By Alicia Mmashakana
The Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services has decided to engage the Parole Board and Correctional Services Minister Pieter Groenewald on the processes followed in granting parole and deciding when to revoke it.
Committee chairperson Kgomotso Anthea Ramolobeng said on Tuesday that the committee wanted a better understanding of the factors considered when determining whether to revoke parole.
This followed a briefing from Parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Services Office (CSLO) on its role in the minister’s decision to revoke the parole of Theunis Kruger and Frans Adriaan du Toit, who were granted parole in July 2023. They were sentenced to life behind bars for attacking and raping Alison Botha. At the time, Ronald Lamola was the minister of justice and correctional services.
She did not know the two men were on parole and released on various conditions.
According to media reports, the two were placed on parole for reasons that included that Botha has consistently declined to meet her rapists or participate in the Victim Offender Dialogue programme.
In December last year, Groenewald, who was appointed as part of the Government of National Unity, issued a notice of intention to cancel the parole of both men and invited them to make representations in response to the notice. After considering the written representation received from Du Toit, and nothing from Kruger, the minister advised them that their parole had been cancelled with immediate effect.
He said their parole placement would be reconsidered within two years from the date of the revocation of their parole.
The committee heard that the law gave the minister discretion to decide whether to parole a person serving a life sentence.
It said in a statement that although it had the power to make legislation and to perform oversight over the executive, in the interests of holding the government to account, these powers did not include judicial oversight over executive decisions of this nature.
The CLSO said that as part of its oversight role, the committee could satisfy itself as to the processes followed by the minister when granting, refusing or, in this instance, cancelling parole.
It could 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 believed that the current legislative framework must be amended to clarify or expand on parole powers, it could report its findings to the National Assembly and seek permission to start the process of developing legislation to do so.
“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,” said Ramolobeng.
INSIDE POLITICS
