State of Security in Correctional Centres

Meeting report

Introductory remarks by Chairperson and Acting National Commissioner
The Chairperson noted that in two previous meetings, the matter had come up that parole had been granted to Mark Scott Crossley, involved in the lion enclosure incident, while his employee was still incarcerated. The Committee wanted to understand the circumstances around that. He said that if it had been a Department of Correctional Services (DSC) decision, he would ask if relatives of the deceased, the victims in that case, had been communicated with. The notion of unfair treatment had to be dispelled. He asked the Department to provide detailed information in writing.

In the matter of Ms A Wilson, detained in a male cell at Durban Westville Correctional Centre, the DCS had noted previously that this meeting agenda item would have coincided with a court appearance on that day. In order not to jeopardise court proceedings, the Committee had agreed not to discuss it then. The Acting National Commissioner had told him privately what she thought before the meeting. One of the options considered in a previous meeting, had been to have a closed session on the matter. It was important for the Committee to be informed, when it visited Durban Westville the following week. He said that the Commissioner’s recommendations would be presented to the Committee.

Ms Jenny Schreiner, Acting National Commissioner, DCS,said that an urgent application had been lodged on 21 April, to get the issue on the roll for that same day. The application documents were not on the roll for that day, and not ready for a hearing. There was no time frame available for getting it back on the roll. Detail about proceedings could make a sub judice matter public. The content of what had transpired would be made available to the Chairperson. The Regional Commissioner entrusted with Durban Westville Centre, would accompany the Committee during their visit the following week. He would discuss tightening of security, disciplinary steps taken, and improvements in place at Durban Westville.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) moved that the Committee accept.

The Chairperson said that he wished to reiterate that the Committee was sympathetic to the difficulties, but the briefing by the Regional Commissioner would have to speak to Committee concerns about controls in the Department. Ms Wilson had proceeded from court and through admission at the Centre, and from there to a male cell where she was held for six months. What had led to that? It was inconceivable that such a thing could happen. Committee acceptance of the matter was conditional, and much depended on the Regional Commissioner telling the Committee about recommendations. The matter could be put in abeyance, but the Portfolio Committee would want to hear that there had been disciplinary action against specific individuals, and that the system had been strengthened against error.

Ms Schreiner responded that there were 27 recommendations. The Regional Commissioner would provide an update, and show the Committee around physically. There would be disciplinary action against individuals. Recommendations focused on systems, process, and controls.

The Chairperson referred to gangs in prisons, sexual violence, vetting of officials and preparedness for the FIFA World Cup. The DCS had to account for what was happening in facilities. He had asked the Inspecting Judge for a report about those matters. For the year January to December 2009, there had been at least 11 instances of inmate deaths caused by officials. He wondered if gangs in prisons were no longer limited to the likes of the 27 gang, but that officials had become like a gang themselves.

During the same period, 27 inmates had committed suicide. He wondered to what extent suicides were driven by the prison environment. The Committee wanted to understand that environment. Violence dealt out by officials could indeed come to constitute a form of gangsterism. Inmates had been suffocated and batonned. That was not justifiable. The Committee would not accept that. There was increasing concern with unnatural death in prisons. The Inspecting Judge and the Department had roles to play, in addressing the matter of avoidable death.

The Chairperson went on to suggest a different approach to the meeting. The standard format of meetings had become all too predictable. He invited members to provide inputs prior to the DCS briefing, that the tone may be set for serious discussion and debate. He called on every member present to comment, starting with Mr Abram.

