Contact us:
Private Bag x9177
Cape Town
8000
+2721 421 1012/3/4
E-Mail: Gail Swanepoel

Hits for this page 8167

CONTENTS

Annual report for the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003
Submitted to Mr. Thabo Mbeki,
President of the Republic of South Africa
and
Mr. Ben Skosana, Minister of Correctional Services
by
the Inspecting Judge
J J Fagan
in compliance with the provisions of section 90(4) of the
Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998.

JUDICIAL INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS
PRIVATE BAG X9177
CAPE TOWN
8000
TEL: (021) 421-1012/3/4/5/6
FAX: (021) 418-1069
WEB SITE:http://judicialinsp.pwv.gov.za

9th Floor
1 Thibault Square
c/o Long and Hans
Strijdom Streets
CAPE TOWN 

1. INTRODUCTION BY THE INSPECTING JUDGE.  Back to top

Perceptions and realities often differ. This I believe is the position in regard to conditions in our prisons.

Evidence led before the Jali Commission received wide publicity.  It disclosed corruption in many forms including nepotism, fraud and extortion.  The Grootvlei video which showed a juvenile prisoner being sold for sex and sodomized, a handgun being sold and drug dealing, was screened on national television and shocked the nation.  The perception was created in the public mind that prisons are dens of vice ruled by dishonest, unscrupulous and brutal officials exploiting the prisoners who are at their mercy.

The Judicial Inspectorate is in a unique position to give the fuller picture.  It is independent of the Department of Correctional Services and owes it no allegiance.  Its information comes from its Independent Prison Visitors and Regional Co-ordinators who visit prisons countrywide every day, from its Inspectors, from reports of Judges and Attorneys who visit prisons, from observations by the Inspecting Judge on his visits to prisons and from communications from the public and the prisoners themselves.

While applauding the Jali Commission for uncovering corruption at Durban Westville, Pietermaritzburg, Grootvlei, St. Albans and Pollsmoor prisons and wishing it well for its further investigations at Johannesburg, Pretoria, Leeuwkop and Ncome prisons, the position is certainly not that our prison system has collapsed.  More than 188 000 prisoners are being housed and fed and looked after by about 32 500 officials in 241 prisons.  This is a mammoth task.  It is being performed by men and women who in general are committed not only to guarding the prisoners, but to improving their lot.  The relationship between staff and prisoners is mostly a friendly one.  Among the area managers, heads of prison and staff, are numerous men and women particularly dedicated to the rehabilitation of the prisoners in their care.  For them to be tarred by the brush of corruption would be most unfair.

The problems that we have in our prisons can virtually all be attributed to overcrowding.  We now have the highest number of prisoners we have ever had in our country and it is placing an unbearable burden on the Department of Correctional Services.  As will be argued later, we do not need and cannot afford more prisons.  We need less prisoners. That lies primarily in the hands of the police, the prosecutors and the magistrates.

 

 JJ FAGAN
INSPECTING JUDGE OF PRISONS
31 MARCH 2003

The Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons was established on 1 June 1998 in terms of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 (the Act).  It must watch what is happening in prisons and keep the President, the Minister of Correctional Services and the public aware of the manner in which prisoners are being treated and about the conditions in our prisons.  It is further mandated to appoint Independent Prison Visitors to visit and talk to prisoners and, should there be complaints, to try to have them resolved.

 

3. VISION. Back to top

To ensure that all prisoners are detained under humane conditions, treated with human dignity and prepared for reintegration into the community.

 

4. MISSION.  Back to top

4.1 The Judicial Inspectorate started the year (1 April 2002) with Independent Prison Visitors (IPVs) in 8 provinces. The Eastern Cape still had to have IPVs appointed.

4.2 Measures to monitor performance of IPVs more effectively had to be devised and put in place.

4.3 To handle the volume of communications with IPVs, Heads of Prison and others, the electronic reporting system had to be developed further and its use promoted among IPVs.

4.4 The increased number of complaints from prisoners required expansion of the Legal Services Unit in order to handle them expeditiously.

