Minister of Justice v Ntuli [2023] ZASCA 144: Prisoners permitted to have access to their personal computers in their cells to pursue further educational courses

Mr Ntuli, a prisoner who has been serving his 20 years sentence of imprisonment since July 2018, with the support of his family registered with the Oxbridge Academy to pursue a computer studies course. With a focus on data processing, Mr Ntuli requires the use of a computer to do so as a computer was both the object of the study as well as the means by which the study takes place. After receiving a response that his request to make use of his personal computer in his cell was not approved, he escalated the matter to the Regional Commissioner but received no better outcome. The Regional Commissioner provided that ‘due to security challenges of offenders utilizing computers and laptops for other activities except for study purposes at most Correctional Centres, the offender cannot be allowed to have the computer in his cell but will be afforded an opportunity to use the computer room for study purposes.’

Mr Ntuli went on further and brought proceedings in the Gauteng Division of the High Court to challenge the Policy Procedures Directorate Formal Education. The policy dictates under which circumstances computers should be used by prisoners. The policy was approved in 2007 by then Acting Commissioner. As far as the use of computers was concerned, the policy only permitted use in a room within the correctional centre and prohibited the use in any cell (communal and/or single). The policy only permitted the use only in a designated room at set times and under supervision.

The High Court found that the policy was an unjustified limitation of Mr Ntuli’s constitutional right to further education (s 29(1)(b) of the Constitution) and constituted unfair discrimination in terms of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (the Equality Act). The High Court further concluded that Mr Ntuli is entitled to make use of his personal computer, without a modem, for as long as he remains a registered student of a recognized tertiary institution in South Africa, subject to inspections at any time by prison staff.

The appellants challenged the order of the High Court and brought the matter on appeal. The order that was made on Equality was set aside as the presiding officer at the time had not been designated as an officer of the Equality Court and therefore did not have any power to entertain Mr Ntuli’s claim under the Equality Act- the order was to be set aside.
However, it was found that the outright prohibition of the policy that excludes prisoners from using a personal computer in his cell to study is an infringement of their right to pursue his further education and is thus an infringement of section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution. The court further provided that it does not hold that every course for further education requires that a prisoner must be allowed to make use of their personal computer in their cell. Such use will be indispensable for certain courses if the prisoner is to pursue their studies with diligent application. The court also does not hold that the State is under an obligation to provide prisoners with computers for use in their cells to further their education.

The appeal was partially upheld and the order of the court a quo set aside and replaced with an order declaring the Policy Procedure Directorate Formal Education invalid to the extent that it prohibits the use of personal computers in the cells.