The Portfolio Committee Correctional Services received a briefing from the Parliamentary Legal Advisor on the role of the Portfolio Committee in relation to the revocation of parole by the Minister of Correctional Services, Dr Pieter Groenewald.
The briefing saw the delivery of a legal opinion, which examined the Minister of Correctional Services’ decision to revoke the parole of two life-sentenced offenders, Theunis Kruger and Frans Adriaan du Toit. The request for this opinion arose from the Committee’s constitutional duty to oversee executive actions and ensure government accountability. Given the sensitivity of parole decisions, particularly in cases involving violent crimes, this opinion sought to clarify the legal framework governing parole, the extent of the Minister’s powers, and the Committee’s role in relation to these decisions.
The Correctional Services Act of 1998 grants the Minister the authority to make final decisions regarding the parole of offenders serving life sentences, with parole boards providing recommendations. The Act also allows the Minister to revoke parole under certain conditions, with a mandatory review of the decision within two years. The opinion highlights the constitutional provisions outlining Parliament’s oversight function, particularly Sections 42 and 55, which mandate the National Assembly to scrutinise executive actions. However, while the Committee has the authority to oversee parole procedures, it does not possess judicial power to review or overturn the Minister’s decisions, which remains the jurisdiction of the courts.
The legal analysis dove into South Africa’s criminal justice philosophy regarding parole, emphasising its rehabilitative purpose. Case law, including Walus v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, is referenced to illustrate the legal principles guiding parole decisions. In that case, the Constitutional Court found that parole cannot be denied based solely on the severity of the original crime, as this would undermine the rehabilitative aspect of the justice system. Additionally, the Mazingane case reinforced the principle that parole serves as a necessary mechanism to prevent life imprisonment from becoming unconstitutional.
In the present matter, the Minister’s decision to revoke parole was based on the absence of victim participation in the hearing process and concerns raised in psychological reports regarding the parolees’ risk to society. This distinguishes the case from Walus, where the court deemed the Minister’s refusal of parole irrational for relying on unchanging factors rather than assessing rehabilitation.
While the Committee cannot interfere with the Minister’s discretionary powers, it may exercise its oversight function by requesting a briefing on parole policies and considering potential legislative amendments. The legal opinion ultimately concluded that the Minister acted within his legal authority and any challenge to the decision must be pursued through judicial review.
