HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 2025/120498
In the matter between:
ALBERT MANT JIE Applicant
and
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES First Respondent
THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES
THE CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION ANO
PAROLE BOARD GAUTENG , PRETORIA
REASONS FOR ORDER
LUKHAIMANE AJ
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
[11 This is an application brought by A Mantjie, the applicant against several
respondents, including the Minister of Correctional Services, the second
respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Minister) seeking the following order:
2
"1.1 The flrst and Second Respondents decision taken on the 22 November
2024 to refuse me parole is to be reviewed and set aside and the parole
to be granted in my favour, with condition that, I continue to attend all the
outstanding or required programs while outside and the respondents are
to ensure, that, these programs are made available to me.
1.2 The respondents to pay the costs of this Application on Attorney and
Client scale. "1
The application is opposed by the .Minister.
[2] The applicant was one of four individuals who committed aggravated robbery and
murder of a victim that some of them worked for. They were sentenced on 15
October 2004 and the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and
15 (fifteen) years for aggravated robbery, the latter to run concurrently with the life
sentence . The applicant has been in prison for over 20 (twenty) years now. He has
been eligible for parole since 2016. During his imprisonment , he has attended all
rehabilitation programmes and assessments according to his sentence plan, some
more than once.
[3] He was first considered for parole which was denied in October 2021. He was given
18 (eighteen) months further profile, wherein he was required to attend the
programmes and assessment listed in the further profile. The applicant attended
parole consideration for the second time and was denied parole and given further
profile of 12 (twelve) months to attend these assessments and was denied parole
and required to repeat same assessments and programmes. The Correctional
Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB) recommended that he be placed on parole
after receiving recommendations from the Case Management Committee (CMC).
The first respondent , National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS)
recommended that the applicant undergo certain profile and assessments, adding
that "Compliance with the above will not guarantee the offender placement on
1 Notice of Motion Caselines 001-17 to 18
3
parole'12. The Minister agreed with the recommendation of the NCCS not to grant
parole, stating as follows3:
a) "The offender's level of risk of offending falls within the moderate
to high range. He lacks remorse for the crimes committed and he
minimises his role which increases his risk.
b) He committed violent crimes and it is reported that he started at
seventeen years to engage in violent criminal activities.
c) It is reported that he started drinking at seventeen and they were
drinking with his friends on the eve of the commission of the
crime."
[4] He further made recommendations on his further profile as captured by the NCCS.
(5) The respondents oppose the relief sought. They submit that the Minister's decision
to refuse the applicant parole was procedurally fair, lawful, reasonable and
rationally connected to the purpose and prescripts of the empowering legislation.
[6] At the outset, it is so that parole is not a right but a privilege. Section 33 of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 (the Constitution)
guarantees everyone the right to just administrative action, which is procedurally
fair, lawful and reasonable. The Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 (the Act) is
the governing legislation that regulates parole, correctional supervision and
release mechanisms for offenders. The Act further promotes rehabilitation and
integration, protects the rights of prisoners while maintaining safety, security and
discipline of inmates.
{7] The CSPB is an independent body, established under the Act, responsible for
deciding on a prisoner's placement on parole, correctional supervision, or medical
parole; setting conditions for release aimed at offender reintegration into society.
2 Recommendation signed off on 15 October 2024
3 Letter dated 07 May 2025 recording the Reasons for the Decision on Offender
4
[8] The NCCS is the statutory body established in terms of the Act to advice the
Minister on matters relating to correctional policy, sentencing, and parole, ensuring
a humane system through policy advice, review and quality assurance.
[9] The Minister is the executive authority appointed in terms of the Act, with the
responsibility to manage and oversee the Department of Correctional Services
(DCS) and to make final decisions regarding parole for inmates serving life
sentences. Section 78(1) of the Act reads as follows:
"Having considered the record of proceedings of the Correctional Supervision
and Parole Board and its recommendations in the case of a person sentenced
to life incarceration, the National Council may subject to the provisions of
section 73(6)(b)(iv); recommend to the Minister to grant parole or day parole
and to prescribe the conditions of community corrections in terms of section
52."
