Zuma prison case casts doubt on South Africa's medical parole law
Retrieved on:
Friday, August 11, 2023
Gaps, Commissioner, Department, Correctional Service of Canada, Constitutional Court of Sint Maarten, High, Legislation, Court of cassation, Internal Revenue Code section 79, Department of Correctional Services (South Africa), Quality of life, High court, Research, Judgement, SCA, Terminal, Constitutional court, Non-governmental organization, New Hampshire Department of Corrections, Democratic Alliance, Contempt, Time, Risk, Constitution, Supreme court, Supreme Court of Appeal (South Africa), Crime, AfriForum, Corrections, Disease, Drug, Nursing, Medical device, Financial adviser
In short, his parole tested the buoyancy of the law in facilitating the medical release of offenders without political or other interference.
Key Points:
- In short, his parole tested the buoyancy of the law in facilitating the medical release of offenders without political or other interference.
- The SCA had found that Zuma was unlawfully granted medical parole against the advice of the Medical Parole Advisory Board.
- Less than two months after his admission to prison, he was released on medical parole.
- And the time he was out of prison on medical parole should not have been counted as time served.
- Medical parole in South Africa is governed by Section 79 of the Correctional Services Act, together with Regulation 29A of the Correctional Services Regulations.
The process and gaps in law
- The board comprises ten medical practitioners, who must provide an independent medical report to the commissioner.
- Unfortunately, the law does not require the board to offer such guidance.
- These gaps in the law are exacerbated by the omission to specify whether the commissioner has the power to ignore the recommendation of the board, as in Zuma’s application.
- While they may all seem relevant in assessing future criminality, there is no indication as to how they should be weighed up.
- This is a task which should involve clinical evaluations by forensic psychiatrists, but the legislation does not require this.
Unfortunate omission
- For example, if an offender is lawfully released on medical parole, but their health improves or even if they are cured, they cannot be forced to return to prison.
- It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court of Appeal referred this question back to the Department of Correctional Services – the very department that flagrantly violated the law.