at, but commented that the JICS answers did not go deep enough into the problems. He asked that the reports should contain more information on what the JICS was doing to address the wrongdoing shown. For instance, JICS would say that a matter had been closed, like that of hygiene at Pollsmoor, but then oversight visits would show that the problem persisted. The JICS had to provide answers that could be taken to families of inmates. There had to be consequences for false complaints, and complaints with no merit had to be identified as such.

Judge Vuka Tshabalala, Inspecting Judge, remarked that he was not able to comment extensively, as he was not well. However, he said that these interactions with the Portfolio Committee were helpful. The JICS needed the scrutiny of the Portfolio Committee to fulfill its duty to the Committee and the public.

Other business: Committee programme and adoption of minutes
The Chairperson noted that the Committee programme would include a workshop on the re-alignment of the DCS budget, quarterly reports and the overseas visit by the Committee during February 2013.

The Committee would meet with Legal Aid South Africa on 14 November.

Members adopted minutes of Committee meetings held on 18 October; 23 October; 24 October and 31 October.