4.5 Combating overcrowding and its attendant woes remained a priority.

5. STRUCTURE OF THE INSPECTORATE (as at 31 March 2003) Back to top

5.1 STAFF COMPOSITION Back to top

On 31 March 2003 the approved post establishment provided for the following staff to be appointed:

The number of staff employed on 31 March 2003 was 35 with 186 IPVs. A balance in regard to gender and race is sought.  In the office, there are 15 males, 12 females; 23 are from previously disadvantaged groups, 4 whites.  Of the 8 Regional Co-ordinators, 7 are males, 1 female; 7 are from previously disadvantaged groups, 1 white.  Of the 186 IPVs, 96 are males, 90 females; 181 are from previously disadvantaged groups, 5 whites. This means that 47% of the staff and IPVs are females and 96% are from previously disadvantaged groups.

 

5.2 JUDICIAL INSPECTORATE STAFF Back to top

During the year the office converted to an open floor plan with furniture manufactured at Pollsmoor prison.  To further improve efficiency, all members of staff attended training courses, internal and external workshops and in-service training sessions.

In the year ahead and with assistance from the South African Excellence Foundation, the Judicial Inspectorate will embark on the process of applying the South African Excellence Model in order to measure the performance and efficiency of the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons.

 

5.3 INDEPENDENT PRISON VISITORS (IPVs) Back to top

IPVs perform their statutory functions as independent contractors and are appointed on contract for a fixed term of two years.

As required by section 92 of the Act, public nominations were called for prior to the appointment of IPVs. During the year a total of 18 486 nominations were received from the public at large and from community organisations. 47 public meetings were held, which were attended by about 2 500 people. During these meetings the public were informed about the powers, functions and duties of IPVs.

5.4 REMUNERATION Back to top

The salaries and allowances of staff are regulated by the Public Service Act.  IPVs are paid at a rate of R38.65 per hour and work, depending on the size of the prison, between 14 and 67 hours per month. The total expenditure for salaries and remuneration of IPVs for the year amounted to R 7 607 112. The cost of senior management came to 6.5% of this amount.

 

5.5 EXPENDITURE Back to top

In terms of section 91 of the Act, the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) is responsible for the expenses of the Judicial Inspectorate. Adequate funds were made available by DCS to finance the needs of the Judicial Inspectorate.

During the 2002/2003 financial year, the expenses amounted to:

 

An amount of R80 748 was received from the Foundation for Human Rights in South Africain terms of a co-operation agreement, which is aimed at making funds available mainly for computer training of IPVs.

To fulfil its mandate of appointing IPVs to prisons countrywide, IPVs had yet to be appointed in the Eastern Cape.  That necessitated advertisements and public meetings and calling for nominations for the 33 posts. 2 971 nominations were received, shortlisted, 104 interviews were held and the required number of IPVs selected. Three-day training sessions were held and in April 2002 the IPVs were inducted in the prisons allocated to them. Once again it was gratifying to see the calibre and community involvement of those appointed.

This completed the appointment of IPVs to all prisons with more than 100 prisoners. As the policy is that IPVs do not serve for more than two years, it became necessary to appoint and train new IPVs in Gauteng, Mpumalanga and Limpopo. This was finalized in February 2003. The map below shows the current status. The blue dots indicate where IPVs have been appointed; the green dots are vacant posts. The yellow dots indicate where IPVs have been appointed but there is a further vacant post. The white dots indicate prisons with populations of less than 100 prisoners where IPVs are not appointed.

 

 

 

Of the 186 IPVs appointed, 27 work in the Western Cape, 7 in the Northern Cape, 13 in the North West, 15 in Mpumalanga, 28 in the Eastern Cape, 21 in the Free State, 42 in Gauteng, 25 in Kwazulu-Natal and 8 in Limpopo.

6.1 TRAINING OF INDEPENDENT PRISON VISITORS. Back to top

On appointment all IPVs attend a compulsory three-day training workshop during which they are taught about the powers, functions and duties of IPVs. This training also provides for a basic introduction to the law and regulations governing our prisons and the rights of prisoners. This induction training is followed up by an on-going process of in-service training provided mainly by Regional Co-ordinators during the quarterly performance audits of all IPVs.

During the year 179 IPVs participated in induction training workshops. 90 of them also attended four specialized workshops on the use and implementation of Information Technology (IT) systems.

The Regional Co-ordinators conducted 87 in-service training sessions during which IPVs were given guidance on the performance of their statutory functions. A total of 205 performance audits were conducted during which the performance and efficiency of IPVs were evaluated and follow-up training and guidance were provided.

