Correctional Services seeks SIU help to strengthen lifestyle audits - IOL
Correctional Services commissioner Makgothi Thobakgale told the Madlanga Commission that lifestyle audits are not conducted routinely and that the department is seeking SIU assistance to strengthen vetting.
Correctional Services is seeking help from the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to strengthen lifestyle audits after its national commissioner conceded that the department’s current approach was a weakness.
National Commissioner of Correctional Services Makgothi Thobakgale told the Madlanga Commission last week that lifestyle audits were generally triggered by information emerging from financial disclosures, vetting or other concerns, rather than being carried out routinely.
“Ideally, we should be doing lifestyle audits regardless of the information that we are managing,” Thobakgale said, adding that the process required capacity and resources.
“But it is a weakness. We are entering into discussions with the SIU to see how the SIU can help us. We intend to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the SIU.”
Thobakgale said security vetting was generally valid for five years and repeated at the end of that period. A promotion did not automatically trigger fresh vetting unless the new position required a higher level of security clearance.
Financial-interest disclosures are made annually by specified categories of employees. Thobakgale said the forms and supporting documents were sent to the Public Service Commission for verification, after which findings and any recommended sanctions were returned to the department.
The commission heard that suspended KwaZulu-Natal Regional Commissioner Mnikelwa Nxele was the only senior manager who had not submitted the required annual financial-interest disclosure.
Thobakgale said he had ordered a lifestyle audit and that the non-disclosure would form part of disciplinary charges.
Nxele is separately facing fraud and money-laundering charges arising from Bosasa-related allegations. Investigators allege that he received monthly payments while serving as chairperson of a special departmental bid adjudication committee. The case remains before the court.
Thobakgale said the limited reach of the requirements was a concern in Correctional Services, where officials could be exposed to “undue influence, conflicts of interest, corruption, and improper financial relationships”.
“I advocate for the disclosures or the vetting to happen at the lowest level that gets exposed to inmates in a correctional setting, and at the moment it is not happening,” he said.
Lower-level officials may instead undergo suitability checks when information is received about alleged activities or when they are promoted. The checks can include criminal records, pending disciplinary matters and possible associations with criminals or syndicates.
“In some instances, we discover that a particular recruit would have links with the gangs already when that recruit is at the college,” Thobakgale said.
He also identified slow vetting of officials in sensitive positions as one of the department’s systemic constraints. These included deputy commissioners, directors, area commissioners, heads of correctional centres and unit managers.
According to reports, Public Service Commission Chairperson Somadoda Fikeni told the commission on Friday that frontline personnel across the criminal justice system should also be subjected to vetting.
Fikeni reportedly linked the vulnerability of lower-ranking officials to South Africa’s inequality and the risk of financial inducements, while saying their conditions of service should also form part of the response.
Reports quoted him as saying people at lower levels could be “a lot more vulnerable to be enticed”.
Thobakgale also acknowledged that limited resources meant Correctional Services tended to concentrate on immediate security problems rather than prevention.
