‘I have never lied'- Groenewald tells Parliament over 3 ‘vanished' juvenile offenders
He appeared before Parliament's Select Committee on Security and Justice to address concerns raised in a recent report.
DA MP Nicholas Gotsell accused Groenewald of being misled by officials and attempting to shift blame to the provincial Department of Social Development.
Correctional Services Minister Pieter Groenewald has insisted he did not mislead Parliament about the whereabouts of three violent juvenile offenders who vanished from the prison system.
Groenewald appeared before Parliament's Select Committee on Security and Justice on Tuesday morning, where the Department of Correctional Services briefed MPs on its response to the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) 2023/24 Annual Report.
However, under mounting pressure, Groenewald faced tough questions from MPs regarding the three juveniles who were meant to be transferred to Pollsmoor Prison in 2024 but were unaccounted for during a recent oversight visit.
DA MP Nicholas Gotsell has been leading the charge for answers.
'We reject the statement by minister Groenewald, who continues to deny his department's role in the disappearance of three convicted criminals from custody. It is clear the minister is being misled by officials desperate to cover up a shocking administrative failure that endangered public safety,' he said.
READ | Blame game erupts over 3 violent juvenile offenders who vanished from system
Gotsell added that Groenewald's attempt to shift blame to the provincial Department of Social Development was disingenuous.
'That department has no role in custodial decisions, warrants, or the implementation of court orders. Those responsibilities fall squarely on Correctional Services and the courts, as clearly set out in the court order,' he said.
During the briefing, Groenewald maintained that he had relied on information provided by departmental officials.
'I did say they are in Pollsmoor, and I said there that I am responding to the information I received from the officials. Yes, it appears they were not there, and I said I would investigate the matter. If this information was given to me, there would be consequences,' he said.
Groenewald said he welcomed accountability and scrutiny.
'I am open to criticism. I encourage members to come forward with problems in our facilities. I see honourable members as the public's eyes and ears.
I have never lied to Parliament. I never misled, and if people are going to use problems for a political agenda, then I won't play along.
The minister added that both the Horizon Youth Centre and the Western Cape MEC for Social Development, Jaco Londt, should also be called to account.
'I want to reiterate that the Horizon Centre for the Youth is part of this situation. I am willing to appear here, and we also need to get the MEC here. We should not blame the shift because it's a problem between Horizon, the police, and the correctional services.
'We have a responsibility to protect communities. Of course, it's totally unacceptable that you have dangerous offenders who slip through the system,' he told the committee.
Last week, News24 reported that three juvenile offenders - convicted of murder, rape, and robbery - had disappeared from the prison system. All three, who are turning 20 this year, committed their crimes while underage.
The first was convicted of rape and was facing two additional assault charges. The second was convicted of murder, and the third of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances.
READ | Thabo Bester's escape casts doubt on whether private prisons are superior, says Groenewald
They had been detained at the Horizon Child and Youth Care Centre in Eerste River between 2021 and 2024, sentenced under the Child Justice Act. After turning 18, they were supposed to appear in court for formal transfer into adult correctional facilities - but this never happened.
News24 understands that the circumstances of their release remain unclear. Two of the three have since been rearrested.
In 2023, the trio attacked four staff members at the juvenile facility, stabbing and assaulting them. Following the incident, the Western Cape Department of Social Development refused to continue housing them, and they were to be transferred to Pollsmoor Prison in July 2024.
However, during an oversight visit, Pollsmoor officials were unable to confirm their whereabouts.
At the time, the provincial Department of Social Development said the offenders were detained at Pollsmoor in terms of an interim high court order, and the department had no further knowledge of their detention or its management.
The department said the offenders have not been at Horizon since July last year.
It further said the high court order remained active, even when the awaiting trial matter related to the three individuals concluded in the magistrate's court. This means they were to continue being detained at Pollsmoor due to the continued risk they posed to the children and staff at Horizon.