6.2 APPOINTMENT OF REGIONAL CO-ORDINATORS Back to top

In order to assist IPVs and monitor their performance, four Regional Co-ordinators were appointed in February 2002. Two handled Gauteng and North West, one Free State and one Western Cape. Inspectors acted as Regional Co-ordinators in Limpopo, Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape.

Regional Co-ordinators attended the monthly meetings of IPVs (Visitors’ Committee Meetings), guided the IPVs, expedited the resolution of complaints, conducted IT and in-service training and prepared monthly reports.  They assisted in public awareness of conditions in prisons and of suggested solutions to problems.

The volume of work required the appointment of additional Regional Co-ordinators in March 2003, bringing the total to eight.

7. DEALING WITH PRISONERS’ COMPLAINTS Back to top

With most of the prisons in South Africa severely overcrowded and because of the unnatural environment in which people find themselves when placed in prison, it is understandable that there are many complaints from prisoners. The speedy resolution of such complaints by the authorities is important in reducing the high tension levels that exist among prisoners. The resolution of complaints also provides a mechanism to monitor the fair and just treatment of prisoners, promoting a human rights culture without which meaningful rehabilitation cannot take place. For this purpose the Judicial Inspectorate has established a network of IPVs. IPVs are persons who have been identified, through a process of publicly calling for nominations and consultation with community organisations, as people who are interested in the promotion of the social responsibility and human development of prisoners. IPVs are deployed at most prisons within South Africa. They are tasked with the responsibility to visit prisons regularly, to interview prisoners and to report to the Judicial Inspectorate on the nature and number of complaints received. These reports provide information on trends of human rights abuses that might exist at particular prisons.

7.1 NUMBER AND NATURE OF COMPLAINTS Back to top

During the calendar year 2002, IPVs paid 7 147 visits to prisons, privately consulted with 58 907 prisoners and received 190 167 complaints from prisoners.  In addition, a further 4 992 written complaints were received by the Judicial Inspectorate. The complaints ranged from minor to serious matters.  See table below.

Number and nature of prisoner complaints received by IPVs:

Based on the number and nature of complaints received from prisoners, the Judicial Inspectorate is in a position to identify “problem areas” in the treatment of prisoners and direct available resources to those areas. The reports from IPVs indicated that the most common complaints from prisoners were about transfers, mostly to be closer to their families. Complaints about bail and appeals were mainly received from prisoners who had been granted bail but who were unable to pay the amount fixed by the court, in some cases as little as R50.00, because of poverty and as a result remain in prison for months until their cases are finalised. The complaints from prisoners about health care are mainly problems experienced by them to gain access to medical staff and prescribed medication. Some prisoners also complained about the quality of medical treatment provided for them.

The vast majority of complaints were resolved between the Heads of Prison and the IPVs to the satisfaction of the prisoners.  Unresolved complaints were taken by the IPVs to the monthly Visitors’ Committee Meetings attended by IPVs and Regional Co-ordinators.  There are 36 such Visitors’ Committees.  Where the complaints were not resolved at the Visitors’ Committee Meetings, they were referred to the Legal Services Unit of the Judicial Inspectorate.

During the calendar year, 217 unresolved complaints were referred by Visitors’ Committees to the Legal Services Unit.  In addition to this 3 734 complaints were received directly from prisoners, many of which were referred to this office by the Human Rights Commission, the Public Protector, the South African Prisoners Organisation for Human Rights and family members. Of these complaints 3 253 were resolved, 614 were referred to IPVs for a follow-up consultation with the prisoner and in 84 cases the resolution of the matter is still pending awaiting further information.

As the Legal Services Unit was short-staffed, Inspectors assisted in dealing with unresolved complaints. The unit has now been considerably strengthened by additional staff appointments so as to deal with prisoner complaints as speedily as possible.

The Legal Services Unit must also prepare for handling the many thousands of reports that will be sent by Heads of Prisons when sections 15, 25, 30 and 31 of the Act are put into operation.  Those sections deal with deaths, solitary confinement, segregation and mechanical restraints.

In support of the call made by the President for the wider and innovative use of e-government, the Judicial Inspectorate developed an Electronic Reporting System which was introduced nationally during the year 2001.