[1 OJ The Minister must take into consideration all the reports, considerations and
recommendations by all relevant bodies, including the medical experts. It is the
respondents' case that the Minister considered all the information in the applicant's
profile, the respective reports from professionals and the recommendations by the
relevant bodies. The respondents further submit that the applicant was duly
informed of the reasons for the decision.
[11] The court may only intervene and set aside the administrative decision by the
Minister, if such a decision warrants a review in terms of section 6 of the Promotion
of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA).
[12) Section 6(2){h) of PAJA provides for administrative action to be reviewable
where the exercise of power is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could
have exercised such power. Reasonableness includes the elements of rationality
5
and proportionality' . Rationality requires a rational connection between the
purpose of power and the information supported by facts before the decision
maker. The decision taken must be objectively capable of furthering the purpose
for which the power was given and for which the decision was purportedly taken,
and it must be supported by the evidence and information before the administrator
as well as the reasons given for it. The provision for a review is if the action is not
rationally connected to the reasons given for it by the administrator or the
information before the administrator5.
[1 3] The Minister when taking a decision is expected to consider all the relevant
information placed before him. What is difficult in this instance is that in justifying
the Minister's decision and attempting to show that he relied on various reports and
not just one comment in one of the reports to reach his decision, the respondents'
also relied on a Clinical Psychologist report from 2020; a report that was
considered in 2021 during the applicant's very first parole application; before he
underwent further assessments as recommended6.
[1 4] What further complicates the issue is that the report that indicates that the
applicant poses a moderate to high risk as per the Minister's reasons for the
decision, recommends that the decision-maker considers all other reports in
making the decision. In addition, whilst this level of risk is noted, the report includes
both risk increasing factors and risk decreasing factors, with the former being made
up of aspects of past actions that the applicant cannot change and the latter being
made up of current and future aspects that the applicant may continuously improve
on 7. The respondents admit that the Minister relied on grounds extracted from the
report of a professional8. Whilst the respondents seek to portray that the Minister
considered all the reports holistically, this is not borne by the reasons and the
communication to the applicant.
communication to the applicant.
4 Ndlov u v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (2025/ 1679) (2025} ZAGPJHC 427 29 April
2025
s Section 6(2)(f)(il) of PAJA
6 Caselines 009 154 to 009 - 169
7 Caselines 009· 144 to 145
8 Paragraph 16 of the Answering Affidavit to the Supplementary Support ing Affidavit Caselines 39 - 20
6
[15] It is not necessary to traverse in detail the issue of audi alteram partem as far
as the applicant contends that before the decision was taken, he was entitled to be
heard, as in terms of the process, the Minister adhered to the legislated framework in
taking the decision. Therefore, the Minister's decision cannot be said to be
procedurally unfair. The lawfulness of the decision is however suspect as it cannot
be rationally connected to the reasons provided nor the evidence it is based on.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
(16] This matter was dealt with in the Constitutional Court judgment of Phaahla v
Minister of Justice and Correctional SeNices and Another9. Paragraph 7 of the
judgment states as follows:
"From 1 March 1994 until 1 October 2004, inmates seNing life sentences were
required to seNe a minimum period of 20 years in prison before they became
eligible for parole. However, in tenns of section 22A of the 1959 Prisons Act,
introduced by an amendment in 1993, inmates could eam credits for good
behaviour. Thes credits translated into days seNed, with the effect that the date
for consideration for parole for those inmates was moved earlier. The effect of
this was that inmates sentenced to life incarceration between 1 March 1994
and 1 October 2004 became eligible for parole after having seNed a minimum
period of 13 years and four months of their life sentence. u
(17] The applicant falls under the Phaahla judgment.
[18] The criteria used to decide whether a prisoner should be placed on parole are
provided for in Chapter Vl(1A)(19) of the CSPB Manual. The introduction states as
follows:
u(i) The criteria for selection for placement on parole is not meant to be used
as the ultimate model. It should rather be seen as a predisposition
according to which the Parole Board may seNe the interests of the
9 (CCT44/18) [2019} ZACC18; 2019 (2) SACR 88 (CC); 2019 (7) BCLR 795 (CC) (3 May 2019) (Phoohla)
7
community on the one hand and those of the prisoner on the other hand
to the best of their ability and in a responsible manner.