The department communicated this to correctional services last month, explaining why it is important for individuals to continue being detained by correctional services as per the High Court order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Starmer backs ‘excellent' Reeves after Chancellor's tears in the Commons
Sir Keir Starmer said he did not appreciate how upset Rachel Reeves was in the Commons, because he was focused on answering Prime Minister's Questions. The Prime Minister said all people could be caught 'off guard' by their emotions, but the Chancellor had to deal with it while on camera in Parliament. He said she was doing an excellent job, would remain in place beyond the next general election, and that they were both absolutely committed to the Chancellor's 'fiscal rules' to maintain discipline over the public finances. UK Government bonds rallied and the pound steadied on Thursday, after reassurances from the Prime Minister about the Chancellor's future. The sight of her in tears on Wednesday, and the £5 billion black hole in her public spending plans as a result of the welfare U-turn, had spooked the markets, triggering a sharp sell-off of bonds, with the yield seeing the sharpest increase since US President Donald Trump's tariff plans shook up financial markets in April. Sir Keir told Virgin Radio he had spoken to the Chancellor on Wednesday evening and she was 'fine', and her tears were as a result of a 'purely personal' matter rather than the 'ups and downs of this week'. Ms Reeves was visibly upset as she sat beside Sir Keir in the Commons on Wednesday, but he said: 'I actually personally didn't appreciate it was happening in the Chamber, because I came in, I've got questions being fired at me in PMQs, so I'm constantly up at the despatch box and down. 'I think we just need to be clear, it's a personal matter, and I'm not going to breach Rachel's privacy by going into what's a personal matter for her.' He said that 'in politics, you're on show the whole time, there's no hiding place'. Ms Reeves was a 'great colleague, she's a friend of mine and I'll be working with her for a very long time to come'. 'But like all human beings, we're also personal. 'There are moments that catch us off guard and if you're in front of a camera for large periods of your life, unfortunately, that could be caught on camera in a way, if it had been anybody else at work, it would have not really been noticed.' The sight of the Chancellor in tears on the front bench and Sir Keir's initial lack of public support for her caused jitters about the Government's borrowing plans, as Ms Reeves' commitment to her rules to control spending are a key reassuring factor for the bond markets. Sir Keir said: 'She is an excellent Chancellor, she will be Chancellor for a very long time to come, into the next election and beyond it. 'She and I are absolutely committed to our fiscal rules and the economic stability that is so important to this country, and that is the rock on which we build everything else. 'On that issue, Rachel and I are in lockstep, and have been for years.'
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
New supply management law won't save the system from Trump, experts say
OTTAWA - A new law meant to protect supply management might not be enough to shield the system in trade talks with a Trump administration bent on eliminating it, trade experts say. 'It's certainly more difficult to strike a deal with the United States now with the passage of this bill that basically forces Canada to negotiate with one hand tied behind its back,' said William Pellerin, a trade lawyer and partner at the firm McMillan LLP. 'Now that we've removed the digital service tax, dairy and supply management is probably the number 1 trade irritant that we have with the United States. That remains very much unresolved.' When Trump briefly paused trade talks with Canada on June 27 over the digital services tax — shortly before Ottawa capitulated by dropping the tax — he zeroed in on Canada's system of supply management. In a social media post, Trump called Canada a 'very difficult country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products.' Canada can charge about 250 per cent tariffs on U.S. dairy imports over a set quota established by the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement. The International Dairy Foods Association, which represents the U.S. dairy industry, said in March the U.S. has never come close to reaching those quotas, though the association also said that's because of other barriers Canada has erected. When Bill C-202 passed through Parliament last month, Bloc Québécois MPs hailed it as a clear win protecting Quebec farmers from American trade demands. The Bloc's bill, which received royal assent on June 26, prevents the foreign affairs minister from making commitments in trade negotiations to either increase the tariff rate quota or reduce tariffs for imports over a set threshold. On its face, that rule would prevent Canadian trade negotiators from offering to drop the import barriers that shield dairy and egg producers in Canada from price shocks. But while the law appears to rule out using supply management as a bargaining chip in trade talks with the U.S., it doesn't completely constrain the government. Pellerin said that if Prime Minister Mark Carney is seeking a way around C-202, he might start by looking into conducting the trade talks personally, instead of leaving them to Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand. Carney dismissed the need for the new law during the recent election but vowed to keep supply management off the table in negotiations with the U.S. Pellerin said the government could also address the trade irritant by expanding the number of players who can access dairy quotas beyond 'processors.' '(C-202) doesn't expressly talk about changing or modifying who would be able to access the quota,' he said. Expanding access to quota, he said, would likely 'lead to companies like grocery stores being able to import U.S. cheeses, and that would probably please the United States to a significant degree.' Carleton University associate professor Philippe Lagassé, an expert on Parliament and the Crown, said the new law doesn't extend past something called the 'royal prerogative' — the ability of the executive branch of government to carry out certain actions in, for example, the conduct of foreign affairs. That suggests the government isn't constrained by the law, he said. 