This electronic reporting system is operated fully on the Internet and marks a departure from the conventional fax or letter, which had been used to submit reports to the Judicial Inspectorate. The introduction of this electronic system has other advantages such as providing information to the IPVs on the rules governing the rights of prisoners, improved communication and, importantly, it allows for proper records to be kept of the number and nature of complaints received from prisoners. This electronic system has proved a remarkable success.

The Electronic System was tested in the Western Province and then had to be introduced to the rest of the country. This required workshops for IPVs and Heads of Prison to familiarize them with it. The introduction of the electronic system nationally was done by means of replacing the IPVs monthly payment report (paper) with an electronic report. The benefits of this were that the IPVs received their payments earlier, which motivated them to use the system. They gained access to a computer and the training which they received laid the foundation for the more advanced training to follow.

Regional Co-ordinators and Inspectors have been at the forefront in the implementation of the system. Not only were they responsible for the training of IPVs but they assisted in the negotiations necessary to secure adequate access to computers for IPVs. The IPVs, many of whom at the time had no experience in working on computers, without exception, willingly participated in training and the implementation of the electronic system.

Our success in this regard is best illustrated by a comparison between the number of paper reports (colourred) received at the office of the Inspecting Judge and the number of electronic reports received directly from IPVs (colour blue). From the graph below it will be seen that the paper reports declined from 122 in August 2001, when the electronic system was introduced, to 5 in March 2003, whereas the electronic reports increased from 20 to 166 during the same period.

Handling the monthly reports from 186 IPVs, which detail complaints received and also the time spent on visits, consultations and interviews on which their remuneration is calculated, would have been impossible without the electronic system. The system is also used by the IPV and Legal Services Units to communicate with IPVs including rulings on complaints. It allows for the IPV to provide every prisoner who has submitted a complaint to the Judicial Inspectorate with a written acknowledgement of receipt and a written copy of the outcome of his/her complaint.

The system is also linked to staff and IPV cell phones allowing for immediate communication to take place. It allows for an SMS message to be sent to the cell phone of any member of staff or IPV if and when reports are submitted to the Judicial Inspectorate concerning a death of a prisoner, solitary confinement, etc. In this manner a fast and efficient service to prisoners can be delivered.

Another advantage of the Electronic System is that it is linked to the database of DCS which ensures that the Judicial Inspectorate has access to detailed information about every prisoner, including information about the nature of the crime, previous convictions, address of family members, etc. This information assists the Legal Services Unit in the resolution of complaints.

The electronic system allows for the collection and analysis of information received. The aim is a database in which every prison features with details of the number and nature of complaints received concerning that particular prison. This will be updated electronically as IPV reports are received. The database will also contain summaries of inspection reports from judges and inspectors and information from the media. Information showing problem areas and trends, for example deaths or assaults, would be available immediately.

 

The website address is: http://judicialinsp.pwv.gov.za

Special thanks are due to the Foundation for Human Rights in South Africa, an EU-sponsored programme. The Foundation formed a training partnership with the Judicial Inspectorate in April 2002 and has since provided the funds for IT workshops to be run, for training manuals to be printed and for individual training sessions with IPVs to be conducted. At these workshops IPVs are taught the skills required to use computers to send “bulletins” electronically to the Judicial Inspectorate. More effective communication and speedier resolution of prisoner complaints are the aims.

Besides transfers and bail, the highest number of complaints was health care. The South African Medical Journal in February 2003 devoted an article to the problems of administering health care in our prisons. Overcrowding of prisons and understaffing of doctors and nurses are the main concerns. Doctors and dentists are appointed by the Provincial Health Departments and nurses by DCS.

An oral health services in prison study has been facilitated by the Judicial Inspectorate. It is being conducted by Professor Sudeshni Naidoo of the Department of Community Dentistry at Tygerberg Hospital. There is considerable room for improvement in dental care.

9.1“HIV/AIDSIN PRISON Back to top

Problems, Policies and Potential”, is the title of a monograph published in February 2003 by the Institute for Security Studies. Ms KC Goyer, who conducted the research and wrote the monograph, makes helpful recommendations.