(ii) Thus, the primary issue is that it should be attempted to evaluate
prisoners fairly and justly for parole, to submit well-considered
recommendations and to effectuate the highest possible fonn of
professionalism. n
(19] The policy is quite clear that such evaluation must be done fairly and justly.
(20] Section 73(5) states as follows:
u(5)(a) A sentenced offender may be placed under correctional supervision, on
the day parole, parole or medical parole -
(i) On a date detennined by the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board;
or
(ii) In the case of an offender sentenced to life incarceration, on a date to
be detennined by the Minister.
(b) Such placement is subject to the provisions of Chapter JV and such
offender accepting the conditions for placement."
[21] For prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment , section 75(1)(c) gives the CSPB's
power to make recommendations to the Minister on the granting of parole. This
must be read together with section 78 which reads as follows:-
u(1) Having considered the record of proceedings of the Correctional
Supervision and Parole Board and its recommendations in the case of a
prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment, the court may, subject to the
provisions of section 73(6)(b)(iv), grant parole or day parole or prescribe
the conditions of community corrections in terms of section 52.
(2) If the court refuses to grant parole or day parole in tenns of subsection
(1 ), it may make recommendations in respect of treatment, development
and support of the prisoner which may contribute to improving the
likelihood of future placement on parole or day parole.
8
(3) Where the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board acting in terms of
section 73 recommends, in the case of a person sentenced to life
imprisonment, that parole or day parole be withdrawn or that the
conditions of community corrections imposed on such a person be
amended, the court must consider and make a decision upon the
recommendation.
(4) Where the court refuses or withdraws parole or day parole the matter
must be reconsidered by the court within two years."
[22] In his answering affidavit, the Minister set out his reasons for refusing the
applicant's parole.
RATIONALITY
[23] The applicant contends that the Minister's decision must be reviewed and set
aside as irrational, unlawful and arbitrary in terms of PAJA and the Constitution.
The applicant further states that the decision is not in line with any of the objective
material evidence that is contained in his parole file. The applicant further states
that he is expected to repeat the same programs that he has already completed.
The applicant stated as follows:
EVALUATION OF THE MINISTER'S DECISION
[24] The Minister states that he considered all the information in the applicant's
profile, the reports from various professionals as well as the recommendations of
the CSPB and NCCS.
[25] From the evidence, the Miniter based his decision on one report, that of the
Clinical Psychologist dated 11 March 202410. Even then, he considered a small
part of it.
io Caselines 007-33
9
[26] The applicant on the other hand seeks to rely on the Walus judgment 11 which
dealt with the crime committed :
"82. One can put what I have said in the preceding paragraph in a different
way. That is that, if more than 26 years after the applicant was sentenced
for the crime he committed, it was appropriate for the Minister not to
release the applicant n parole in 2020 because of the nature of the crime,
the seriousness thereof and the Court's sentencing remarks, why would
it be appropriate for the Minister to release him one or two or three or
five years thereafter? These three factors are immutable. They will not
change one or two or three or five years later. This the Minister has not
explained. notwithstanding the fact that it cried out for an explanation
because the applicant clearly put it in issue. Therefore, this Court must
vitiate the Minister's decision. If it were not to do so, it would be
appropriate for the Minister to deny the applicant parole even when he
may have served 30 or 35 or even 40 years of imprisonment. That,
simply on the basis of the nature of the crime, the seriousness thereof
and the trial Court's and Supreme Court of Appeal's sentencing remarks
despite the fact that the applicant has complied with all other
requirements for him to be placed on parole which the Minister
concedes. The Minister's decision is not rationally connected to the
purpose of the power conferred upon him. His decision is, therefore,
irrational and it falls to be reviewed and set aside. n
[27) Having regard to the Minister's Answering Affidavit , he relied on the one report
of the clinical psychologist , Dr Senwamadi 12, even then , sections thereof13 and not
the totality of the report in context14. The Minister denied the applicant parole based
on parts of one report in circumstances where the author of the report appeals to
the decision-maker to read the report together with all other reports. The Minister's
the decision-maker to read the report together with all other reports. The Minister's
communication to the applicant on the outcome of his parole application attests to
u Walus v Minister of Justice and Correctlonal Services and Others (CCT 221/21) (2022] ZACC 39; 2023(2) BCLR
224 (CC)
u Department of Correctional Services: Psychologist Services Report on Mantj ie A by Senwamadi JRMJ
13 CaseUnes 007-33
14 Answering Affidavit Paragraphs 20,22 and 23
10
this as there are no other reasons provided except that he "may present moderate
to high risk for offending". The other reports from the Unit Manager. Workshop
trainer, Spiritual caregiver, CMC and CSPB recommendation were recommending
day parole for gradual integration into the community and parole. These reports
dealt with aspects such as the risk of reoffending, poor insight into the crime,
propensity for violence, substance abuse issues and discipline, amongst others. It
is not necessary for this court to go into detail as to the content of these other
reports as the court's consideration relates to the failure of the Minister to consider
all the other reports and will not replace the decision with its own.
