Committee oversight report to courts and correctional centres

Meeting report

The Chairperson said the Committee would go through its draft report on the oversight visits it had conducted to various courts and correctional centres in and around the country earlier this year. He recommended that the Committee have a brief discussion of the report so that it could identify what information had not been captured. Members' comments would be included in the report by the Committee Secretariat, after which the Committee would adopt the comprehensive report.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) supported the proposal. In addition, she asked if she could send her written comments to the Committee Secretariat.

The Chairperson permitted her to do so, and also asked that she verbalise some of her comments during the meeting.

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) seconded the proposal.

Draft Oversight Report on Correctional Services

Members of the Committee went through the draft oversight report on correctional services.

The Chairperson said the Committee had received a letter from the Judge President of the Limpopo High Court, who took issue with them for not visiting the province during the oversight visit. He advised that the Committee should write back to the Judge President to apologise and also to explain the reasons for Members' absence. He added that officials from Legal Aid had also requested that the Committee visit them.

He indicated that much of what had occurred during the oversight visits were not captured in the report, particularly the specific timeframes set by the Committee for officials of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DJCD), and the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) to complete certain objectives. The timeframes were binding and would be used during engagements with both departments.

He was pleased that both the DPWI and the DJCD had a functional working relationship, which could be improved upon. One example of this relationship had been noted during the visits, where Members were informed that inmates in a correctional facility in Mbombela have been building furniture for the courts in the area.

He called for the Committee to have an urgent meeting with both the Minister and the Director-General (DG) of the DJCD regarding the poor functionality of courts in the country, mainly due to their lack of court recording technology (CRT). This had occurred because the Department did not renew the contract with its CRT supplier in time.

He expressed his concern regarding the state of the Palm Ridge court's infrastructure, particularly as nearly 900 people visit the court daily. Both the DPWI and the DJCD should attend to this issue before an accident occurs.

Adv Breytenbach said that she was concerned about how the oversight visits were conducted. She advised the Committee against announcing their oversight visits, as this allowed for officials in a particular department to show Members only positive developments. Whilst she recognised the value of this, she also believed that the Committee should also be shown the failings of the department so that it was able to assist in improving the conditions. To prevent this from occurring, she suggested that Committee visits be unannounced.

Further, she found it distressing that during their visits, Members were treated like "very important people"(VIPs), and requested that the Committee should make it clear that this should no longer happen.

Ms Maseko-Jele pointed out that Prof C Msimang (IFP) did not join the group on the visit, as incorrectly stated in the report.

There were three issues she had noted during the visit. These were the slow response time of DPWI officials when called upon for an inspection; the lack of security around the courts, particularly in Mbombela; and the poor state of the air conditioners in the courts, which made the working conditions difficult. 

Mr X Nqola (ANC) appreciated the Committee’s decision to split the oversight team into two groups – one which went to the coastal areas and the other to the inland areas – as they had been able to cover much ground during that one week. He recommended that this method be used for future oversight visits. 

He requested that the findings on the correctional centres be included in the report.

He was pleased that the Committee had called for an urgent meeting with the Ministers of the DPWI and the DJCD, especially as the DPWI had not addressed several of the issues mentioned during the visits.

He agreed that the structure of the oversight visit must be attended to. Before the visit, the Committee had agreed that it would have both announced and unannounced visits.

As several judges in KwaZulu-Natal had raised a number of issues during the oversight visits, he recommended that the Committee call on the Office of the Chief Justice ventilate the challenges faced by these judges.

Mr R Dyantyi (ANC) appreciated the fact that the Chairperson had called for the Committee to go on the oversight visits, instead of only dealing with legislation during meetings. He felt that the visits were useful and should be done more often going forward.

He outlined three items that should be included in the report. Firstly, there were operational and management issues at the correctional centre, the Masters of the High Court and other courts. He called for the Executive to play a greater oversight role of the officials, to ensure that the work was done properly. Secondly, policies and legislation were not being implemented fully by the centres and the courts. Thirdly, the Committee needed to discuss supporting the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) to conduct certain initiatives on its own without the DPWI -- for instance, during the oversight visit the Committee noted that the DCS had improved security at Qalakabusha.