Inputs by Portfolio Committee Members prior to DCS briefing
Mr S Abram (ANC) said that there was a general problem of a breakdown in moral fabric, at all levels of society. Inmate populations demanded all kinds of rights, and there was brutality on the part of officials. Moral breakdown and lack of discipline had to be curbed. He did not have the solutions himself, but he urged that the social fabric be repaired, and that society as a whole become a caring society. An inmate entered a prison, where he was sometimes treated like a leper. Trying to correct him, might seem a remote possibility for those who cared for him. Intimidation was rife in prison. Inmates with gang backgrounds intimidated their caretakers. There was a need for drastic action. Moral fibre had to be regained. There had to be programmes to curb things like prison rape. To hand out condoms was like giving a go-ahead. Constitutionally there was a Bill of Rights. The law by itself could not protect one from violence. There had to be interaction, society had lost its humanity. Guiding values had to be brought back, or problems would become endemic.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) said that there was favouritism in prisons. Officials picked inmates to which they were partial, and treated them better than others. Officials even smuggled in items for some inmates, dagga had been smuggled in for inmates at Barberton Centre, in the past. There had been a situation where officials bribed inmates to write their officer’s assignments for them, to better their own qualifications. That meant that the official could not become a better manager through higher qualifications, because the inmate was doing the work for him. Released inmates were not welcome on the outside. Gang members were known. In prison, officials spoiled them. Condoms were handed out for the abuse of juveniles. Some inmates had privileges, like eating better than others, and officials allowed this. That was not fair treatment. At Grootvlei, inmates had complained that senior officials refused to talk to them about problems. Inmates had been barred from attending church services.

Mr Fihla (ANC) said that problems in prison reflected those of society at large. Law breakers had to be rehabilitated and normalised. But in prison they lost their rights, except for rights to exercise and food. They ended up doing nothing and becoming frustrated and violent. Gangs were found in prisons worldwide. Different countries dealt with that in different ways. Harsh treatment by officials made inmates more violent. Once treated humanely, violent attitudes could be curbed. Inmates had to be occupied, whether through creative projects, exercise or work. There were many prison gangs in the United States and Europe, but few in Scandinavia, where inmates were treated well, and normalised. In New Zealand and Australia, there was interaction between inmates and the community. Elders tried to inculcate traditions and culture. There had to be a moving away from retributive justice, where society abandoned prisoners because they had offended it. In that situation, the released inmate was seen as the scourge of society. Attitudes had to change. Those with criminal records could not get work, which hardened their attitude. Society had to be educated to accept that offenders eventually had to return, and find a place in it.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said that members agreed that the DCS was not being effective. Officials had to know how to behave in their work situation. Section 36 of the Act stated that inmates had rights, but the Judicial Inspectorate report pointed out that officials had assaulted and killed inmates, and the DCS had not explained that. Officials had not been arrested, merely suspended, no one knew for how long. There was a lack of concern about the death of inmates. The Department had a lot to answer. The Committee had in the past requested statistics on inmate death, and asked the Department about mechanisms to prevent that. The higher management levels of the DCS did not visit the centres. In her words, they sat in offices waiting for false reports from regions. Mechanisms were needed for improvement in centres. She found it painful to speak so harshly, but there had to be a criterion. The DCS should not take it personally. The Committee wanted to see change.

Mr A Fritz (DA) said that the Constitution, with regard to what it stated about human dignity, had to be kept in mind. The same applied to the Correctional Services Act and the White Paper. He took it that members were saying that officials had to be reminded about such provisions. A dichotomy existed between officials and inmates. Gangs and strong officials were pitted against each other, and non-gang members, called “Franse”, were caught in the crossfire. Prison gangs were powerful. The Minister had been asked about smuggling in prisons, and had disclosed that there was human trafficking in prisons, with youths placed in certain cells in return for cigarettes. Money changed hands. In April of the previous year, an Emergency Support Team (EST) had carried out a massive assault during a search. Inmates were even stabbed. He was not being soft on crime or defending inmate rights, but the situation was alarming. The EST team were wearing balaclavas, that their identity might not be revealed by a video recording. Something had to be done. The notion that Remand Centres could solve problems with Awaiting Trial Detainees (ATDs), had to be revisited. Sexual assault and prison gangs were rife, and there were problems around offenders with mental illness. The waiting list for beds at Valkenburg was long, and the mentally ill got thrown in with other inmates. They were vulnerable to abuse, and had to be separated.

