Prisoners may be separated based on their age, health or security risk category (Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998, Section 7.2d).
Certain facilities have special units designated for persons pursuing higher education and specific populations such as LGBTIQ+ persons or former correctional officials who may be considered targets.

An individual development plan must be established for sentenced prisoners (Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998, Section 37.1). For those serving more than 24 months, interviews must be conducted at regular intervals to review the plan, the progress made and, if necessary, makes changes (Section 42.2).
In practice, prisoners are not always placed in appropriate programmes, but rather where there are openings. For example, a prisoner with substance abuse problems may be placed in a programme for sex offenders and vice versa. Priority is given to establishing a sentence plan, regardless of whether it is suitable for the person. Each correctional official is assigned to approximately ten prisoners as a point of reference. For scheduling and organisational reasons, prisoners do not always have the opportunity to meet regularly with them, if at all.

Meetings between prisoners and their lawyers must take place in sight, but out of earshot of a correctional official (Regulations to the Correctional Services Act, Regulation 12.2).

According to the prison administration, visits from lawyers can last one hour maximum and can take place between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm, any day of the week. The waiting period between registration and the start of the visit is approximately 25 minutes.¹

Lawyers for Human Rights notes that, in practice, a lawyer’s access to their client and the length of the visit depends largely on their relationship with the officials in charge. Lawyers must call the day before to schedule a visit.

However, prison contact details such as telephone numbers and e-mail addresses are not always publicly available. Prison staff claim that their emails do not always work or that they are not a reliable form of communication. They sometimes make it difficult to organise visits by purposefully proposing times that are inconvenient. Lawyers often have to turn up unannounced and negotiate in person to see their clients.

Lawyers for Human Rights reports that appropriate space is provided for the visit. Conversations are not fully confidential as officials remain nearby. A glass partition is generally in place in prisoners under medium C² regime.

During a visit conducted by JICS to Mangaung prison in September 2020, some prisoners reported that they did not have adequate and affordable access to the facilities needed to prepare their appeals with their legal representative. Access to photocopiers, fax machines and phones for calling courts or lawyers is limited. The private operator running Mangaung prison indicated that it is not prepared to cover the costs of these services and that prisoners must pay themselves.³

Relatives must be informed of the prisoner’s death within two hours.¹ In practice, they are generally informed within 24 hours for natural deaths, and once the autopsy and other necessary investigations have been completed for unnatural deaths.

A deceased prisoner must be buried in the magisterial district where they were detained. The National Commissioner may authorise burial in a different location upon written request from and at the expense of the family. The State may, at the discretion of the National Commissioner, cover the costs for the transportation of the remains to another magisterial district (Regulations to the Correctional Services Act, Regulation 9.1).

Four reports of inhuman treatment and 80 reports of official-on-inmate assaults were received during 2021/22. Six prisoners died following alleged homicides committed by officials. Two prisoners died after being shot at by South African Police Service (SAPS) officials during an escape attempt.¹

The JICS highlights the following cases of violence or ill-treatment :

• Durban Medium A, December 2021: A group of incarcerated people awaiting trial for the same incident alleged that officials degraded and spat on them, and told other prisoners the reason for their detention. The officials allegedly incited and instigated other prisoners against them, leading to the rape of a juvenile prisoner on 26 August 2021. Another prisoner from this group died of a heart attack on 22 October 2021. It is alleged that correctional officials did not respond quickly enough and that their lack of sense of urgency may have contributed to his death. These allegations have all been denied.²

• Mangaung prison, May 2021: The Emergency Security Team (EST/Ninjas) allegedly “doused inmates with water in their cells (on the bed) and then shocked them with their shock shields”. The cells are not equipped with CCTV cameras.³

• Obiqua prison, May 2021: Correctional officials allegedly assaulted seven prisoners.

• Glencoe prison, April 2021: A prisoner was disarmed after being involved in a stabbing incident. He was initially placed in an office, then taken to the hospital, where he died later that evening. The autopsy revealed that the cause of death was “extensive bruising and haematoma to soft tissue”. Allegedly involved officials did not cooperate with the JICS investigator. The SAPS investigation also appears to have been poorly conducted, with no witness interviews.⁴

• Ebongweni Super-Maximum, August 2020: Some prisoners were allegedly assaulted by officials on admission. They were ordered to undress and buckets of cold water were thrown at them. One prisoner claimed that the emergency support team stripped him naked, handcuffed him and assaulted him. When he asked for his handcuffs to be loosened, the officials tightened them. Another prisoner claimed that officials slapped him on the back with an open hand. The officials were not in uniform.² There have also been reports from prisoners who accuse correctional officials of verbal abuse.⁵

