Decision-making and the processes involved in revoking prisoner parole was in the spotlight yesterday during a meeting of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services when the committee received a legal opinion on its oversight role during this process.
Committee Chairperson Ms Kgomotso Anthea Ramolobeng said the committee resolved that it would engage with the Parole Board and the Minister of Correctional Services on the processes followed in granting and revoking parole.
She went on to say that the committee wants a better understanding of the factors considered when determining whether to revoke parole. This follows a briefing from Parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Services Office (CLSO) on its role in the Minister of Correctional Services’ decision to revoke the parole of Theunis Kruger and Frans Adriaan du Toit, who were granted parole in July 2023.
The two men were sentenced to life imprisonment for the attack and rape of Ms Alison Botha. She had been unaware that they had been granted parole and released on various conditions.
In December 2024, the Minister issued a notice of intention to cancel the parole of both men and invited them to make representations in response to the notice. The Minister, after considering the written representations received from Mr du Toit and noting Mr Kruger’s failure to submit any representation, advised them that their parole had been cancelled with immediate effect.
The Minister further advised them that their parole placement would be reconsidered within two years from the date of the revocation of their parole. It was confirmed on 4 February 2025 that the parolees had been reincarcerated and will remain in custody.
In terms of section 75(1)(c) of the Correctional Services Act, the Parole Board is only empowered to make recommendations to the Minister on the granting of day parole, parole or medical parole for offenders serving a sentence of incarceration for life. The Minister is then the ultimate decision-making authority on whether or not parole should be granted to such offenders.
The committee heard that the law gives the Minister discretion to decide whether to parole a person serving a life sentence. Although the committee has the power to make legislation and to perform oversight over the executive, in the interests of holding the government to account, these powers do not include judicial oversight over executive decisions of this nature.
The CLSO said that as part of its oversight role, the committee can satisfy itself as to the processes followed by the Minister when granting, refusing or, in this current instance, cancelling parole.
The committee can also ask the Minister to brief it on parole processes and any relevant aspect or factors, such as the department’s policy document, which sets out the factors to be considered when deciding on applications for parole. If, during such an oversight exercise, the committee is of the view that the current legislative framework requires amendment to clarify or expand on parole powers, it can report to the National Assembly on its findings and seek permission to start the process of developing legislation to do so.
Committee Member Mr Carl Niehaus said the committee should consider a Private Member’s Bill in order to address the concerns in the Correctional Services Act in order to eliminate any gaps in the law.
Another Committee Member, Mr Henko Engelbrecht, said: “We need to fix our dysfunctional parole system.”
Ms Ramolobeng said: “We were assured that the Minister acted within his powers. In order to perform our oversight responsibilities, we will request that the Minister explain the process of making such a determination.”
Rajaa Azzakani
19 March 2025
Arrange a tour