The Chairperson remarked that he had opted for a change in procedure, for the DCS to engage in dialogue with the Portfolio Committee, instead of resorting to theory and textbook solutions. Theoretical debate would not help. Problems were not limited to DCS-controlled facilities. He referred to what the Minister had recently reported on, regarding brutality against inmates at Kutama Sinthumele Centre in Limpopo, not under DCS control.

DCS response to Committee inputs
Ms Jenny Schreiner, Acting National Commissioner, DCS, said that there would be a focus on the issues raised. The Department appreciated the critical comment. The correctional centres reflected an interface between gangs on the outside and on the inside. It was a security problem that would not yield to a silo approach. She recognised the need to revisit provisions for human dignity in the White Paper. Yet it had to be acknowledged that the DCS had to face inmates who failed to recognise the dignity of others. There were people from violent backgrounds, who had been in and out of correctional systems. Officials were instructed to use no more than necessary force. But it was a challenge to contain that. There was a need for checks and controls. There had to be realistic understanding. Maximum security centres were not peaceful environments. The impact of locking a person up, had to be understood. It made people more prone to violence against others and themselves. It remained an under-researched area. There were shifts in behaviour patterns, and idleness led to frustration.

Ms Schreiner continued that there would be a detailed presentation on remand detention at a later stage. She agreed that avoidable death was an important issue. There were unnatural deaths on account of violence against the self or others. Avoidable death had to be looked at, through picking up on suicidal inmates. That was made difficult by overcrowding and staff shortages, especially of social workers. Staff had to be trained to recognise symptoms. Excessive force had been tabled at a meeting of the National Management Committee, to look at a general pattern. There could not be a policy gap in implementation, there was concern about both gang- and staff power. It was resolved at that meeting that Regional Commissioners had to tighten up on force used. It was noted at the meeting that gangs employed violence against inmates and staff. Yet necessary force could not be exceeded. But controls were a problem. There was collusion amongst staff members where nobody had “seen anything”. The use of force by staff had to be investigated at Director level. There were Human Resource Development programmes that provided intense training to officials. They were trained to maintain a balance between security interventions and dignity. Inmates had to be educated about their rights to report to the judiciary or Parliament. Area – and Regional Commissioners had to take such matters seriously. The need to get senior managers in touch with the ground, was an issue of concern shared by the Minister. There were 241 centres. Monitoring was needed on the ground.

Mr Teboho Motseki, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corrections, said that the Department had not wanted to pre-empt Committee concerns. The DCS shared those concerns. He said that the DCS management might come across as rationalising concerns, but in fact it wanted to be objective, and to accept the limitations of the system. Monitoring visits by the Committee were helpful. Messages coming from the Committee could lead to reinforcement. He suggested that the briefing to follow on the state of security, focus on an issue at a time, so that it could be possible to talk to the presentation, without getting lost in detail. The DCS wanted to convey a sense of its environment, and of who were in the facilities. There were inmate statistics that related to threats to security. The DCS was aware of a security threat, and wanted to present its response. All security issues would be brought to the attention of the Committee. There were questions around technological security measures, and the capacity to manage statistics on rape. He agreed that there had there had to be direct supervision on the ground by senior management. The DCS were willing to talk about preparedness for the FIFA World Cup. There were security areas covered by the SAPS and the judiciary, but the DCS could discuss its own responsibilities.

DCS briefing on the state of security in correctional centres
Mr Willie Damons, Deputy Commissioner: Remand Security, singled out the growth of sophisticated syndicates as a current security threat. It contributed to an unpredictable awaiting trial detainee (ATD) population and more maximum security inmates. Staff were vulnerable to corruption temptations. The increasing ATD population increased vulnerability in operations.

