LEE-ANNE GERMANOS, LAZOLA KATI & NOZUKO PONI | Parole petitions: the meaning of ‘life’

In the past eight months, the department of correctional services has confirmed the release of four convicted criminals serving life sentences in three separate and unrelated high-profile cases — throwing the South African public into a tailspin. After all, no criminal has a right to parole. They only have a right to be considered for parole after a particular period of incarceration.

Janusz Walus, Chris Hani’s assassin, was released in December 2022 after having served 22 years of his life sentence. Frans du Toit and Theuns Kruger, the rapists and torturers of Alison Botha, as well Norman Simons, known as the “Station Strangler” who raped and murdered 22 children over a decade, from the 1980s through the 1990s, will all be released within weeks of one another after each having served 28 years of their life sentences respectively.

An outraged South African public — which is questioning, like never before, the true meaning of “life” imprisonment and debating the rehabilitation capability of hardened, and potentially psychopathic, criminals — have now turned to the Change.org platform as an outlet for their disappointment with the South African criminal justice system. As the world’s largest online petition platform, we’ve had a number of petitions started either objecting to a convict’s parole application or calling for a reversal of a decision to grant parole. In the case of Carl Schoombie’s murderers, one of whom applied for medical parole in 2021, a petition started by the deceased victim’s sister, Jade, gained almost 30,000 signatures, and, when submitted to the parole board, resulted in a denial of the murderer’s parole. This is but one example of the effectiveness of petitions when it comes to citizens playing an active role in parole decisions.

The announcements of the different parole release dates for Walus, Du Toit, Kruger and Simons, all resulted in the creation of separate petitions objecting to the granting of parole. However, the creation of each of these petitions all came after decisions already taken by the relevant parole boards to release them.

In the case of Janusz Walus, he was convicted of having brutally shot Chris Hani in the head, in his driveway, on the morning of April 10 1993 — the eve of the end of apartheid rule in SA. That morning Hani had refused to have bodyguards around and had walked to the nearby shop for a newspaper. After serving only 22 years of his life sentence, Walus applied for, and was granted, parole. Limpho Hani, the widow of the assassinated Hani, claimed that her submissions objecting to Walus’s parole were not taken into consideration by the parole board, and that the process was therefore flawed. Her claim was ultimately rejected by the Constitutional Court, which effectively rubber-stamped Walus’s release. Despite this, the South African Communist Party, which Hani once led, started a petition on Change.org calling for a full inquest into the death of Chris Hani. The petition speaks to the gross mishandling and inconclusive investigation into his death. The petition has garnered over 8,200 signatures and is still growing. The campaign has even gained traction in countries such as Italy and Ghana.

Alison Botha was kidnapped and brutally raped in the town of Gqeberha in 1993, by Frans du Toit and Theuns Kruger, who had left her for dead. Botha’s rapists stabbed her repeatedly and slit her throat. They had slashed her throat so deeply that she had to hold her own head on as she crawled to the road for help, with her other hand holding her entrails, as she had also been stabbed in the stomach more than 30 times. As the only survivor in these three cases, Botha was not even informed of her abusers’ parole applications. She found out through the media, like the rest of the South African public, that her torturers had been granted parole. Botha now has to face the reality of existing in a world where her abusers roam free, and forever live in fear of the possibility that they will one day seek revenge on her for their imprisonment — and finish what they started. So shocking is the story of Botha’s rape and attempt on her life that a petition was started by Pamela Padayachee, the founder of WomanPact. Padayachee’s passion for women's rights is what spurred her to start a petition, which now has over 9,500 signatures, calling for a thorough review of all parole procedures and policies to ensure the victim’s safety is at the centre of the process. The current policies according to the petition simply do not take the victim’s safety into account — in fact they neglect the victim.

Most recently it was announced that the “Station Strangler” who once terrorised the communities of the Cape Flats and the dreams of children, will be released on parole on Thursday, July 20 2023. Norman “Afzal” Simons, a teacher from Mitchells Plain, was convicted of the rape and murder of Elroy van Rooyen, a 10-year-old boy. However, 21 more boys from the same area were found raped and strangled the same way as little Elroy, between 1986 and 1994, but the state was unable to prove that they were also linked to Simons. The Van Rooyen family, 28 years later, are still reeling from the loss of their child and the lack of proper consultation regarding Simons’ release. Like Alison Botha, they only found out about Simons’ parole after it had become a foregone conclusion. To this day, Simons will still not admit to having murdered little Elroy, or the other 21 children whose families will never have closure. Can such a convict actually be considered rehabilitated?

In response to the announcement of Simons’ parole date, members of the Porterville community — the community from which he came and to which he is likely to return — started a petition opposing his release. This small community is particularly concerned because the house where he is to live after his release is across the road from a park where children play. In addition, the petition starter notes that setting a convicted serial child rapist and killer free in their community will add to the issues they are already experiencing with reoffending parole-released criminals. The petition has been signed by 2,300 people and counting. Crime Watch Porterville, with the assistance of the Change.org Campaign Team, intends to submit this petition to the parole board appealing the decision taken to grant Simons parole without hearing from the very community he once tore apart, and that, legitimately, fears will be torn apart once again.

In two out of the three above cases, the victims and/or their families had not been notified of the criminals’ parole applications. That is not only a travesty of justice but in fact in contravention of section 299A of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), which requires that a victim and/or their family be informed of parole applications made by criminals convicted of serious crimes, as the victim and/or their family have a right to make representations to the parole board. The failure to inform the victims and their families is also one of the reasons for the public outrage. Other reasons relate to the question around rehabilitation. However, the biggest debate still circulating is why “life” does not actually mean life imprisonment. The answer to the latter question lies in a legislative amendment of the Correctional Services Act, which allows a criminal serving a life sentence to apply for parole after 25 years. Connectedly, the outrage and mistrust surrounding the granting of parole can also easily be remedied if the commissioner of correctional services were to issue regulations building on section 299A of the CPA.

It should be regulated that for every parole application received by the parole board in terms of section 299A of the CPA, the parole board must:

• contact the victims and/or families to give them an opportunity to object to parole;
• put an ad out in the local newspaper in the area of the inmate’s last place of residence, to allow any affected people to object to parole;
• put an ad out in the local newspaper of the area where the inmate has indicated in their parole application that they will be residing once released, to allow any affected person to object to parole; and
• put an ad out in the local newspaper in the area where the crime/s was/were committed, to allow any affected person to object to parole.

Should the parole board fail to comply with any of the above requirements it should render any decision taken on parole invalid. 

Victim and community participation in the parole process is necessary for it to be truly successful and to foster trust between the public and the criminal justice system, as well as among victims, their families and society, and the rehabilitated inmate to be released. This is where petitions and petitioning the parole board plays a crucial role. However, they can only be effective if regulations are put in place to ensure that all affected people (not just victims and their families) do not find out about parole after the fact.

Lee-Anne Germanos is the senior campaigner at Change.org SA; Lazola Kati is the campaign coordinator at Change.org SA; Nozuko Poni is the digital campaigner at Change.org SA