The hostage drama at government corral

On Thursday 15 December, 2011 two of the so-called Waterkloof 4, Reinach Tiedt and Gert van Schalkwyk, had their sentences converted to corrective supervision under certain strict conditions. Without being an expert in the laws governing correctional services, I understand that the process is basically that prisoners who qualify for parole will tender an application to the parole board who will then evaluate said application and afford the applicants a hearing if it seems justified. There are a number of documents required before such an application can even be considered. These include but are not necessarily limited to testimonials, progress reports from prison officials, psychiatric evaluations, clearance certificates from the police and various other little trinkets.

Basically the application for parole is absolutely no surprise for anybody in this apparently efficient system that we know as the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). In fact, after the parole board studied the documentation and interviewed the applicants they formally recommend that a court hears the application in order to convert the sentence if it is deemed reasonable. This is a very long chain of individuals and groups who’s approval is required in order for this matter to even appear before a Magistrate or Judge. Normally the Magistrate (or Judge) that convicted them in the first place is required to perform the hearing again, but unfortunately this person is retired and not available. The hearing also requires a representative of the state to be present to oppose if need be and given that DCS transported the applicants to court they were well aware of the dates if they felt the need to say something when the opportunity presented itself.

To add insult to injury I am lead to believe that DCS signed the release forms of the applicants after the Magistrate’s court ordered their release and these documents are in the possession of the necessary authorities. After the initial backtracking of DCS an urgent application for their release was lodged at the High court and it was upheld with cost and contempt charges brought against certain key individuals. In spite of this DCS refused the legal team of the applicants as well as representatives of the South African police entry to the prison and they also refused to meet with these people.

The DCS did attempt a rather less than convincing argument about there being problems with the court order that they, by the way, completely supported until it was effected and they then proceeded to claim that it was under investigation by their legal experts (tsk, tsk…). This still did not give them the right to disregard a court order and if they somehow managed to conjure up a semblance of a valid argument nothing would stop them from presenting that in court and rearresting the released individuals thus making their point without disrespecting the law.

Bottom line – Reinach Tiedt and Gert van Schalkwyk are now hostages of our ever-so intelligent government and the proverbial politician is about to hit the fan.

The irony of this situation is that it all happened in plain view of our self-righteous media and yet in none of the reports that I have read is any part of this fiasco questioned thoroughly. Representatives of various papers were in court and apparently followed the family members around the Pretoria area to no end. Yet all they reported on was the superficial facts and emotional content. This then from the same group that feels so persecuted by our government when all they really want is to simply report the truth to the nation. They have no morals and I can not understand how they can expect the public to support them against the secrecy bill of the government. In my opinion they have been pandering to an ignorant government for quite some time and this case is no exception.

One thing was certain: the articles came through thick and fast after each event and in there lies the conundrum I suppose. How could they have done any proper research regarding the mechanics of this fiasco. Why is the fact that a Mother wants to celebrate the return of her son important to us but the suspicious about turn of the DCS is of little or no consequence. Why is it necessary to report on the size of the policeman that accompanied the legal team to Zonderwater prison and yet very little is said about the fact that a government department deliberately disregarded two court orders. Why is this not investigated in full.

My impression was that most of the media basically dropped the story after the DA said that the conversion of their sentence was unlawful. Nobody thought to double check the opinion of the DA, possibly because that information is basically irrelevant to the goal of the media. They seemingly only seek to stir up enough emotion to sell more copies and possibly advertising space. Why would that be? What possible authority does the DA have in this matter? According to the laws governing correctional services these individuals were well within their right to apply for the conversion and if the parole board disagreed, they would never have seen the inside of a courtroom. Why then would the DA venture such an ill-conceived opinion about this matter in any case and why does the media not question this in a proper fashion? What are they afraid of? This just seems like politicking at its best.

In conclusion I believe that we have not seen the end of this and next week will put the resolve of our diseased little democracy to a serious test. But before then we still have the brilliant opinion of the Sunday tabloid to look forward too. Would you like to bet on the quality of journalism in that story?

P.S. The Afrikaans Sunday paper, Rapport, did not disappoint.  This story is something that is directly related to the foundations of our democracy and whether your concern is the early release of prisoners or the fact that a government department knowingly disregarded two court orders, there are issues of greater concern to the public than the love interest of one individual. I find it shocking that a newspaper would focus on something that really could not even be described as a relationship when the undermining of the judiciary is happening in plain view. Judging from the comments in that story, the readers of this paper are quite content with gossip and maybe we just would not know what we have until we lose it.