'I have doubts that the royal prerogative has been displaced by the law. There is no specific language binding the Crown and it would appear to run contrary to the wider intent of the (law that it modifies),' he said by email. 'That said, if the government believes that the law is binding, then it effectively is. As defenders of the bill insisted, it gives the government leverage in negotiation by giving the impression that Parliament has bound it on this issue.' He said a trade treaty requires enabling legislation, so a new bill could remove the supply management constraints. 'The bill adds an extra step and some constraints, but doesn't prevent supply management from eventually being removed or weakened,' he said. Trade lawyer Mark Warner, principal at MAAW Law, said Canada could simply dispense with the law through Parliament if it decides it needs to make concessions to, for example, preserve the auto industry. 'The argument for me that the government of Canada sits down with another country, particularly the United States, and says we can't negotiate that because Parliament has passed a bill — I have to tell you, I've never met an American trade official or lawyer who would take that seriously,' Warner said. 'My sense of this is it would just go through Parliament, unless you think other opposition parties would bring down the government over it.' While supply management has long been a target for U.S. trade negotiators, the idea of killing it has been a non-starter in Canadian politics for at least as long. Warner said any attempt to do away with it would be swiftly met with litigation, Charter challenges and provinces stepping up to fill a federal void. 'The real cost of that sort of thing is political, so if you try to take it away, people are screaming and they're blocking the highways and they are calling you names and the Bloc is blocking anything through Parliament — you pay a cost that way,' he said. But a compromise on supply management might not be that far-fetched. 'The system itself won't be dismantled. I don't think that's anywhere near happening in the coming years and even decades,' said Pellerin. 'But I think that there are changes that could be made, particularly through the trade agreements, including by way of kind of further quotas. Further reduction in the tariffs for outside quota amounts and also in terms of who can actually bring in product.' The United States trade representative raised specific concerns about supply management in the spring, citing quota rules established under the CUSMA trade pact that are not being applied as the U.S. expected and ongoing frustration with the pricing of certain types of milk products. Former Canadian diplomat Louise Blais said that if Canada were to 'respect the spirit' of CUSMA as the Americans understand it, the problem might actually solve itself. 'We jump to the conclusion that it's dismantlement or nothing else, but in fact there's a middle ground,' she said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 3, 2025.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
South Africa's political marriage of convenience avoids divorce
South Africa's two biggest political parties are in an unhappy marriage, but neither side wants to file divorce papers as it could damage them and, ultimately, their offspring - South African voters. But as the children of all toxic relationships know, it can be painful to watch the tantrums played out in public as each side tries to prove they are the better parent. The loveless union in this case is what is called the Government of National Unity (GNU) - which was formed in the wake of elections last year when the African National Congress (ANC), the party that brought in democratic rule in 1994 with Nelson Mandela, lost its parliamentary majority. Its arch rival, the pro-business Democratic Alliance (DA) party, agreed to join the ANC as its biggest partner in a coalition, which has just celebrated its first year anniversary. There was no popping of champagne - there have only been cross words. But the two leaders, President Cyril Ramaphosa of the ANC and John Steenhuisen of the DA, have shown how their partnership can ideally work when they supported each other in the Oval Office showdown with US President Donald Trump in May. After Trump confronted the delegation with a video in support of discredited claims of a white genocide in South Africa, it was Steenhuisen - the agriculture minister in Ramaphosa's cabinet - who assured the US president that the majority of white farmers wanted to stay in the country. Their performance proved to South Africans the GNU was worth the bickering at home. Together the unlikely pair hold the political middle ground in South Africa and have the potential to be a stabilising force - this is certainly the opinion of big business. Their alliance initially raised some eyebrows, given that that they were opposed "ideologically [and] historically", but the business community largely welcomed the move, political analyst Dr Levy Ndou told the BBC. For the DA it was a chance to get its hands on the levers of power - and stop what it regards as radical opposition