Mr Damons took the Committee through statistics of sentenced offenders according to crime categories. Aggressive offences far outranked any other category. In the 3^rd quarter of 2009/10, there were 63 636 offenders involved in those. The economical category, second in line, came to 25 873.

Current work shift patterns led to a situation were only 50% of staff were present during the week. Staff had to be present for inmates to attend programmes.

Mr Motseki added that staffing issues had implications for the management of centres. In terms of the 7 Day Establishment, staff worked a 2 shift system on a 45 hour week for a 14 day cycle. In practice that meant that only 25% of staff were present during the week, which had reduced the capacity to react. Security breaches had generally gone down, except for assault. It was a case of idle people turning against themselves. The Minister had called for an evaluation of the shift system.

Discussion
The Chairperson suggested discussion of issues raised up to that point.

Ms Nyanda remarked that the 7 day establishment had created a situation where officials were prone to extend their day off, to return later with a medical certificate. She predicted that staff would be taking time off work during the World Cup, to watch the soccer.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that she agreed with the evaluation. It seemed that there was a shortage of staff for World Cup preparedness. The DCS had to comment on how it would manage that in terms of the 7 day establishment. The shift pattern had to be evaluated, to evolve a plan of action for the World Cup.

Mr Fritz said that according to the submission, the 7day establishment and shift system could not be said to work. The Minister had called for an evaluation, not only for purposes of World Cup preparedness. Rehabilitation programmes could not continue, if security was not catered for in prisons. He also foresaw a lack of staff presence during the World Cup.

The Chairperson acknowledged Mr Motseki’s statement that the DCS shared Committee concerns. Unintended consequences of the 7 day two-shift system had to be examined. Staff extending their leave during the World Cup, had to be watched out for.

Mr Motseki responded that the problem was not the 7day establishment as such. The problem was the shift system, and which one to use.

Mr Abram referred to the last bullet on Slide 25, that gang violence involving sexual abuse was underreported, but mostly occurred in communal cells after lock up. Slide 26 referred to the creation of an environment that encouraged the reporting of victimisation, bullying and abuse. He asked if that anti gang strategy was being strictly enforced. Slide 28 made mention of legislative provisions for an anti gang strategy. He urged that the DCS work on that. It might be necessary to transfer gang members to maximum facilities. He agreed with Ms Ngwenya that gangs were being allowed to run the prisons. There had to be DCS proposals, even it was to the effect that gang leaders be placed on an island.

Mr Fihla remarked that gangs constantly had to recruit new members. Many gang members had been in prison for many years, and were hard to rehabilitate. They could be classed as habitual offenders. It was the duty of officials to cut off recruitment into the ranks of new inmates. First time offenders had to be separated from them and placed in different sections. They were vulnerable. Juveniles had to be separated from adults. It had to be the duty of officials on admittance, to guard against gang recruitment.

The Chairperson noted that Mr Fihla had always maintained that first time offenders had to be separated from habituals, and he was inclined to agree with that. If there were infrastructure challenges, the Department had to inform the Committee. He asked if the DCS subscribed to the separation of offenders.

Mr Motseki responded that separation could be difficult in practice. A small percentage of even young offenders who entered prison, were in fact first time offenders. Many brought previous criminal records with them. Age and assessment for vulnerability could be used to create a classification tool. He stressed that gangs had evolved over a long time. Number gangs like the 28s had their own distinctive cultures. There were resourced inmates who manipulated gangs to their own advantage. Profiles of inmates were changing, which posed a security threat in itself. When it came to matters like sexual assault in communal cells, privacy had to be balanced against security. Closed Circuit Television for communal cells had not been implemented, because of privacy considerations. The impression was conveyed that there were no complaints. People acquiesced. Where staff was assaulted, it was usually the work of gangs. Staff became involved in the crossfire between gang conflicts, and were then prone to use excessive force. Gang conflicts could be extremely violent, and officials also had to employ force to protect themselves. Gang leaders would not join gang fights, they simply gave orders. Investigations were difficult, as no one would tell who had given the orders to fight. The code of secrecy was very strong. It seemed that gang members would rather die than inform on each other.