What is not generally known is the high turnover rate of prisoners, .i.e. prisoners coming in and going out of our prisons. As will be seen from the table “RELEASES DURING 2002” below, more than 30 000 prisoners are released from prison every month (and the same number admitted). Some spend a short time in prison, like the “Awaiting-trial – bail paid” category (about 6 000 prisoners per month); [1] some spend on average 4½ months in prison, such as the “Awaiting-trial to court / not returned from court” category (about 20 000 prisoners per month). Others might have spent many years in prison, such as the “Released on sentence expiry date” category (about 1 800 per month). The crucial point is that DCS has control over these prisoners before their release and has the opportunity to improve their health status and teach them how to avoid the spread of HIV/AIDS before their release into society. It is an opportunity that should be fully used.

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prisoner only counted once for each release.

Release date between Jan 01 and Dec 31 2002

9.2DEATHS IN PRISON Back to top

Deaths in prison are divided into two categories namely “unnatural deaths” i.e. due to violence, suicide etc, and “natural” deaths i.e. due to illness. The number of unnatural deaths in our prisons remained low. 60 such deaths were recorded in 1995 compared to the 54 recorded in 2002. The startling increase was in “natural” deaths, as shown in the graph on page 21.

The total average prison population for 2002 was 179 398. The “natural” death rate among prisoners was 7.75 per 1000. During 1995 this rate stood at 1.65 per 1000. Although most deaths were recorded in Gauteng (412), the highest death rates were recorded in the Free State and Kwazulu-Natal with 11.65 and 11.27 per 1000 prisoners respectively.

The natural deaths appear to be mostly caused by HIV/AIDS. When section 15 of the Act is put into operation and all deaths are reported to the Judicial Inspectorate, accurate information should become available.

Section 79 of the Act provides for a sentenced prisoner who is diagnosed as being in the final phase of a terminal disease, to be released to die a consolatory and dignified death outside prison. It must be based on a written report of the medical practitioner treating that prisoner, and he/she is then released under correctional supervision or on parole.

Section 79 has not yet been put into operation, so such releases are still made under section 69 of the Correctional Services Act of 1959 which allows for placement on parole of a prisoner who suffers from a dangerous, infectious or contagious disease or his physical condition makes his release expedient.

The numbers of such releases on parole, having remained fairly steady since 1996 despite the large increase in deaths, almost doubled to 88 in 2002 as shown in the graph on page 21. That is gratifying, but it is felt that many more could be released bearing in mind the 1 389 “natural“ deaths in prison in 2002.

More use of the provisions for the release of terminally ill prisoners is called for, as well as putting into operation section 79 of the Act.

Natural deaths and releases on medical grounds.

During the year, 16 prisons were visited by Judges, 12 by groups of Attorneys, 31 by Inspectors, 98 by the Inspecting Judge. That is besides the at least 7 147 visits to prisons by IPVs and Regional Co-ordinators. There were also visits by Magistrates and Prosecutors.

Particular thanks are due to the Judges who had to make the time available during their busy work schedules to pay such visits. Such visits are of immense value to the staff and the prisoners.

10.1 THE JALI COMMISSION Back to top

Researchers of the Commission, at the invitation of the Judicial Inspectorate, used the offices of the Judicial Inspectorate to conduct witness interviews for the Pollsmoor Prison hearings.

Mr Gideon Morris, Director of the Judicial Inspectorate, was called to give evidence at the Commission and dealt with inter alia the problems caused by overcrowding.  The Judicial Inspectorate is pleased at the exposure of the corruption that existed in the prisons. After the Commission has concluded its work, the Anti-Corruption Unit of DCS should ensure clean administration.

10.2 THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Back to top

This prestigious body’s primary function is to advise the Minister on policy in regard to the correctional system and the sentencing process. The Honourable Mr Justice S Desai is the chairperson and the Honourable Mr Justice TSB Jali the vice chairperson.

On the invitation of the Council, the Inspecting Judge attends meetings as an observer. During the year, four such meetings were attended. The meetings are instructive and attendance thereat is appreciated.

10.3 THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Back to top

At the request of the Committee, Staff of the Judicial Inspectorate and the Inspecting Judge appeared before the Committee on 21 May 2002. The Chairperson and members also took the trouble to visit the office of the Judicial Inspectorate on 19 February 2003.

