Turning the Tide? Consideration of Efforts to Counter Corruption in the Department of Correctional S
Since the new administration took office in April this year government Ministries have been vocal about stopping corruption by civil servants and elected officials. In November this year the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services received a report from the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) detailing corruption at a senior level which the Committee described as ‘horrific’.
Tizina Ramagaga, is a junior researcher in the Crime Justice and Politics Programme, ISS Pretoria
Since the new administration took office in April this year
government Ministries have been vocal about stopping corruption by
civil servants and elected officials. In November this year the
Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services received a
report from the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) detailing corruption
at a senior level which the Committee described as ‘horrific’.
Corruption is not new to the Department of Correctional Services
(DCS). The latest report was preceded by the findings of the Jali
Commission and a statement by the Auditor-General in 2002 that
‘corruption is rampant in the DCS.’ The difference between those
reports and that of the SIU is that this report implicates senior
officials from the department in apparently rampant corruption. Even
though there have been media reports of the allegedly corrupt practices
of senior officials since 2005, this is the first time the allegations
have been confirmed, based on an intensive three year investigation by
the SIU.
In terms of the SIU Act (74 of 1996), the SIU has a mandate to:
……..investigat[e] serious malpractices or maladministration in connection with the
administration of State institutions, State assets and public money as well as any
conduct which may seriously harm the interests of the public, and for the
establishment of Special Tribunals so as to adjudicate upon civil matters emanating
from investigations by Special Investigating Units; and to provide for matters
incidental thereto.
The DCS approached the SIU in 2002 after the Jali Commission alleged
that the department was corrupt. After three years of investigations,
the SIU found that some officials of the department had, inter alia
defrauded the medical aid scheme and these individuals were
subsequently given disciplinary hearings and one was dismissed. In March
2006 the SIU’s agreement with the DCS was renewed. In this second
period the SIU was tasked to specifically investigate further possible
financial losses as a result of corrupt activities in the department.
In his report to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Correctional
Services on 17 November 2009, the current Head of the SIU, Willie
Hofmeyer reported that the SIU was asked by DCS to investigate:
- Procurement processes in the department
- Asset management at the twelve farms at correctional centres
- Management of pharmacies at correctional centres.
- Inadequate corruption prevention systems
- Lack of effective monitoring and evaluation systems
The SIU were asked to investigate these matters in order to ensure
that employees complied with the departmental procedures when approving
contracts. They were also asked to advise the Department on how farms
and other assets belonging or affiliated to the department should be
managed; on rooting out corruption in the department and to advise the
department on how it can ensure that all systems and anti-corruption
strategies put in place by the department are effective.
In the report, which has since been passed on to the Nation
Prosecuting Authority (NPA), the Head of the SIU, Willie Hofmeyer
explicitly describes the way in which services providers allegedly
colluded with senior officials to secure contracts for services. The
SIU developed and used a ‘Red Flag Database Tool’ that integrates State
databases and can red flag irregularities by potential service
providers and department officials. The database, which was piloted at
the Pretoria Central Correctional Centre found that:
- Service providers, together with senior officials were involved
in the drafting of requirements for the services to be tendered for
- The period for the submission of tenders were, at times reduced without reason
- Companies that did not meet the minimum requirement of having been in existence for five years were awarded contracts
- Service providers were paid before they had completed the tasks required
- In at least two cases the budget set for a tender had been exceeded
- Invoices had been duplicated-which could mean that some invoices were paid more than once
- Bribes were paid to senior officials to manipulate the awarding of contracts
The response from the Department has been muted. Minister Nosiviwe
Mapisa-Nqakula has said she will only respond to the report after the
NPA has taken a decision on whether or not to prosecute as the matter
is currently sub judice. However the Minister did suspend the
department’s National Commissioner and Acting Financial Officer for
alleged financial irregularities earlier this year.
Hofmeyer recommended several strategies that should be followed to
reduce corruption in the DCS. These have also been outlined by the DCS
in the anti-corruption strategy and include:
- The Vetting of service providers and potential staff by the department
- Cooperation between departments, departmental investigating unit
- Close co-operation with law enforcement agencies
- Risk Management
The SIU has made an important contribution to uncovering corruption
in the department, and to establishing systems to detect corruption in
the future. It is however vital that the Department implements internal
measures to prevent and detect corrupt practices in the future. Lukas
Mutiningh of the Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative argues that
such internal measures also need to be able to detect and
counter corruption at the level of senior management. He also argued in
a paper titled Investigating prison corruption that ‘the
closed nature of prisons and general marginalization from the public
eye and political discourse do not assist in making prisons more
transparent.’Transparency in such an environment should not only be
implemented but it is an imperative.
Cabinet has announced the establishment of yet another
anti-corruption ‘body’-the Anti-corruption Inter-Ministerial Committee -
that will only be releasing their plan of action in January 2010. Let
us hope that the apparent ‘political will’ from the highest level of
government to deal with corruption will filter down to departmental
level and result in effective strategies to curb practices such as
those reported by the SIU in the Department of Correctional Services.