Mr Motseki continued that gangs could be calculated in their strategies. At Leeukop, there had been a hunger strike initiated by gangs in order to gain control of a corridor for gang purposes. They had refused to meet with the DCS. He said that it could sound insensitive, but it was known that the hunger strike had been gang related.

The Chairperson remarked that letters to him complained of other matters, but if Mr Motseki had a different vision regarding Leeukop, it would do well to discuss it. He held a bias concerning conflict between the right to privacy and security. He was convinced that those who abused others could not claim privacy. Surveillance had to be improved.

Ms Schreiner added that gang members had been separated from the rest of the population at Pollsmoor, but it remained a question if this would be possible everywhere.

The Chairperson drew on his experience in his constituency. He hailed from an area where many former prisoners lived. Everyone knew who the number gang generals were. It was also known who had been wyfies (literally males who were “wives” to high ranking members, and hence referred to as females). But it was never openly admitted. Technological surveillance could bring those things to light. In his constituency, waves of inmates would be released at regular intervals. Everyone would know that the Fast Guns would be released the following year, followed by another known gang. Whether on parole or released, everyone knew who belonged to the 26 - or 27 gang. He asked if the time had come to consider the forfeiting of parole rights due to gang membership. A meaningful anti-gang strategy was needed. It had to be brainstormed and given impact.

Mr Fritz remarked that he had found Mr Motseki’s inputs enlightening. It seemed to him that architecture was related to gang activity, which occurred mostly in communal cells. Single cells could limit gang activity. It had to be considered in the building of the four New Generation Centres.

Ms Schreiner responded that there were costing implications. Single cells could make security easier, but it contributed to isolation of inmates. To be locked up in one cell for 10 years, caused long-term isolation, which was not desirable. Communal cells with programmes to keep inmates occupied, was the best option. That had to be monitored.

Ms Ngwenya asked why gangs were allowed in correctional centres at all. She asked from where the 26s were. During an oversight visit, the head of the prison did not want members to visit a certain section. When taken there, it turned out to be the Sodom and Gomorrah section, as she put it. Debate was needed. Statistics pointed to high HIV rates in KZN prisons, and a high incidence of sexual violence in the Western Cape. She asked about HIV statistics for the Western Cape, and whether victims of sexual violence could be taken to safe places.

Mr Fihla remarked that the number gangs (26, 27 and 28), had a history of over a 100 years behind them. They developed within a system of retributive justice. Under the old regime, prison wardens would quell violence in cells with heavy violence of their own, and gangs were formed partly for protection against violence from officials. Besides the number gangs, there were the Big Fives, who collaborated with officials, the Flyers who specialised in escapes, and the Desperadoes. Prison gangs were found the world over. Some countries placed them in separate facilities. Once a certain gang would dominate, it would be removed from that facility. The problem was that they found their own kind wherever they went. The 26s and 28s were established in the Eastern Cape, at St Albans, Pollsmoor and Durban Westville. They also controlled prisons in Gauteng.

Mr Fihla continued that arrest removed the right to privacy. Prisoners only retained rights to basic necessities like food and clothing. Security considerations overrode privacy rights. Cameras could tell the truth when inmates would not do so. Surveillance was especially needed at night. Prisons could be described as places where inmates graduated in crime. Youth had to be steered away from learning more about crime in prison.

Ms Nyanda noted that visits to Barberton Centre had confirmed that the 26 – and 28 gangs were no longer active there. There was no Closed Circuit Television there. There had been a massive gang fight some time before, with more than 10 inmates killed. After that, number gang activity ceased to be.

Ms Schreiner responded that at Barberton, the Head of the Centre had spoken to the gangs, and met with success. Area Commissioners could do the same elsewhere. For more effective gang management, managers would have to spend more time on the ground.

