The Constitutional Court’s ruling that a policy by the department of correctional services banning computer access to inmates in prison cells is invalid, was mainly pinned on the importance of educational rights.
The landmark ruling delivered by justice Steven Majiedt on Wednesday is a blow to the justice and correctional department minister, as it triggers the drafting of new policy procedures on formal education programmes in prisons, which regulates the use of computers by inmates who have registered for studies.
The legal battle was initiated by prisoner Mbalenhle Sidney Ntuli, who is serving a 25-year sentence in a maximum-security prison and took the department to court after he was prohibited from using a computer in his prison cell for studying purposes.
The policy provides for prisoners to have access to computers in a central prison computer room.
Ntuli contended he spent many hours in his prison cell and the department’s policy prohibiting use of computers in cells was an infringement on his educational rights enshrined in the constitution.
The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Ntuli. The justice department’s appeal to the apex court was not successful.
Majiedt said the Constitutional Court, in the unanimous judgment, upheld the SCA ruling because the ban on the use of computers in cells was infringement on inmates’ educational rights.
He said the court’s ruling of the policy being invalid only concerned education rights, and no other use by prisoners.
“Incarceration does not take away or limit fundamental rights like education (including further education), dignity and access to reading material,” the judgment reads.
Majiedt said the department, in banning computers in cells for study purposes, went against its own policies.
“The blanket ban in respect of computers is contrary to the legislative scheme and the stated central purpose of the policy. More importantly, it is also inconsistent with the constitution,” he said.
“However, what must be made clear is that this finding is not to the effect that there is a positive obligation under section 29 (1) (b) of the constitution to allow prisoners to use personal computers in their cell.
“The holding instead is that the state must not, without justification, take measures that undermine or diminish the protection of the right to further education, and the blanket ban under the policy is such a measure.”
The court’s ruling comes with conditions for prisoners in that they will need show that the use of a laptop in their cell is reasonably required for purposes of further education.
The court showed that access to the computer rooms in prison was “wholly inadequate”.
Majiedt described the department’s argument that there was potential danger presented by the electrical cords of computers and laptops in the cells as a “bogeyman threat”.
“The applicant’s counsel was forced to retreat when confronted with the stark reality that there are several other utensils freely available in cells with such cords, like kettles, toasters and so forth.”
The invalidity of the policy ruling has been suspended for 12 months to allow the department to draft a revised policy for correctional centres relating to the use of computers for study purposes.
Pending the revision of the policy, the court ordered that registered inmates in need of a computer to support their studies were entitled to use their personal computer without use of a modem in their cell.
The computers are subject to inspection at any given time by prison officials.
The apex court also dismissed the argument by the department that the SCA, in granting an order declaring the policy invalid and setting it aside, overreached in its role under the constitution.
“The order is an intrusion by a court into the domain of the executive,” the department argued.
Majiedt said the argument was “ill-conceived”.
“Courts have a constitutional duty, as a check and balance on executive power, to determine the constitutional validity of any law or conduct. The applicant does not have unfettered power to implement policies that undermine the constitution.”
The minister of justice and correctional services and the correctional centres commissioner were ordered to pay the legal costs.
Update: April 30 2025
This story has been substantially updated
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.