Chapter 9 - Parole - South African Government Information

It is clear from perusing the file that Mr Hlongwane was a candidate to be
released on parole as soon as possible. According to the record, he was gainfully
employed at the prison as a “vegetable producer”. Furthermore, he had an
address outside prison, which was that of his next-of-kin being his mother, Mrs
Sara Hlongwane, who lived at Soshanguve. Accordingly, except for Departmental
maladministration, there was no reason why he could not be released on parole
sooner.
According to the records, he was a medium security prisoner, or “B” group
prisoner, with effect from 4 June 2003. With effect from 4 September 2003, he
was classified as a group “A” prisoner.
In terms of the calculations referred to above, as at 3 February 2004, he would
have served two-thirds of his sentence and as at the 3 March 2004, he would
have served three-quarters of his sentence. Notwithstanding the positive report
prepared by Mr Maisela of Community Corrections on 3 September 2002, on 24
November 2003, Ms N.N. Kula, the Chairperson of the Parole Board, did not
grant Mr Hlongwane parole or place him under correctional supervision but
recommended that a further profile be submitted. There was no explanation as to
why Mr Hlongwane could not be considered for parole immediately and be
released and why state resources were wasted with a further parole hearing,
when in fact he was a clear candidate for parole and qualified to be released.
It is clear that on 12 February 2004, the Parole Board recommended him for
placement on parole on 3 March 2004, after he had served three-quarters of his
sentence and after the Commission had shown an interest in his case.
The case of Mr Hlongwane is not unique but one of many that have become
common within the Department and that to a large extent contribute to the
476