• Ekuseni Youth Facility, January 2019: Excessive force was used against juvenile prisoners who had escaped from their dormitories and who were found outside of the centre’s walls. An official claimed that the juveniles had sharp objects. This claim was later found to be untrue. Another official was charged with providing false information.⁶

The JICS notes that correctional officials are often reluctant to testify and cooperate with investigators for fear of being endangered. Prosecution policy for officials is also inadequate and takes much longer than for ordinary citizens. Some prisoners have also claimed that transfers are misused to undermine investigations when they press criminal charges against officials.⁷

The current regulations include protection against sexual harassment of prisoners. The policy to address sexual abuse of prisoners¹ states that officials accused of participating or colluding in any form of sexual abuse must be placed on leave or transferred elsewhere. Those found to have violated policy may be subject to disciplinary sanctions or termination. All terminations must be reported to the SAPS, the National Prosecuting Authority, and other relevant bodies (Section 7.4).¹

According to different sources, no specific torture prevention policy has been implemented by the prison administration.

The current regulations include protection against physical or verbal violence and sexual harassment amongst prisoners. The policy to address sexual abuse¹ states that prisoners must be evaluated on their “risk for sexual victimisation and their likelihood of being sexually abusive”. Each prisoner’s own perception of vulnerability must also be taken into account. Considerations must be made with regards to cell placement, work, education and other activities (Section 7.1). The Social Work Services also provide a sexual offender treatment programme.

Victims must be able to report sexual abuse to any prison staff. The process must be accessible, free, safe and secure (Section 7.2). Most often, the report is made to a correctional official or spiritual care worker. In many cases, the incident is not reported at all due to humiliation or fear of stigmatisation and violence. Confidentiality is not always upheld. If reported, many victims choose not to open criminal cases for fear of reprisals from the perpetrators.²

All instances must be recorded and reported to the national and regional prison administration offices (Section 7.2). The victim must be immediately taken to a safe and private place, separate from the perpetrator (Section 7.3). In practice, some victims may be segregated for their own safety, while others may be placed with fellow prisoners if considered at risk of attempting suicide.

The victim must be informed of the procedure and provided with immediate medical attention such as sexually transmitted infections (STI) testing, prophylactic medication, trauma counselling, crisis response, psycho-social support, and mental healthcare (Section 2.5).

Perpetrators must be held separately to prevent further endangering victims, witnesses or other prisoners. They may be provided counselling, treatment, educational programmes and/or disciplinary sanctions. Officials accused of participating or colluding in any form of sexual abuse must be placed on leave or transferred. Those found to have violated policy may be subject to disciplinary sanctions or termination. All terminations must be reported to the SAPS, the National Prosecuting Authority, and other relevant bodies (Section 7.4). In practice, disciplinary action against perpetrators is generally not considered.³

Staff must receive training to prevent, detect, respond to, and monitor sexual abuse. Annual refresher trainings must be provided. The training must cover dynamics of sexual abuse, common reactions, common signs, reporting, handling disclosures, respecting confidentiality, securing the crime scene and protecting witnesses (Section 7.1).

Just Detention International - South Africa (JDI-SA) provides training for correctional officials and spiritual care workers. The training covers proactive prevention, monitoring and detection, as well as response and investigation. It also addresses trauma and prejudice towards victims. Emphasis is placed on making officials understand that determining the veracity of the claim is not their job, but rather to follow the procedures outlined in the policy. The subsequent investigation will determine the veracity of the allegation. JDI-SA reports that training officials to identify sexual violence is a challenge, as some do not differentiate between same-sex sexual relations and rape, or between sexual violence and a ‘lover’s quarrel’.

The JICS notes that cases of sexual violence are still severely underreported.⁴ Their prevalence can be attributed to overcrowding and staff shortages.

Different sources describe how this violence takes place in male facilities. Perpetrators often use ‘trickery’ to manipulate their victims: they are friendly, offer services, give cigarettes or food, then demand sex in return. The victims are forced to comply under threat of violence. The perpetrator and victim generally form a ‘couple’, sometimes called a ‘prison marriage’. The perpetrator is considered the ‘man’ or ‘husband’, while the victim is referred to as the ‘woman’ or ‘wife’. Groups in situations of vulnerability such as first-time or non-violent offenders, LGBTIQ+ persons, physically smaller prisoners, and persons with mental and physical disabilities are more likely to become victims. They are often treated like slaves and suffer ongoing sexual abuse (Section 2.1). Those who have access to money and resources have better chances of avoiding this violence.