10.4 RESEARCH ON RECIDIVISM RATES Back to top

Information on the rates of recidivism for the various age groups of offenders, types of crime and in the different provinces, would be most helpful in planning strategy. Such a study is under way using data from the DCS database on prisoners 1998 – 2003. The study is being done by the Institute for Security Studies with support from DCS, NICRO, the Centre for Conflict Resolution and the Judicial Inspectorate.

10.5 RELEASE OF AWAITING-TRIAL PRISONERS Back to top

In March 2002 the Judicial Inspectorate assisted the Head of Maximum Prison, Pollsmoor, to bring the first applications under section 63A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. That section, inserted in December 2001, provides for a head of prison, who is satisfied that overcrowding in his prison is constituting a material and imminent threat to the human dignity, physical health or safety of awaiting-trial prisoners who are unable to pay their bail amounts, to apply to court for their release under various conditions. It cannot be used where the charges are for serious offences.

About 176 prisoners were released in Cape Town. Similar applications in Johannesburg and Pretoria led to further releases.

The introduction of section 63A has, however, not been successful in reducing overcrowding. Firstly it is invidious for heads of prison to state on oath that the overcrowding in his/her prison “constitutes a material and imminent threat to the human dignity, physical health or safety“ of the accused. An affidavit to that effect could reflect on the head of prison and might be used in damages claims by prisoners. Secondly it is at times not possible to determine from the warrants of detention whether the offences that prisoners are charged with, fall within the prescribed categories. Thirdly, the requirement that the application must contain a certificate from a duly authorized prosecutor that the prosecuting authority does not oppose the application, leads to long delays as the prosecutors call for reports from the investigating officers concerned. Fourthly, several applications are necessary as applications must be made to the court that imposed bail and a particular prison might serve numerous magisterial areas.

To make section 63A workable as a tool to reduce overcrowding, and that surely was the intention of the Legislature, it would have to be simplified.

The Judicial Inspectorate has therefore been asking Heads of Prison to compile lists of awaiting-trial prisoners with bail of up to R1000 who could not afford to pay it and to take such lists to the prosecutor (if possible, weekly) and to the  magistrate at the monthly or two-monthly meeting of the Integrated Justice Forum.  In this way the prosecutor and the magistrate can timeously be informed that the bail set was unaffordable and that it should either be reduced or the prisoner be released under the supervision of a correctional official.

10.6 AWARENESS Back to top

During the year the Judicial Inspectorate continued in its endeavour to create public awareness of overcrowding and the resultant unacceptable conditions in our prisons, as well as of steps that could be taken to reduce overcrowding. This it did through articles, TV and radio interviews, speeches, attendance at conferences and workshops, and discussions with judges, magistrates and prosecutors.

11.1 The problem:  Back to top

Our 188 307 prisoners are crammed into prisons with a capacity for 110 924 prisoners (as at 2003-02-28). 77 000 additional prisoners therefore have to be catered for. The overcrowding is not evenly spread among the prisons. Ebongweni Maximum (Kokstad) prison still has space as it caters for the most dangerous prisoners only and there are not enough such prisoners to take up the available 1 440 places. The two private prisons take no more than their capacity in terms of their contracts, 3 024 in Kutama-Sinthumule in Louis Trichardt and 2 928 in Mangaung in Bloemfontein. There are 13 prisons closed for repairs and renovation (on 2003-02-28). Awaiting-trial and sentenced prisoners have to be kept apart, as do maximum and medium security prisoners, as do male and female prisoners, as do children (under 18 yrs), juveniles (18 – 21 yrs) and adults. Awaiting-trial prisoners must be held near the courts where their cases are to be heard. Sentenced prisoners should be held near their families so that they may be visited. All this results in an uneven distribution of prisoners in prisons, with the most overcrowded being Bizana in the Eastern Cape which with a capacity of 54 was housing 208 on 2003-02-28.

The awful conditions which many prisoners have to endure because of overcrowding including the spread of contagious diseases, are well known. So also is the stress suffered by staff and their inability to do proper rehabilitation work in such circumstances.

11.2 Solutions:  Back to top

A general amnesty (on 27 April 2004 to celebrate the decade since the first free general election?) will help but is no long- term solution. Likewise would be the release of awaiting-trial prisoners too poor to pay bail.(Such release in September 2000 did however have a positive effect as for the first time since 1995 the average number of unsentenced prisoners decreased compared to previous years.) Long term solutions are to build more prisons or to reduce the number of prisoners to acceptable levels of say 20 000 awaiting-trial prisoners (57 858 on 2003-02-28) and sentenced prisoners to 100 000 (130 449 on 2003-02-28).

