IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION
(Sitting in PRETORIA)
( 1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
6 Morch 2026
SIGNATURE
THE STATE
V
PORRITT , GARY PATRICK
BENNETT , SUSAN HILLARY
SPILG, J:
INTRODUCTION
REASONS FOR DIRECTIONS OF 6 MARCH 2026
CONCERNING
INDEPENDENT PRISON VISITOR
CASE NO: SS 40/2006
Accused no. 1
Accused no. 2
1. Porritt, who is accused no 1, has on numerous occasions complained about the
Correctional Service Facilities both at Johannesburg Central (when he was a trial
detainee there) and at Kgosi Mampuru II. He has invariably been supported by
accused no 2, Ms Bennett, who has attended these facilities to meet Porritt to
consult with him, bring him food and the like.
2
2. The record will show that from time to time this court has called senior officials
from the respective facilities to attend court to deal with complaints. Prior to
March 2026, the previous one was during the last week of November 2025. On
that occasion Colonel Sebothoma who was at the time the Acting Head of Local
Remand Detention Centre attended. By letter dated 26 November 2025 he
admitted that there were many errors on the part of the Department until he was
deployed there and that he has been working hard to ensure that matters are
handled correctly and that measures will be in place to avoid a recurrence of the
concerns.
3. When court resumed this Monday, 2 March, Porritt presented a list of complaints
with regard to his detention . He is supported by Bennett. Once again, the
contention is that these complaints affect his fair trial rights and that the court
must deal with them.
4. Porritt was requested to tabulate his grievances and identify which were disputed
in MT Moleki's written response (as current Acting Head of the Local Remand
Detention Centre) dated 2 March 2026.
5. Porritt had raised four issues and received responses to two of them. The four
issues were;
a. The provision of standby electricity. Moleki however claimed that this had
been resolved
b. That inmates were not receiving balanced meals. Moleki disputed this too
The lack of hot water. This was pertinently raised by Porritt in the
handwritten complaint of December which Adv Newman on behalf of the
prosecution had forwarded to Moleki for response . Moleki responded to
this by letter of 2 March 2026
c. The continued failure to provide Porritt with his medical reports. Although
the Colonel had explained the procedure in relation to medical reports, this
3
was not dealt with in Moleki's response. However it had not been raised by
Porritt in the handwritten note referred to earlier that had been sent to him
by Adv Newman.
6. In view of the outstanding issues the State advised that it would ask for a
response.
7. It should be added by way of introduction that Porritt wished to hand up a
document that was sent to the National Commissioner of Correctional Services
and to the Minister of Correctional Services . He said that he had dictated it to a
fellow inmate.
8. The document was handed up. It is a thirty four page typed set of requests for
information and reasons (with an additional four pages of annexures) made inter
a/ia under the provisions of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act no 3 of
2000 ("PAJA") and the Promotion of Access to Information Act no 2 of 2000
("PA/A"). The request was made on the basis that a number of decisions and
actions were taken which it was contended adversely affect Porritt's rights. One
of the issues to which the request related concerned the "Unlawfully inadequate
provision of food/nutrition to detainees ". The others related to the detainees'
right to acquire food from outside the prison, issues around the prisoners shop
and the lack of washing powder.
9. The document was signed by Porritt placing an "X" as his signature and Bennett
recording that she witnessed this on 23 February 2026.
10. Bennett said that she in fact had typed it from the notes the inmate had supplied
and did a cut and paste of legal submissions made previously by, if I recall
Bennet correctly, attorneys Moss Morris, which would have been many years
back.
4
EVENTS OF 6 MARCH
11. On 2 March 2026 Moleki in writing claim that hot water is being provided and
further claimed that it was during the period 19 to 25 February that the boiler was
not working as the contractor had taken apart for repair. This was disputed by
Porritt in court on 6 March.
12. In regard to the medical reports; On 6 March party informed the court that he
believed that it was being sorted out by a person who I understood from him was
a top doctor at Correctional Services. Part gave an explanation which suggests
that the problem was with a duplication of file numbers for him and that the issue
lay between Baragwanath and Correctional Services
THE ISSUE
13. The accused contend that this court is in dereliction of its duty by not
investigating the conditions complained of and in failing to hold officials
responsible through court orders it should make. The thrust of the argument is
that the issues complained of affect the accused 's fair trial rights. It is also
contended that there exists an order granted in the Gauteng High Court sitting in
Johannesburg dealing with the provision of food which is being breached and this
court should also enforce that order.
CRIMINAL TRIAL COURT"S ORDINARY FUNCTION AND WAY FORWARD
14. This court has in the past sought to resolve issues and deal with the accused 's
complaints relating to both Correctional Services and the South African Police
Services . Indeed in the past this court held an enquiry with regard to the
transportation of the accused which included obtaining the opinion of a medical
practitioner at Baragwanath .
15. There is however a limit to what this court can or should do. It is concerned with
concluding a criminal trial that was first on the roll in about 2005 , where evidence
has been led before me since September 2016 and where the State case has still
not closed .