All assaults or injuries during detention must be recorded in the prisoner’s medical file. The victim must be assessed immediately by a nurse and referred to the relevant medical service within six hours. In case of serious injury, the prison governor, next of kin, as well as the Area, Regional and National Commissioners must be informed.¹

Prisoners must be able to file complaints or requests on a daily basis. These may be made to the prison governor or a representative correctional official. If unsatisfied with the response to their complaint, they may indicate such to the prison governor who must refer the matter to the National Commissioner. As last resort, the prisoner may refer to a Independent Correctional Centre Visitor. For any complaint concerning an alleged assault, the person must undergo immediate medical examination and receive appropriate care (Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998, Section 21).

Prisoners can file complaints to the Department of Correctional Services Tshegetso call centre. They may also file complaints in writing to all State institutions established by chapter 9 of the South African Constitution (excluding the Auditor General). Prisoners can report alleged incidences of corruption to the Anti-Fraud Corruption Hotline or the Presidential Hotline. They may also lay criminal charges with the South African Police Service (SAPS) by means of the daily “Request and Complaints” procedure. The prison governor must arrange for a police official to come take the prisoner’s statement.

Family members can also file complaints on behalf of their loved ones to the National Commissioner, the prison governor, the JICS, the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services or their local Member of Parliament.¹

Legal representatives may file a complaint with JICS on behalf of their clients.²

During a visit to Ebongweni Super-Maximum in May 2021, JICS found that officials did in fact consult with prisoners on a daily basis and that there was a positive working relationship with Independent Correctional Centre Visitors. However, some prisoners indicated that filing complaints did not help.³

Former prisoners interviewed by Prison Insider also stated that complaints procedures are ineffective as matters are simply referred back to the prison governor. They added that this may even have repercussions for prisoners, who see their rights and amenities withdrawn as a result.

The JICS is an independent oversight body responsible, among other functions, for handling complaints. It accomplishes its mission through three mechanisms:

• Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs) and Visitors Committees (VCs): receive complaints from prisoners during monitoring visits.

• Complaints units: hande urgent or time-sensitive complaints submitted by ICCVs, VCs, prisoners, their legal representatives, and families; as well as matters referred by other oversight bodies.¹

• Inspecting Judge: handles complaints submitted by the National Council for Correctional Services, the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, the National Commissioner, VCs, or ICCVs (Correctional Services Act, Section 90).

Prisoners may submit complaints to the SAHRC, which generally refers the matter to JICS.

Following an inspection, JICS sends an official letter to the prison governor requesting a response to its findings. The JICS follows up after three months, and then on a monthly basis, to monitor progress. It continues to liaise with the department until it receives a satisfactory response.

NPM findings generally align with those of civil society organisations.

The following groups are authorised to visit correctional centres, access all areas, document and records, and interview any incarcerated person at any time (Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998, Section 99):

• judges of the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal or High Court

• magistrates within the relevant jurisdiction

• members of the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services

• members of the relevant committee of the National Council of Provinces

• members of the National Council for Correctional Services

Reports and observations made by judges and magistrates are not made public.

The B-Orders further set out visiting procedures for, among others, legal representatives, judges, magistrates, the Inspecting Judge, Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs), foreign visitors, parliamentarians, diplomats, and media (Chapter 9).

The authority in charge of granting parole varies according to the sentence and the assessed risk.
For prisoners sentenced to over 24 months, the Case Management Committee must submit a detailed report to the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board to obtain a parole order. For sentences under 24 months, the report must be submitted to the National Commissioner (Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998, Section 42.2).
Correctional Supervision and Parole Board members are appointed by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and from the National Council for Correctional Services (Sections 74 & 76). Courts alone have the authority to:

• grant parole for prisoners declared “dangerous criminals” or for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

• convert sentences of imprisonment into correctional supervision, for sentences not exceeding five years or that have less than five years remaining (Criminal Procedure Act, Section 276A).

Sentences may only be reduced by a court, or the President (Constitution, Section 84.2).

Prisoners under community corrections, including day parole, must be supervised (Section 56). The Supervision Committee determines the level of supervision for each person and reviews it at regular intervals (Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998, Section 58). This may include electronic supervision using devices fitted to the prisoner’s wrist or ankle, or placed in their residence and/or workplace. Devices must be compact and un-obstructive (Regulations to the Correctional Services Act, Regulation 28).

For temporary leave, supervision may include being escorted by officials (Section 44.2).

Conditions for temporary leave and day parole may include (Section 52):

• having a fixed address

• house arrest (only for temporary release)

• community service or employment (only for day parole)

• contributing financially towards the cost of the measure they are subject to

• being restricted to one or more magisterial districts

• refraining from using alcohol or illegal drugs, visiting a particular place, or making contact with a specific person

• taking part in treatment, development, support and/or mediation programmes (only for day parole)

The President may pardon, reprieve, or reduce any sentence (Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998, Section 82.1b). The President may authorise placement under correctional supervision or parole, subject to conditions recommended by the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board or, in the case of a life sentence, by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (Section 82). The process for applying for a presidential pardon may take up to two years.¹