Between 30 April 1984 and 13 October 2000 there were 19 amnesties and burstings. The largest were in May 1986 (25 045 reduction in prisoners), December 1990 (18 054 reduction) and June 1994 (16 386 reduction). The last was in October 2000 (1 732 reduction).[2] There was one release of awaiting-trial prisoners with unpaid bail up to R1000 in September 2000 (6901 reduction).

Building more prisons is not favoured, although as an emergency measure to cope with the overcrowding, the proposal to build four “New Generation” prisons to house 30 000 prisoners is supported.

Reduction in our prisoner numbers is the correct course to adopt. We are already incarcerating far too many people. 4 out of every 1000 South Africans are in prison. We are among the countries with the highest prisoner numbers per population in the world. 65% of all countries have incarceration rates of 1.5 or less people per 1 000. In Africa the median rate for Western and Central African countries is only 0.6 per 1 000.

We are the highest in Africa, (Rwanda perhaps excepted) with about 10 times as many per 1000 as Nigeria, also 3 times as many per 1000 as Brazil. We have almost 4 times more per 1000 than the UK and Western European countries.[3]

We have a problem of poverty and unemployment as a cause of criminal conduct, mostly economic crime.[4] Is it not better to spend money on poverty relief and job creation rather than holding the poor and jobless in prison at great expense?

We cannot afford to build more prisons and to hold more prisoners.  It is already costing us about R18 million per day to house them. With a reduced prison population of say 120 000, the resultant saving could be used for social upliftment, education, job creation, health services, etc.

11.3 Causes:  Back to top

Our prison population of 188 307 is made up of 130 449 sentenced prisoners and 57 858 awaiting-trial prisoners (on 2003-02-28). While the number of sentenced prisoners is too high, the number of awaiting-trial prisoners is extraordinarily high. In July 1995 there were but 22 282 awaiting-trial prisoners. 20 000 is the number to be aimed for.

11.4 Reducing the number of awaiting-trial prisoners (from 57 858 to 20 000):  Back to top

While congratulating the police, the prosecutors and the magistrates for reducing the number of awaiting-trial prisoners from 64 000 in April 2000 to 57 858 in 2003, the following could be considered:

11.5 SAPS:  Back to top

During the year 2002, an average of 20 312 awaiting-trial prisoners per month were taken to court and did not return to prison. As awaiting-trial prisoners were held on average for 143 days, the detention of those 20 312 prisoners cost the State a vast sum besides the social costs of persons losing their work and schooling. That those prisoners were released, suggests that the police are arresting people unnecessarily.Release on warning, release on bail, fixing admission of guilt fines (increased to R2500 for peace officers on 14 February 2003), are all available for use by the police.

11.6 Magistrates/Prosecutors/SAPS: Back to top

Another disturbing statistic is the number of “non-affordable bail” cases. On 24 March 2003 there were 19 592 accused persons in our prisons as awaiting-trial prisoners who had been granted bail but could not afford the amounts. The amounts varied from less than R50 upwards. In each one of those cases a magistrate had determined that the accused could await his/her trial in the community retaining his/her employment or continuing at school. Because of his/her poverty the accused was taken to and held in prison where he/she would be kept on average for 143 days before trial.

Whether the fault is that of the magistrate in failing to make proper enquiry, or to misleading information emanating from the prosecutor or the investigating officer or the accused himself, it is apparent that more care should be taken. Not only are these 19 592 persons being deprived of their liberty unnecessarily, but it is costing the State an enormous amount to detain them in our already overcrowded prisons. It is pertinent to note too that during 2001, as just over half the cases were withdrawn, the conviction rate of those brought to court was 37%.[5]

11.7 Further actions to reduce the number of awaiting–trial prisoners:  Back to top

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development must be complimented on the steps that it is taking to speed up the delivery of justice. The most recent, on 14 February 2003, is the proclamation of higher maximum amounts for admission of guilt fines which may be fixed by police officials (from R1500 to R2500) and by prosecutors and clerks of court (from R1500 to R5000). Such fines may be paid without a court appearance.

