The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The Department of Correctional Services has been monitoring reports that continue to question the placement on parole of Mr Shabir Shaik.

It must be remembered that Mr Shaik was examined by three medical doctors who concurred that he qualified for placement on parole in terms of Section 79 of Correctional Services Act. In terms of the Act offenders who are in the final phases of a terminal illness may be placed on parole in order to die a consolatory death. The decision of the three medical doctors was also subjected to scrutiny by the Health Professions Council of South Africa, which actually cleared them of any wrong doing.

It is also crucial to note that the Act makes no provision for re-incarceration of parolees who may have recovered or not died within a given period of time. An audit done by Correctional Services revealed that basically about 36% of parolees released on medical grounds do not die within 12 months of having been placed on parole following a medical report describing them as in the final phases of a terminal illness. This means over 60% of very sick offenders deemed to be on the death bed by medical doctors, had not died immediately after being placed on parole.

Unfortunately the complexity on making these determinations is serious, such that some of these parolees not only recover but continue acts of crime, some of which are regarded as aggressive and serious. Those that commit crime get re-incarcerated to finish their sentences in custody; however, the law does not provide for re-arrest of any parolee that recovers.

Correctional Services again wishes to repeat that legally there is no base for raising questions about the decision of medical doctors that have gone through, possibly, the most intensive scrutiny to date. In terms of section 75(8) of the Act, the decision of the Parole Board is final except that the Minister may refer the matter to the Review Board for reconsideration, but in light of the aforementioned findings of the medical doctors there is no basis on which the Minister may question the decision of the Parole Board. There remains no basis for a call for reviewing of the CSPB by the Parole Review Board.

We trust that this explanation will put the matter of Mr Shaik's parole to rest.