Parole is not a given: It must be earned, assessed and accountable

Parole is not the automatic final step in a prison sentence. It is a conditional release that must be justified by law, credible rehabilitation, proper risk assessment and protection of victims and communities. The principle is simple: parole is not a given. It must be earned, assessed and accountable.

The parliamentary committee on correctional services supports rehabilitation and reintegration where justified. But rehabilitation cannot become a tick-box exercise or a means of managing overcrowding. Completing a programme or attending counselling does not, on its own, demonstrate that an offender no longer poses a risk.

The seriousness of the offence, institutional behaviour, previous offending, behavioural change, risk assessment, support structures and ability to comply with parole conditions must all be considered.

Parole is conditional, not automatic

During the 2014 parole process involving Eugene de Kock, then minister of Correctional Services Michael Masutha distinguished between a prisoner’s right to be considered for parole and an entitlement to be released.

That distinction remains fundamental. Reaching the point at which an offender may be considered for parole does not mean parole must be granted. The question is whether release is appropriate after all relevant information and legal requirements have been properly considered.

The recent Griekwastad case demonstrates why review mechanisms matter. The offender, who was a minor when the crimes were committed, was convicted of three counts of murder, rape and defeating the ends of justice following the killing of his parents and younger sister.

In 2026, the Upington Correctional Supervision and Parole Board decided to place him on parole. Following community representations, that decision was reviewed and replaced by the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board. He remains in custody pending corrective measures and further consideration.

The case of Frans du Toit and Theuns Kruger, convicted of the rape and attempted murder of Alison Botha, provides another important example. Both were granted parole in July 2023 after serving 28 years. The decision was subsequently reviewed, their parole revoked, and they were returned to custody in February 2025. Parliament also recorded that Botha was unaware they had been granted parole.

These cases demonstrate why parole decisions must remain subject to scrutiny. Parole is not a one-way door: where legal requirements for cancellation are met, it can be withdrawn.

Parole system can’t have vacant boards

Safeguards are only as strong as the institutions responsible for applying them.

The committee heard this week that as at September 2026, vacancies across the 52 Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards included 17 chairperson, 15 vice-chairperson and 41 community member positions. The Upington Board reportedly has had no substantive chairperson since 2020. It must be noted that the Griekwastad case falls under that board.

Vacancies are not an administrative inconvenience. These boards make decisions affecting offenders, victims and communities. They must be properly constituted and sufficiently resourced.

The department must provide the committee with a board-by-board vacancy plan showing when vacancies arose, recruitment progress and firm dates for filling them.

Risk assessment must be at the centre

The central question is not whether an offender has completed a programme. It is whether that offender can safely and responsibly be managed in the community.

Risk assessment must be consistent, evidence-based and properly scrutinised, particularly in serious and violent cases. Where a parole recommendation materially differs from an established risk assessment, the reasons must be documented and properly considered. The system must establish whether an offender has demonstrated behavioural change, addressed factors contributing to offending and has a realistic support structure outside prison.

Victims must be considered

For victims and families, an offence does not end when an offender is sentenced. The prospect of parole can reopen trauma, fear and uncertainty. Victim participation is not a veto over parole. It recognises victims’ legitimate rights and interests in decisions affecting their safety, dignity and ability to rebuild their lives.

The Du Toit and Kruger, as well as the De Kock parole processes, demonstrated the consequences when this principle is not followed. Ministers declined to approve parole after confirming that victims or victim families had not been consulted as required. Historical departmental figures recorded 1,396 victims not consulted in 2019/20, 2,033 in 2020/21 and 1,882 in 2021/22. These figures are unacceptable.

The proposed Online Victim Registration Form is a welcome change, but it cannot be the only solution. The department must actively trace and notify victims, establish minimum standards for notification and participation and document reasonable efforts to locate them.

Victims and families must receive timely information about parole decisions, conditions and mechanisms to raise concerns about possible breaches.

Parole comes with accountability

Effective parole depends on effective Community Corrections, which seems to have become a dumping ground for officials facing disciplinary action.

Electronic monitoring is meaningless without trained, ethical officials to monitor alerts, functioning control rooms, reliable connectivity, maintenance and a clear response system. The department must be able to respond after-hours and coordinate with SAPS where intervention is required.

Before further investment in electronic monitoring, the department should provide a fully costed operational plan covering staffing, infrastructure, connectivity, maintenance, alert response and inter-agency coordination.

Releasing an offender without sufficient capacity to supervise that person is not successful reintegration. It simply transfers responsibility without the resources necessary to manage the risk.

Reform cannot wait

The committee welcomes legislative efforts, including the Correctional Services Amendment Bill, to strengthen the parole framework. However, legislation cannot delay reforms that can begin now.

Vacant board positions must be filled according to a defined timetable. Risk assessment processes must be audited. Victim tracing and consultation must be strengthened. Community Corrections must demonstrate sufficient personnel and resources. Electronic monitoring must have a functioning operational response system.

Parliament must receive regular information on board vacancies, parole decisions, victim consultation, risk classifications, breaches, cancellations and re-incarcerations.

The committee supports rehabilitation, reintegration and second chances when this is justified by law and supported by credible evidence. But a second chance cannot come at the expense of a victim’s right to safety. Rehabilitation must be measured not simply by what an offender has completed, but by whether the risk of reoffending has been meaningfully addressed.

The state has a duty to rehabilitate offenders. It has an equally important duty to protect the public and ensure that victims are not forgotten once the courtroom doors close.

Parole is not a reward for reaching a particular date. It should be a carefully assessed decision carrying consequences for the offender, the victim and society. It must be earned through demonstrated rehabilitation, tested through credible risk assessment, granted within the law and sustained only where its conditions can be responsibly enforced.

When the state opens the prison gate, it must be able to answer a simple question: has it done everything reasonably necessary to ensure that the person walking through that gate can be safely reintegrated into the community?

That is the standard the portfolio committee will continue to demand. The prison gate must never become a revolving door. DM