(28] However, if consideration is had to the Minister's letter, the Minister provided a
reason based on one aspect of a report. The Minister's decision as communicated is
not supported by facts and expert evidence. He relied on a section in one report and
failed to consider the applicant's situation with reference to all reports. During
argument and in the papers. the Minister sought to add other reasons, however, these
were based on reports considered in earlier parole considerations before the applicant
underwent further profile and assessment and did not feature in his latest reports and
assessment.
[29] The Minister then recommended that the applicant must attend the intervention
programmes under paragraph 2, which interventions would be a repeat of
interventions already successfully completed. 1t is not clear what purpose these would
serve, and therefore the expectation appears to be irrational. The Constitutional Court
has indicated as quoted above that where there is no basis to deny placement of an
offender on parole, the decision is irrational.
[30) Rationality is defined as follows:
"This means in essence that a decision must be supported by the evidence and
information before the administrator as well as the reasons given for it. It must
information before the administrator as well as the reasons given for it. It must
also be objectively capable of furthering the purpose for which the power was
given and for which the decision was purportedly taken. The question to be
asked is the following: 'Is there a rational basis justifying the conclusion made
11
by the administrative decision-maker between the material property available
to him and the conclusion he or he eventually arrived at?"'15
{31] Whether or not a decision is rationally related to the purpose for which the
power was given, calls for an objective enquiry. I cannot, on the reasons stated,
confidently state that the Minister has no intention of placing the applicant on parole,
hence the hesitancy to replace the Minsiter's decision with my own and rather to refer
the matter back to the Minister for consideration and whatever decision is taken,
provide the applicant with adequate reasons that will be based on the evidence.
Whereas in terms of PAJA, the court is empowered to make an order not to remit this
matter to the Minister, I have considered this and decided that there are no exceptional
circumstances which would justify the court taking the decision not to remit the matter
back to the Minister, for him to properly consider all the reports and information at hand
to make an informed, rational decision.
[32] The Minister is required to consider the parole of the applicant expeditiously
and must be fair and just in doing so.
(33] In the result, I made the following order:
Order:
1. The late filing of the respondent's opposing papers is hereby condoned;
2. The decision of the first and second respondents taken on 22 November 2024,
refusing to approve the release of Albert Mantjie on parole, s hereby reviewed
and set aside;
3.
4.
The matter is remitted to the first and second respondents for reconsideration,
and decision to be made within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order.
The respondents shall jointly and severally pay the costs of Ith is application on
party-party Scale B, with the one paying the other to be abso ed.
15 Hoexter : Admlnistra ti11e Law in South Africa, 2nd Edition, page 340
Date of Hearing: 20 April 2026
Reasons provided: 11 May 2026
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant
Counsel for the Respondents
Pretoria
MA tUKHAIMANE
Acting Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
: ME Makgopa Attorneys
12
: Adv MC Letsoalo, instructed by the State Attorney,