Chapter 9 - Parole - South African Government Information

9. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The abovementioned case of Hlongwane is a classical case, which shows how
the Department has failed to implement the parole provisions correctly. Similarly,
the case of Mr Mohapi indicates how favouritism works when it comes to
applications for parole within the Department.
However, the abovementioned problems and the ongoing confusion with regard
to the Department’s directives, has led to a situation where prisoners have
resorted to seeking remedies from the High Court as they are not getting much
help from the Parole Boards.
There was also evidence before the Commission that in some of the
management areas, the grinding of the wheels of the Parole Boards had come to
a virtual standstill because of the uncertainty regarding the applicable parole
legal framework. These are situations which should be avoided in any
correctional environment.
The directive which was the guideline of policy pertaining to the release of certain
offenders No. 1/8/B-“Penalisation Factors: Applicable in Parole Board and
delegated officials” was signed by the Director of Offender Policy, F J Venter. 44
The aforesaid directive came into operation on the 23 rd April 1998.
Since 23 rd April 1998, the various Parole Boards have been using the aforesaid
directive as though it was ‘cast in stone’, rather than using same as a guideline,
which was to assist them in interpreting, rightly or wrongly, the 1959 Act.
It is clear from all of the abovementioned cases that the departmental officials
were no longer using this as a guideline but they were using it as a replacement
of the Act. This created a situation, which could never have been anticipated by
44
See Annexure ‘C’ to Pretoria Exhibit ‘CCC’.
508