/ 17 June 1994

Authorities ignored warning signals

Warning signs of the past week's violent prison protests were apparent for some time but were ignored by the authorities.

Warning signs of the past week’s violent prison protests were apparent for some time but were ignored by the authorities, experts say. The protests by prisoners demanding a general amnesty started last Thursday at Modderbee Prison on the East Rand and quickly spread to about 17 prisons countrywide.

A total of six prisoners died, two warders were seriously injured and at least R50-million damage was caused. While calm seems to have returned — for now — the causes of the protests suggest a more intractable confflct between prisoners and authorities. And not everyone is satisfied with Correctional Services Minister Sipho Mzimela’s announcement last Priday of a six-month blanket sentence reduction.

The South African Prisoners’ Organisation for Human Rights (Sapohr), whose call for “peaceful protest” on Wednesday last week was the immediate spark for the riots, has rejected Mzimela’s offer as “grossly unfair” as it did not differentiate between prisoners. Sapohr called for the establishment of an amnesty resolution committee to determine “a more equitable amnesty and sentence reduction dispensation”.

Experts trace the latest protests to friction resulting from the denial of the right of some prisoners to vote, which led to prison riots before the elections; to confusing and contradictory statements on an amnesty; and to tension between prison personnel. There were several approaches to authorities before the prisons erupted, but reaction is understood to have been slow.

Immediately before the protests, Justice Minister Dullah Omar rejected Sapohr’s demands for a general amnesty for non-violent common law prisoners and Sapohr approached Mzimela, who “told us he was too busy to see us”. Sapohr then demanded a meeting with President Nelson Mandela, which was only granted after the protests started. Mzimela also attended the meeting.

Mzimela’s spokesman, Captain Bert Slabbert, said this week Mzimela had “never said he would not see Sapohr; only that he did not have the time to see them then”. He said Sapohr had not put across its demand for a meeting as urgent, and that a memorandum from the organisation had not warned of mass action.

Another warning to Mzimela that something was afoot came on June 6 when the Modderbee branch of the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union sent him a memorandum complaining of human rights abuses against prisoners, unfair labour practices, racism and corruption. Slabbert said Mzimela had been in office for only a month, and that Popcru had not made concrete proposals. “Reforms and affirmative action cannot happen in ten days. They put the minister in a very difficult position. They put the gun agamst his head, and then want to negotiate.”

Amanda Dissel, a researcher with the Prison Project of the ANC-aligned Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, said there had been “quite an expectation that prisoners would be released after the elections. That was allowed to fester.” She said Sapohr had called for a general amnesty before the elections, and ANC prisons experts had talked privately about an amnesty for common law prisoners.

Mandela’s remarks on an unspecified amnesty in his inauguration speech had further raised expectations. Dissel warned that the amnesty
issue could spill over into demands for better prison conditions, and that violent protest could gain currency as a method to back demands. She said a representative prisoners’ body to negotiate with authorities was needed.

Sapohr was hamstrung as it was not allowed inside prisons and was “an ostracised body”. Dissel said Correctional Services should become more transparent and liaise with outside bodies like Sapohr, Micro and the Centre for the Study ofViolence and Reconciliation. A probe into the demands of prisoners and an inquiry into the deaths of prisoners in the protests should be launched. she said.

Professor Charl Cilliers, head of the Unisa Penology Department, said the latest prison protests were essentially a political phenomenon. The National Party had made a “big mistake” in allowing only certain categories of prisoners to vote, as that had led to friction among inmates. Promises of amnesty had led to further tension, he said. The ANC, for example, should have spelt out details of who would qualify when it made amnesty promises.

He said the government had to find common ground with Saphor and Popcru, and boost the morale of prison personnel. which was low because of infighting. It has been reported that non-Popcru prisons staff are up in arms after Popcru warders allegedly associated themselves with prisoners’ amnesty demands and helped prisoners communicate with the outside, helping the spread of the protests.

Slabbert denied the voting riots had anything to do with the new protests. He said the Independent Electoral Commission had praised Correctional Services for the conduct of elections in prisons, and that in the end prisoners themselves had accepted the distinction between categories of prisoners who could and could not vote. He blamed confusion over amnesty on “certain organisations”, who he said had “sown confusion and created expectations”.