Inmate challenges visitation rights restrictions in Gauteng High Court

So-called “free visits” and an inmates annual quota of visits in prison came under the judicial spotlight in the Gauteng High Court, when an inmate at the Kgosi Mampuru Correctional Centre complained about the management’s sudden restriction on his visitation rights.

Xolani Zulu launched an urgent application in which he challenged what he deemed correctional services’ unlawful and arbitrary restriction of his visitation rights.

Zulu explained that his family recently arrived at the prison to visit him and was turned away. After this incident he sought clarification from the acting head of the prison on why he was not allowed a visit. 

He was told that visits previously granted under the free visit policy were being counted against his annual visit allocation. As of March 1 all free visits were discontinued, and he had exhausted his allocated visits for his annual cycle. 

Zulu said he was also told that his family visits would be suspended until the new visit cycle kicked-in.  

Zulu also said that he was surprised that the department in their answering affidavit stated that he is entitled to 48 visits per annum, but at 45 visits prematurely stopped further visits without communicating with him about the number of visits that he had remaining.

He told the court that he relies on his family visits to obtain money to buy food from the prison tuck shop as for health reasons, he does not consume prison meals. He argued that the department simply suspended his visitation rights without giving him the opportunity to be heard on the matter.

The core of the dispute arose from the provision of free visits. During the 2023–2024 period, the former head of the prison made free visits available to all inmates. These visits were explicitly stated not to count against the inmates’ annual visit allocation.

The prison head explained that in terms of the department’s policy, it prescribes that group A offenders are entitled to a maximum of four contact visits per month, which provide for an annual allocation of 48 visits per inmate.

Upon the exhaustion of the allocated visits, the visitation system automatically reverts to a default of one visit per month to accommodate the inmate until such time as the annual cycle of new allocation is approved.

The department said Zulu has exhausted his entitlement for the current cycle but is not being denied visitation. Instead, he is limited to one visit per month.

It was further explained that there is no official binding policy on free visits and that free visits are at the discretion of the head of the prison.

Judge Rochelle Francis-Subbiah noted that the department did not address whether such free visits were counted against Zulu’s allocated 48 visits per annum. No clear and specific visitation breakdown is provided and this failure undermines principles of fair administrative action, the judge said.

“I find that the applicant’s concern is well founded in light of ambiguities relating to the free visits. It remains unclear whether any such free visits were counted against the 48-visit annual allocation.”

The judge added that prisoners must be treated humanely and they have a right to maintain contact with their family.

She ordered the department to give Zulu a breakdown of his visits recorded to reflect which are free visits and which counted as his annual quota. Should it be determined that free visits were included and counted towards the 48 allocated annual visits, the department has to review Zulu’s visitation status.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za