The Department is also actively promoting plea bargaining which can be used for every type of offence and sentence. Hopefully the sentence will often be a non-custodial one such as community service, victim compensation, attendance at courses and fines.

Other ways in which the awaiting-trial prisoner number can be reduced were detailed in last year’s Annual Report of the Judicial Inspectorate. A Task Team set up by DCS is specifically engaged in pursuing that objective.

11.8 Sentenced Prisoners – long sentences  Back to top

It might have been necessary in 1997 to reassure a public that believed that crime was out of control, to pass legislation limiting the right to bail and laying down minimum sentences. But that is no longer required.; Crime in South Africa would not appear to be worse than that in many other countries. It is under control and declining steadily. An increased allocation to the police has been provided for in the budget.

The effect of the long sentences has been a sharp increase in the number of sentenced prisoners. Space must be found for those serving long sentences and life sentences, and they will be occupying space for many years. When section 73 of the Act is put into operation, the first time that such a prisoner will appear before a parole board, is after serving half his sentence or 25 years, whichever is the shorter.

The average number of prisoners serving life sentences has escalated dramatically. See graph below.

 

 

 

As at 31 December 2002 there were 207 prisoners with death sentences waiting to be converted. (The number of executions during the period 1964 to 1989 averaged just below 100 per annum).

The number of prisoners serving sentences of more than 20 years rose from 1 885 in January 1995 to 7885 in September 2002; of 15 to 20 years to rose from 2 660 in 1995 to 8 355 in January 2003; and of 10 to 15 years from 6 168 in 1995 to 18 956 in January 2003. Over the same period, the number of prisoners serving sentences of 2 to 10 years hardly rose, from 61 181 in January 1995 to 68 418 in January 2003.

For deterrence of people contemplating committing crimes, research has indicated that long sentences are not necessary. It is the certainty of apprehension and punishment, rather than the severity of the sentence, that is the real deterrent.

For deterrence of an offender from committing crimes again, long sentences are appropriate only in those rare cases where there is no possibility of reforming the offender. But it would appear that what was brought in as a temporary measure to allay the fears of the public, has contributed to long sentences becoming the norm. See graph below.

 

For rehabilitating offenders, the long sentences are not necessary.  Much shorter sentences were in the past regarded as just sentences for similar crimes with sufficient time for rehabilitation. There is no need to lengthen the times inordinately.

The result is more and more overcrowded prisons with less and less scope for rehabilitation.  Rehabilitation is essential as about 95% of all prisoners will go free one day.

12. THE YEAR AHEAD Back to top

The planning for the year changed radically during the last week of the old year. On 20 March 2003 the Minister of Correctional Services alerted the Judicial Inspectorate to the crisis caused by overcrowding when he gave the figure of 187 615 prisoners (on 20 January 2003), the highest number we have ever had.

The Report of the Law Society of South Africa was presented on the same day. It stressed the overcrowding crisis and graphically described the misery it entailed for prisoners. It confirmed the findings of the Inspectors and the Inspecting Judge and led to the decision to seek relief by asking for the release of awaiting trial prisoners too poor to pay their bail amounts of up to R1000. Those accused of murder or rape would be excluded. The released prisoners would still have to stand trial on their trial dates, but would in the meantime be treated as if they had paid their bail amounts, returning to their work or school. The aim is to reduce the prison population by about 10 000 prisoners by this initiative.

Planning for the year includes a pilot plea bargaining project; further roll-out of the electronic reporting system; improvement in the servicing of IPVs; and setting up a database of complaints emanating from each of our prisons so as to identify trouble spots and trends.

Generally the Judicial Inspectorate looks forward to making a difference to prisoners with our IPVs and strategies to improve conditions for prisoners.

13.APPRECIATION Back to top

Sincere thanks are due to the Director and Staff of the Judicial Inspectorate, the Regional Co-ordinators and the IPVs for their unstinting devotion to our aim of improving the lives of prisoners. Appreciation must also be recorded for the support of the Minister of Correctional Services, the Commissioner and DCS personnel in facilitating the work of the Judicial Inspectorate.

 

 

 

J J FAGAN

INSPECTING JUDGE OF PRISONS

31 MARCH 2003

 

ENDNOTES Back to top