A murder convict serving a life sentence who was denied use of a laptop in his cell for studying, despite a 2023 Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) decision that allowed prisoners to do so, has successfully challenged the department of justice & correctional services.
A high court judge has agreed that Clinton Kramer’s education rights were infringed when the department refused him use of his laptop on the grounds that it had appealed against the SCA ruling. The appeal is no basis to infringe his and others’ education rights, the judge ruled.
In 2012, Kramer was convicted for the 2006 murder of two women, after having being imprisoned as part of the “blue lights gang” in the early 1990s. He was sentenced to life.
In 2023, the SCA dealt with another Johannesburg inmate, Mbalenhle Ntuli, who was taking online courses. Ntuli was denied use of a laptop in his cell because department regulations forbid it.
However, Ntuli successfully challenged the regulations and his argument was upheld by the SCA in November 2023. In a unanimous judgment, the SCA called the policy unnecessarily restrictive and an infringement on his right to education.
Acting appeal judge David Unterhalter said there was no dispute from the government that prisoners had the right to education. “Encouraging prisoners to follow a course of formal education,” said Unterhalter, “is not only a good in itself, but enhances the capabilities of prisoners and their life chances upon release.”
It also is a better use of prison time and “may serve the broader aim of rehabilitation”.
The department argued that restricting laptop use in the cells is reasonable and necessary for security reasons.
But Unterhalter rejected this, saying the risks of laptops in cells are manageable.
The SCA ordered that the authorities change the policy within 12 months. In the meantime, Ntuli and other prisoners like him were allowed to use their own laptops in their cells.
However, weeks after the SCA decision, the department filed leave to appeal at the Constitutional Court. When such an application is filed, that judgment is suspended. This meant the SCA’s ruling giving prisoners the right to use laptops in cells was suspended and when Kramer sought to use his laptop in his cell, the department refused.
While the SCA decision affected all prisoners, including Kramer, he had to go to the high court to challenge the department. This means the high court ruling applies only to prisoners in Gauteng.
In December 2023, Kramer and another prisoner argued before acting Johannesburg high court judge Alex Pullinger that his and other Gauteng prisoners’ education rights were being infringed.
The Constitutional Court has not yet ruled on whether it will allow the department to appeal against the SCA decision, nor has it given a date. This leaves Kramer and other prisoners in the dark. But, throughout this time, Kramer argued, prisoners’ education rights would be infringed.
He argued these are “exceptional circumstances”, which warrant a court “enforcing” a currently suspended judgment.
Pullinger agreed. “The [SCA] was acutely aware that there was an ongoing infringement of fundamental rights,” he wrote last week, “that had to be [suspended], pending the preparation and promulgation of a revised policy that permits the use of personal computers in cells for study purposes.”
He noted that the government “is standing in the way of the full enjoyment of [these prisoners’] constitutional rights”. They suffer “a loss of time or opportunity to study and further academic pursuits”, which he said “can never be undone”.
Meanwhile, “there is no answer” from the government “as to how [allowing laptops in cells] may occasion irreparable harm to [the state]”.
The appeal is still pending. He also noted “the grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought are unknown”.
He therefore allowed Kramer and other Gauteng prisoners’ to use their laptops while the appeal was pending. The government was ordered to pay Kramer’s legal costs.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.