A sentence of imprisonment is a deprivation of liberty for a specified period, with rehabilitation and reintegration into society as its ultimate objectives. It must never become a sentence to violence, torture, neglect or even death.
The principle of rehabilitation and reintegration of inmates must guide the work of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). The Correctional Services Act, specifically section 4(2)(a), requires the department to take the necessary steps to ensure the safe custody of every inmate and maintain security and good order in every correctional centre. Furthermore, section 15 of the same Act creates the specific statutory mechanism for deaths in custody, while sections 4(2)(a) and 26 establish the department’s broader duty to ensure the safe custody of inmates.
The Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services is increasingly concerned about the number of unnatural deaths in custody. And, equally importantly, the delays in establishing the causes and circumstances of these deaths.
The figures presented to the committee by the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) are concerning. During the first quarter of the 2026/27 financial year, 44 unnatural deaths were recorded, compared with 24 during the same period in the previous financial year.
Behind these figures are people, families and communities. These were people who were in the custody of the state and whose safety and wellbeing were the responsibility of the correctional system.
Of particular concern is that the JICS confirmed only 54.5% of unnatural deaths and 51.59% of natural deaths during the quarter. While the committee understands that not every death can be investigated and concluded immediately, since some cases are complex and may require autopsies, forensic investigations or criminal investigations, it still cannot explain away prolonged delays without proper follow-up.
The JICS has raised issues relating to delays and gaps in reporting and documentation. The committee has also expressed concern about late paperwork, administrative gaps and failures in death reporting. These matters must be addressed.
When someone dies in a correctional centre, there must be a clear process from the moment the death is reported until the circumstances and cause of death are confirmed. That process must have proper records, clear responsibilities and reasonable timelines.
Families must also receive information. It is difficult to imagine what it means for a family to lose someone in custody and then have to wait for months without a clear explanation of what happened. This is not only a matter of compassion. It is a matter of accountability.
Parliament also needs reliable information to perform its oversight role. If deaths remain unconfirmed for long periods, it becomes more difficult for the committee to identify patterns, determine whether there are systemic problems and hold the responsible institutions to account. The cases of Mpho Mkhumbeni, Quinton Fortuin and Simphiwe Celise demonstrate the importance of establishing the facts when a person dies in state custody.
Mkhumbeni died at Mangaung Correctional Centre on 12 March 2025 following a cell search. Investigations into the circumstances of his death included allegations of assault and torture. An autopsy determined that his death was unnatural and the matter was classified as murder.
Fortuin died at Goodwood Correctional Centre in February 2025 following an incident in which correctional officials intervened after he allegedly attacked an official. An autopsy found that he died from multiple blunt-force injuries. Four officials were suspended while investigations and disciplinary processes followed.
At Oudtshoorn Correctional Centre, Celise died in August 2025 following an incident in which officials intervened after four correctional officials had been stabbed. Subsequent findings raised concerns about command and control, risk assessment, coordination and compliance with use-of-force procedures. This is despite section 32 of the Act clearly stating the use and the degree of force allowed by officials.
These cases are not identical and should not be treated as such. Correctional officials work in difficult circumstances and face real risks. They have a duty to protect themselves, their colleagues and inmates, particularly when violence occurs. But that duty must be exercised within the law.
There are circumstances in which the use of force is necessary. It must nevertheless be lawful, necessary and proportionate. Security cannot be achieved at the expense of the rights and dignity of people in custody.
Accountability is key, which is why the delay in confirming deaths concerns the committee.
The issue is not about rushing investigations or compromising the integrity of forensic or criminal processes. It is about ensuring that cases do not simply remain outstanding without proper explanation, follow-up and accountability.
The longer a case remains unresolved, the more difficult it may become to establish what happened. Evidence must be preserved, witnesses must be interviewed and records must be properly maintained. Where criminal conduct is suspected, the relevant authorities must be able to act promptly.
The department must therefore account not only for the number of people who die in its facilities, but also for the status of outstanding cases.
We need to know how many deaths are awaiting confirmation, how long those cases have been outstanding, what is causing the delays and what is being done to resolve them.
There must be greater transparency around deaths in custody.
Where the problem is late reporting or incomplete documentation on the part of correctional centres, this must be corrected. Where the investigation requires the involvement of forensic, police or prosecuting authorities, there must be proper coordination and follow-up.
At the same time, we cannot focus only on what happens after someone dies. We must also ask what can be done to prevent these deaths.
During the first three quarters of the 2025/26 financial year, 30 confirmed unnatural deaths were reported, including 15 suicides. These figures require continued attention to inmate supervision, the identification of vulnerable inmates and the mechanisms available to inmates to report threats, intimidation or abuse.
The safety of correctional officials must also form part of this discussion. Adequate staffing, training, supervision and functioning security systems are important for creating safer facilities for everyone.
The committee will continue to raise these matters with the department and JICS. We expect clear information on outstanding deaths and the steps being taken to improve the reporting, investigation and confirmation process.
Where wrongdoing is established, there must be consequences. Where procedures have failed, they must be corrected. And where systemic problems are identified, they must be addressed rather than allowed to continue.
People serving sentences are deprived of their freedom, but they do not lose their humanity or their constitutional rights. The state assumes responsibility for their safety when it takes them into custody. That responsibility cannot end when a person dies. We owe families a proper account of what happened to their loved ones.
We also owe the public confidence that when a person dies in a correctional centre, the circumstances will be properly investigated and that the findings will lead to appropriate action. Accountability cannot be delayed indefinitely. DM
Follow the story