Referring to the structure of the oversight visits, he said the Committee must have planned oversight visits in addition to unannounced visits so that it could receive documents on the progress against targets.

Ms A Ramolobeng (ANC) agreed that the Committee should conduct planned oversight visits, so that it was able to receive reports from the specific department on the work done and what was outstanding.

She said the oversight visits were useful, as they helped Members to get an ideal view on the progress of the DJCD and DCS, and encouraged the Committee to conduct these more often. In addition, she advised that the Committee should continue to have two groupings of delegates to plan its next visits properly, to ensure that the conditions were conducive for Members to conduct their work.

She commented that the report did not include the fact that the ratio of prisoners to wardens in the correctional centres was too high, as well as the shift system – which was said to be 12 days in and two days out. She was not pleased by this shift system and called for the Committee to obtain a response on this.

During the oversight, Members had been informed that there was a backlog in the profiles submitted to the National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS), as no feedback had been provided on them since they were submitted in 2018. She therefore asked that the Committee add this to the report so that it could find out why there was a backlog.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) asked how DJCD officials verified whether an official from the DPWI had inspected a building, as requested. Did the DCJD officials have a log that contained the dates of when the DPWI officials responded to the inspection request?

She asked whether the DPWI or the DJCD monitored the fire check facilities in their buildings.

Had the Committee, during the oversight visit, met with social workers and psychologists working in the correctional centres, as it usually never had the opportunity to do so?

Ms Ramolobeng suggested that the Committee visit the female correctional centres and the juvenile centres during the next oversight visit.

Mr Dyantyi said that when the Committee returned to discuss the final report, it should decide how it would approach oversight visits at institutions such as the Office of the Public Protector and the Special Investigating Unit, as these institutions were all inland.

The Chairperson recommended that in future oversight visits, the Committee should designate four Members who would be split into two groups of two -- for inland and coastal centres and courts). This would ensure that the issues raised in various centres and courts around the country would form a part of the report. Additionally, he recommended that the Committee should have a yearly programme for oversight visits, which would include both planned and unplanned oversight visits.

Judicial officials had placed trust in the Committee to assist in solving their challenges. To ensure that the oversight visits did not amount to nothing, he suggested that it implement timeframes for departments to complete their objectives.

During the follow-up visits, which would take place between June and July, four Members split into two groups would accompany the Committee team to monitor the progress made. Such efforts would have a long-lasting impact and would improve public trust in Parliament. However, he stressed that the Committee did not aim to police the departments, but rather it was trying to provide them with assistance.

Once more, he expressed his concern at the current structural state of the Palm Ridge magistrates court. He believed that this was due to the budget cuts which had affected the DPWI’s spending on infrastructure.

The Committee should call for the Minister and the Director-General (DG) of the DJCD to appear urgently before it, to explain why the CRT contracts had been allowed to lapse and why no arrangements had been made to ensure that legal proceedings were recorded.

Committee matters

The Chairperson said the Committee had received correspondence from Justice Edward Cameron regarding the workshop proposed by the Committee, and suggested that Adv Breytenbach, the Chair of the Correctional Services Subcommittee, Mr Dyantyi, Justice Cameron and three other Members begin preparations for the workshop. 

Adv Breytenbach suggested that the Committee limit the number of individuals in the group at first.

Mr Dyantyi agreed with this suggestion.

The Chairperson indicated that Prof Lukas Muntingh of the University of the Western Cape had sent a letter to the Committee asking for the status of the planned workshop on the issues affecting the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). 

Adv Breytenbach responded that she and Mr Dyantyi would first meet with the Professor, to gain clarity on the matter.

The Chairperson proposed that going forward, the Committee should meet more regularly with the General Council of the Bar, the Law Society of South Africa and the Association of Law Deans, to discuss issues of common interest.

Mr Nqola said that the Committee had received a letter from black prosecutors on the various challenges they were facing. 

The Chairperson said the Committee had received a memorandum from the Office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions on the issues raised by the black prosecutors. He added that Members would have to discuss this at a later stage and develop a way forward.

The meeting was adjourned.