Mr Abram referred to the fact more than half of the offenders fell under the category of Aggressive Crimes. He said that South Africa was a violent society. It was imperative to deal with that among inmates, but there had to be a parallel plan that extended into society. The Committee could help drive such a plan. Primary school children in Malmesbury had recently burnt down a school, because of some dissatisfaction on their part. Criminals often get set on their course as young children, stealing from a mother’s purse or some small item from a shop. Crime prevention had to be worked on. Sister departments and National departments had to get involved, and the Committee could help drive such an effort. Awaiting Trial Detainees were also very aggressive, and that was worrisome. Violence and aggression were present everywhere. One got shown the middle finger for getting in the way of another motorist. Levels of violent behaviour were unacceptably high. He drew on his own experience to make a point about crime prevention. When he was 18, his father had beaten him with a sjambok for some mischief committed. He resented that at the time, but later came to appreciate that he had a loving father. The value of discipline could not be underestimated.

Mr Abram referred to the statement on Slide 30, that the official information system of the DCS did not make provision for separate capturing of sexual violence. He agreed with Mr Fihla that inmates had no rights to consensual sex. They were there to repay society. He found the issuing of condoms outrageous. He drew attention to the stated need for a clear definition between consensual and forced sex, on Slide 32. He agreed with Ms Ngwenya that an island for sex in communal cells would be created, if there was recognition of a form of conjugal rights. It would not do to say that certain things were inevitable. Anything human could change.

Ms Ngwenya asked about World Cup preparedness, whether it was being approached as a separate issue, and what the DCS plans were.

Mr Motseki replied that World Cup preparedness was approached as separate from general issues.

Mr Damons added that the DCS was represented at all levels on the Local Organising Committee, the National / Provincial JOINT Committees and Administrative of Justice Steering Committee meetings, as indicated on Slide 39 of the presentation.

Mr Motseki continued that during the World Cup, crimes were expected around the host cities. Offenders would be placed in holding facilities around stadiums in the event of overflow around the host cities. Inmates could be moved out in centres to create space. DCS was part of the government plan to decide about World Cup related offences within 24 hours. Drug offences involving overseas visitors were anticipated. Such persons would be summarily deported. Opportunistic crime before and after 11 July could be expected. There would be adequate capacity in areas of need.

Mr Damons said that there would be a lockdown of transfer of offenders during the World Cup, and there would be restrictions on leave for officials, to provide maximum availability of staff.

The Chairperson agreed that World Cup related crimes around stadiums could be expected. Even under ordinary circumstances, police cells overflowed on a Friday. World Cup festivities might drive up the figures. He remarked with some irony that there would be even more people unable to pay bail on Monday after the courts closed, for urinating in a park.

Ms Nyanda asked about cases where the cause of death was cited as ‘unknown’. Had there not been a post mortem examination?

Ms Schreiner replied that it was cited as such when the autopsy had not yet been concluded.

Ms Nyanda asked how death through medication overdose was possible. She asked why inmates were given potentially dangerous drugs, and if it had to be done, why it was not properly prescribed.

Mr Motseki responded that inmates would pretend to take prescribed medication where it was issued to them, but hide it in the mouth and store it somewhere until they had a large supply, which was then taken all at once. The problem was that it was very often done by inmates of whom one least suspected had suicidal tendencies. Inmates who wanted to take their own lives, could show unbelievable determination. Inmates hung themselves with bedding sheets. What in fact happened was that they suffocated themselves in a way that one would think impossible. It was not hanging where the body left the floor and the neck could be broken. There was a strong commitment to die. He said that some inmates would look at a 15 year sentence facing them, and simply decided that they were not up to that, and would end their own lives.

The Chairperson concluded the discussion. He said that the Committee would drive issues. Consensual sex sounded like an inmate right. He did not support the right to privacy over the right to abuse. Some issues were political, and others societal. He invited Mr Morris to present an independent view on issues discussed thus far. The Committee wanted to make a difference in Correctional Services. He kept hearing the terms ‘sexual violence’ and ‘rape’. Was there a difference?

