From the news desk

Processing of 19k inmates granted presidential amnesty questioned, after parole granted to former CT Colonel

Share this article

Community activists in Cape Town have expressed outrage at amid news that former Colonel Chris Lodewyk Prinsloo was granted parole. In a ground-breaking case in 2016, Prinsloo was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment for over 20 cases of racketeering, corruption, and money laundering.

His crimes were linked to at least nine-million rand’s worth of lethal weapons found to have been handed to local gangsters. It comes amid unrelenting shooting incidents perpetrated by gangsters on the Cape Flats, with fear-stricken residents grappling with daily life.

In October 2020, Prinsloo was released after serving less than a quarter of his sentence. The Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) were among the first to criticize the parole boards decision, explaining that Prinsloo is directly implicated in dozens of senseless murders, including innocent residents and children caught in the crossfire.

Speaking to VOC’s Breakfast Beat on Wednesday, community activist Imran Mukadam explained that the community has become despondent.
“It reaffirms the general perception of a dysfunctional and corrupt state. We are bombarded with corruption on a daily basis. These people aren’t being persecuted properly.”

According to Mukadam, Prinsloo’s fellow suspects have not seen justice metered out to them yet. Mukadam claimed that “even the 18-year sentence and plea bargain was a fallacy”.

“The state should be able to overturn the parole in this specific case because the case itself has not been concluded yet. All the information has not yet come to the fore, the co-accused have not even had their trial,” he elaborated.

“The primary accused- the one who bought the firearms and distributed it to the gangs- is out and his (full) trial haven’t even started yet. How can a matter be concluded to an extent that one of the perpetrators are out on parole already when others have not even appeared in court yet? It just doesn’t make sense at all,” questioned Mukadam.

“It’s a disgrace that somebody that’s got so much blood on his hands is walking free.”

Co-founder and Project Coordinator of Africa Criminal Justice Reform prof Lukas Muntingh explained that convicted criminals are legally required to serve majority of their sentence before being considered for parole, a concern highlighted by various vested individuals and rights organizations.

“It seems that under unusual circumstance, the situation has played in his (Prinsloo’s) favour. He would’ve had to have served 9 years or roughly half the sentence before he becomes eligible for parole,” said Muntingh.

He added that Prinsloo is most likely among the 19 000 inmates granted amnesty by President Cyril Ramaphosa in May, in a bid to avert an outbreak of Covid-19 within prisons.

“Under the State of Disaster Regulations, the president authorised the Department of Correctional Services to look at the cases of sentenced prisoners whose minimum parole period would come up in the next five years,” he explained.

According to the professor, Prinsloo pleaded guilty to fraud and corruption- which are non-violent crimes. Ramaphosa had committed to the release of inmates that do not pose a danger to society, such as those convicted for rape and murder. Prinsloo, Muntingh said, therefore fell within that ambit. Muntingh however stated that South Africa’s ‘sentenced prisons’ are, in fact, not overcrowded.

“Our prisons are not overcrowded in the sentence section. The overcrowding is in the unsentenced prisons, such as Pollsmoore maximum, the Durban Westville etc- the large remand detention centres along the metro’s, with a few exceptions.”

He added that the executive may have been ‘too quick’ in the move and added that some cases are “very contentious and controversial.”

“My sense is that the authorisation was given to review cases in the next five years. Perhaps the executive did not think clearly through all the possibilities and who may in fact become eligible for parole.”

The professor emphasised that these decisions can be reviewed by a court.

“There’s a structure known as the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board that is headed by a judge. The Minister, National (police) Commissioner or inspecting judge can refer a case (to be reviewed), then the board will follow its procedures.”

He warned however that this will not be a simple task and that government should make a concerted effort to ‘be accountable to the people:

“Once a person has been released, its very difficult to turn it around unless that person does something wrong. Even when they do something wrong, it does not necessarily mean that parole will be revoked in its entirety.”

“There are lots of questions about the parole system and we’re not getting the answers we’re looking for or (even) proper answers. The departments silence in itself is- again- an example of how the department isn’t playing open cards when the public has a real and vested interest in understanding what has happened here.”

Mukadam emphasised that instances such as these break down the relationship between the public and government.

“Community activist like myself, try very hard to build trust in the system and get people to participate through Neighbourhood Watch Groups and Community Policing Forum. It becomes so difficult to convince people on the ground that they can make a difference because the system is against us,” he said.

“(This) is symptomatic of a criminal justice system that isn’t functioning properly and destroys confidence in law enforcement. It erodes trust in the state itself. We need to pay attention and one can only hope that government will be responsive,” Muntingh said, echoing the activists’ sentiment.


Share this article
WhatsApp WhatsApp us
Wait a sec, saving restore vars.