Is a policy prohibiting the use of a personal computer for study purposes in a prison cell a violation of section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution?

Thank you for reading Law Topics, a weekly series in which we present diverse legal-related articles.

Visit www.bouwer.biz to learn more about the areas in which we can assist you.

Section 29 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to basic education, basic adult education and further education, which the State has to make readily available and accessible through reasonable means. The Constitution does not, however, dictate the specific measures to be put in place to ensure the realisation of this right.

In the matter of the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and others v Ntuli (539/2022) [2023] ZASCA 146, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had to decide whether the Policy Procedures Directorate on Formal Education, which prohibited prisoners from using personal computers in their prison cells, violates the right to education as encompassed in the Constitution.

What gave rise to the above matter is that Mr Ntuli, the prisoner, was registered for a data processing course which required the use of a computer for the most part. The prison facility in which Mr Ntuli was incarcerated provided computers for use by students but these could only be accessed during specific time frames. Mr Ntuli was of the view that since he spent the majority of his day in his cell, he should be allowed to have a personal computer in his cell in order to study. His request for the use of a personal computer was denied on the basis that the education policy expressly prohibits computers in prison cells. Mr Ntuli subsequently approached the High Court for relief, that ruled in his favour. The High Court permitted Mr Ntuli to use his personal computer in his cell and the declared that the policy was an unjustified limitation of Mr Ntuli's rights.

The Minister of Justice, the Commissioner of Correctional Services and others took the matter on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) raising issues of security, amongst others, explaining that if prisoners were allowed personal computers in their prison cells, it would increase the statistics of cellular telephones being smuggled into the correctional facility which poses a higher security risk to the facility. The Appeal Court found this argument to be untenable, stating that the Appellants had used a blanket approach to the matter and had failed to prove how, this case in particular, would pose the alleged risk to security.

The SCA declared the educational policy invalid and inconsistent with the Constitution as it violates section 29(1) thereof, and ordered that Mr Ntuli be permitted to use a personal computer in his cell for study purposes.