Ms Schreiner answered that assault statistics for facilities included rape. Sexual violence distinguished from rape, preceded the Act. ‘Rape’ was all-encompassing.

Comments by the Judicial Inspectorate
Mr Gideon Morris, Director of the Judicial Inspectorate, said that debate could help the Judicial Inspectorate to align their services, and to direct resources to where it was most needed. He remarked that violence in prisons was not isolated, and was linked to other problems of infrastructure such as overcrowding. Staff lacked a holistic approach to violence. As regarded strategies until then, he noted that the violence rate exceeded the capacity to report on it. Independent Prison Visitors (IPVs) were under more pressure. Inmates were getting frustrated and accusing the IPVs of being institutionalised. In fact, the IPVs were still constantly reporting, but responses to their reports were lacking.

Mr Morris said that there was a link between frustration and violence. He had had 26 years of experience with prisons, and had seen violence change in intention. Before 1994, violence had been against the system, whereas currently it was for the implementation of the new system. The Committee had a role to play. Things could start with a better alignment between the budget, the White Paper, and the Act. Money had to be allocated for protection. Inmates had to be put to work in programmes. Idleness served no good purpose. They had to be taken out of cells and kept busy. He was concerned about the World Cup lockup. Inmates had already been under lockup since the previous November, because of the shift system. The Correctional Services Act stipulated that the Department be run according to business principles. Management had to account. The Independent Complaints Procedure could provide protection.

With regard to surveillance through Closed Circuit Television, he said that he doubted if it could work. Inmates would simply cover the equipment, their cleverness could not be underestimated. Surveillance was an operational and management problem. Regarding figures on deaths, he said that the Judicial Inspectorate had reported on prison deaths since January of that year. Every death was confirmed, independent of the DCS. IPVs were used to verify the nature of the death.

Mr Umesh Raga, Legal Services: Judicial Inspectorate, added that “B Orders”, implementation and monitoring were required. It had become mandatory since the previous November to report the use of force, but the Judicial Inspectorate had not yet received 10 reports. Sexual violence was problematic, and so was force employed by the Emergency Support Teams (EST). The DCS had to monitor lack of compliance. Solitary confinement was not used in South Africa, but segregation could be used as a disciplinary procedure. Very few disciplinary processes against inmates had been reported. When inmates broke rules, they had to be disciplined. Processes dealing with infringements were mostly informal. The disciplinary system was not utilised.

Discussion
Ms Schreiner said that an evolving process had to be recognised. Gang management was not set in stone. The Gang Management Strategy document was not a B Order. It remained a strategic document. Security information had to be properly managed. Regarding the issue of security versus privacy, she said that the Committee was invited to further engage with the Department. United Nations precepts would be provided, to act as an international instrument. The guidance of South African Parliament remained necessary.

Mr Motseki added that regarding gang management strategy, there was reflection on a document, not on what had been done or implemented.

The Chairperson concluded that the meeting had been a useful exercise. It had not been a case of blind compliance to established formats. Stakeholders would be engaged. The message to the DSC was that the Committee was committed to human rights, but those had to be earned. The rights of others also had to be respected. There had to be a commitment to rehabilitation. The Committee would want more productive hours outside, than inside the cell. Inmate self sufficiency had to remain on the agenda. It was unacceptable to have inmates in cells for 23 hours per day. There was an urgent need to revisit the shift system. Currently it placed officials at risk. The shift system, the budget, and relations with the private sector had to be reviewed. The Committee remained serious about change.

The Chairperson reminded the DCS of a written report on vetting expected from them, and also a report on the matter of Mark Scott Crossley. The Committee would receive a briefing from the Regional Commissioner at Durban Westville Centre on Wednesday 19 May.

The meeting was adjourned.