Presented by: Simonia Mashangoane & Carolyn Raphaely WJP Presentation on the Administration of Parole and Correctional Supervision Presented by: Simonia Mashangoane & Carolyn Raphaely 20 September 2016

Wits Justice Project (WJP) The WJP is a project of the Journalism Department in the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (WITS). The WJP investigates miscarriages of justice and raises awareness of issues within the criminal justice system with an aim to advocate for change, strengthen procedures and build on reform efforts. This is achieved through investigative journalism, research, advocacy and education.

WJP focus: Wrongful Convictions Neither the Department of Justice nor the National Prosecuting Authority maintain records of the number of people who have been wrongfully convicted. As long as there are formally no wrongfully convicted people in SA, there is in effect no problem and therefore no urgency to address the matter. The absence of these records may adversely affect the parole process

Restorative Justice as a “Red Flag” Restorative Justice Orientation Programme is one of 12 correctional programmes offered to sentenced offenders based on their needs, sentencing remarks by the judiciary and risks, as identified and listed in their individual Correctional Sentence Plan (CSPs). It is one of the factors taken into consideration when deciding on placement of an inmate on parole

Restorative Justice as a “Red Flag” This programme is aimed at encouraging offenders to accept responsibility for their actions, to realise the harm their actions have caused their victims and their communities, and also provides them with an opportunity to apologise for their transgressions. “It is not compulsory and offenders engage voluntarily.”

Restorative Justice as a “Red Flag” May be problematic in cases where an incarcerated individual maintains their innocence It becomes hugely complicated to partake in any restorative justice initiatives because it encourages them to admit to or to apologise for a crime they say they have not committed

Restorative Justice as a “Red Flag” In terms of the Department of Correctional Services’ (DCS) Restorative Justice Programme which all long-term offenders are expected to complete, remorse is almost a quid pro quo for parole and release.

Restorative Justice as a “Red Flag” Although DCS maintains that showing remorse is not a mandatory part of the process, anecdotal evidence suggests that in practice this may not be the case. Inmates who refuse to show remorse, or to take responsibility for their crime on the basis that they are innocent are often not granted parole.

Case Studies Sabelo Ngani Fusi Mofokeng and Tshokolo Mokoena Thuba Sitohole

Sabelo Ngani Sabelo was released on parole from Johannesburg Correctional Centre last month after spending nearly eleven years behind bars for the gang-rape of 24-year old Mpho Suping Nine years after being sentenced and due for parole, Ngani still refused to accept responsibility for Suping’s rape, or show remorse. Though Ngani fulfilled all the Parole Board’s (PB) requirements – including completing and repeating three anger management courses, sex-offender courses and life-skills - he was refused parole three times.

Sabelo Ngani Despite his new-found freedom Ngani can think about nothing except appealing his case, establishing his innocence and having his conviction and sentence set aside. Ngani was finally released after lodging a notice of motion in the South Gauteng High Court compelling the Board to comply with an earlier court order granting him parole.

Sabelo Ngani Ngani is currently classified as a high-risk parolee and under house-arrest for the next nine years.

Fusi Mofokeng & Tshokolo Mokoena Both were arrested towards the end of apartheid for killing a policeman on the basis of false statements. The actual killers went to the TRC in 1998 and were awarded amnesty and were released while Fusi and Tshokolo got early parole in 2011 and still have criminal records and parole conditions.

Thuba Sithole Wrongfully convicted for armed robbery He was convicted to 15 years in prison based solely on two inconsistent witness statements. Thuba maintains that he is innocent. The WJP and Thuba’s pro bono lawyers at Norton Rose have analysed the available evidence and concluded that there is actually no convincing evidence against him. Despite this, he has to undergo restorative justice procedures which require him to show remorse, in order to qualify for parole in six months’ time.

Conclusion As long as there is no effective remedy for people who have served (part of their) sentence, yet still maintain their innocence, the parole conditions are likely to be disproportionately punitive. Having to report regularly to the police station or being obliged to wear electronic monitoring devices is stigmatising and traumatising for these parolees.

: Wits Justice Project : @witsjusticeproj : www.witsjusticeproject.co.za Thank you!