16. While issues of fair trial rights and the welfare of an accused before it must be of
concern to a presiding judge , there is a stage where it cannot be allowed to
swamp the proceedings . This will occur where there is no readily resoluble
solution.
5
17. Secondly the court must always be mindful that trying to find a solution does not
mean that it can determine how either Correctional Services or SAPS are to
exercise their powers and even if prima facie the way they have done so is
reviewable , the requirement of audi alteram requires a proper ventilation of the
issues motivated by a proper application. I repeat , this court is here to deal with a
criminal trial pursuant to charges laid some 20 years ago against both accused .
18. The accused's recourse is first to exhaust internal remedies , unless urgent
intervention is required, and even then , if there is a dispute or failure to remedy
the situation when a formal complaint has been lodged is to approach the
ordinary civil courts for relief. This court has done its best to resolve issues that
appear capable of easy resolution- as occurred when the nature of transport for
Porritt became a difficulty because of the medical assessment , from recollection ,
of his back.
19. There are additional factors which may also come into consideration which may
result in a broader enquiry which would delay the completion of this trial even
further. It is that in one of Moleka's responses of 2 March he claimed that Porritt
is deliberately uncooperative in order "to delay his ... (criminal trial) ... based on
complaints and demands that he always makes". Moleki alleges that on 25
February Porritt refused to attend his medical appointment at Baragwanath Chris
Hani Hospital, giving as his reason that he does not want to be cuffed. This
according to Moleki required him to instruct that Porritt be forcibly cuffed and
taken to the hospital "to honor his appointmenf '. Porritt disputes these
allegations.
taken to the hospital "to honor his appointmenf '. Porritt disputes these
allegations.
20. It is therefore clear that Porritt has set in motion steps under PAJA and PAIA to
deal with the food issue as a precursor, so it is stated by him, to litigation against
both the responsible Minister and Commissioner. There is a clear dispute and
this court is not going to conduct an opposed motion court hearing where there
already exists a dispute of fact; nor should this court be used to gather evidence
once that process has taken place .
6
21 . With regard to the issues raised by Porritt and not covered by the PAJA and PAIA
requests, one appears to be resolved or is in the process of resolution according
to Porritt and the other remain in dispute and therefore are not capable of a
speedy facilitated resolution.
22. There are no doubt other compelling reasons why a criminal trial court should not
ordinarily be used to ventilate complaints by accused standing trial against
officials and that there may be occasions where a court exercising its discretion
does attempt to facilitate a resolution. But it cannot allow itself to be sidetracked
from its function to try persons accused of crime by being expected to hear
complaints about prison conditions, whether interminably or otherwise.
23. There is another process available to the accused. In terms of Chapter X of the
Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 the Judicial Inspectorate through duly
appointed Independent Prison Visitors "shall deal with the complaints of
prisoners " in the manner provided for ins 93(1) and under s 93(5) is obliged to
report any unresolved complaint to the Visitors ' Committee and may, in cases of
urgency refer the complaint to the Inspecting Judge. Gauteng has a Visitors'
Committee responsible for Kgosi Mampuru II. The functions , duties and powers
of the Inspecting Judge includes dealing with complaints submitted inter alia by a
Visitors' Committee (s 90(2)). In dealing with complaints the Inspecting Judge
may make any enquiry and hold hearings (s 90(5)).
24. In terms of the Regulations promulgated under the Correctional Services Act the
custody of all inmates under conditions of human dignity concerns itself with
custody of all inmates under conditions of human dignity concerns itself with
twenty or so issues. Accommodation , nutrition and healthcare are included. They
cover the complaints the accused seek to raise before this court.
7
25. It is evident that the mechanism of Chapter X, aside from giving effect to the Bill
of Rights provisions in the Constitution also provides what the legislature
considers an effective means of addressing complaints by an independent and
impartia l body in an efficient way. It is unnecessary to decide whether this must
be considered to be an internal remedy which must be exhausted before
approaching the trial court hearing the detainees ' criminal case (whereas the civil
court may always be open to direct access). Suffice it that in the present case
that is pre-eminently to recourse available to the accused.
26. In terms of s 93(1) the process of investigation is triggered by a complaint made
by a prisone r to the Independent Prison Visitor and that person is obliged to
conduct regular visits.
27. Porritt complains that these processes are damp squibs and that he has tried to
use them. The court is not going to debate the point but will give an appropriate
direction to the Registrar.
DIRECTION TO REGISTRAR
28. The court issues the following direction to the Registrar:
The Registrar is directed to request the Independent Prison Visitor, through
the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services Tshwane Management
Area, that when next he or she makes a visit to Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional
Facility that Mr Gary Patrick Porritt be interviewed and that such complaints
as he makes be dealt with as envisaged under Chapter X of the Correctional
Services Act 111 of 1998.
SPILG,
DATES OF HEARING :
DATE OF ORDER
AND REASONS:
FOR THE ACCUSED:
FOR THE STATE :
2 and 6 March 2026
6 March 2026
In person
Adv. EM Coetzee SC
Adv. Y Newman
8