parties like uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) forming a "Doomsday coalition" with the ANC. Both these parties are led by former ANC officials whom Ramaphosa would rather not cosy up to - plus it would make the cabinet even more of a battleground. Investors would also not be happy - and Ramaphosa would be left with more of a migraine than a headache. However, as any relationship counsellor will tell you, you cannot force someone to change their behaviour. "This GNU... does not mean that the ANC or DA will change their characters," said Dr Ndou, who is based at the Tshwane University of Technology in South Africa. "The ANC will always want to push the transformation agenda, the DA will always come with pushback strategies and... that will be a permanent source of conflict in the GNU." The latest crisis - over Ramaphosa's sacking of Andrew Whitfield, a deputy minister from the DA party - has really upset Steenhuisen, who held a press conference detailing his heartfelt complaints. These include Ramaphosa's decisions to push ahead with various bits of controversial legislation "that have far-reaching consequences for our economy and economic growth as has been seen by the reaction form some of South Africa's largest trading partners". This is a reference to the US's anger over the law that will give the state the power to expropriate some privately owned land without compensation for owners. "This was done without even the common courtesy of informing the fellow partners in the government of national unity about his intention to do so," said Steenhuisen. He also spoke about the budget crisis, when in March Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana proposed hiking VAT by 2%. The backlash - which included court action, led by the DA - forced him to scrap the proposal. It is not the only time the DA has taken legal action - playing the opposition card whilst being part of the GNU. Its opposition to the Expropriation Act is at odds with the fact that Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson - a member of the DA - has defended the legislation and will be in charge of implementing it. It points to divisions within the DA - with one wing led by Steenhuisen believing it is better to be in the tent, but another conservative faction angered by what it sees as the ANC's "hypocrisy". "In some cases, DA ministers have literally achieved more in 12 months than ANC ministers did in 30 years," Steenhuisen said. Yet, nodding to critics within the party, he came down hard on alleged cabinet corruption by ANC members: "The president's refusal to act against corruption within his own ranks, but singling out as a priority a DA minister risks confirming that his oft-repeated public commitment to clean governance is a sham." This meant, Steenhuisen said, that the DA would not back the budgets for departments led by those it considered corrupt, which includes higher education, led by Nobuhle Nkabane. She has been under fire for appointing ANC politicians to chair various vocational training boards - and for allegedly misleading parliament about their appointment. Ramaphosa had refused to comply with a DA ultimatum, after Whitfield's sacking, to remove her and others the party considers corrupt. Yet the president too has to deal with factions in his party - there are agitators, like his deputy, who would prefer the EFF. To some extent Ramaphosa has allowed the DA to continue playing a dual role - of opposition and GNU member - but at times he likes to make it clear who is boss. This is what happened over Whitfield's dismissal as deputy trade minister - sacked for taking an unsanctioned trip in February. When South Africa's relationship with the US had taken a nose-dive earlier in the year, Whitfield had travelled to the US as part of a DA delegation. He had repeatedly asked for permission to do so, but received no answer from the presidency. The 42-year-old is from the Eastern Cape province, the heart of South Africa's car industry which benefits from the US's African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa). This legislation guarantees duty-free access to American consumers for certain goods from Africa. Agoa - brought in 25 years ago by former US President Bill Clinton - is up for renewal this year but some fear this will not happen given Trump's tariff wars and a Republican-dominated Congress. Whitfield went to the US as part of the DA delegation to lobby for South Africa to stay in Agoa, which also benefits Steenhuisen's agricultural portfolio. For Steenhuisen, the ANC's alleged lack of collaboration has meant a failure to create jobs and the GNU stalling on its economic growth targets. Political analyst Sandile Swana believes that Ramaphosa and the ANC may be dissatisfied by some of the DA's dramatic antics - with court action and ultimatums - but are reluctant to split ways completely. He blames a lack of self confidence, telling the BBC: "The current ANC has a big inferiority complex and they are dependent on big business and the DA." Dr Ndou also suggests Ramaphosa may be playing it diplomatically, not wanting to be the side to initiate a divorce because the ANC would not want "everyone to say they have kicked the DA out of government." Both parties would likely be punished by voters if this was the case. "There is no way that the DA would easily take a decision to pull out of the GNU. It is in the interest of the DA, as a party, and those who are appointed as ministers [to stay]," the academic said. Mr Swana believes the coalition government as a whole "is a marketing platform" for all parties, which are using it to campaign ahead of next year's local government elections. And the DA did make it clear at the weekend that there would not be a big bang announcement of them quitting the GNU, but Steenhuisen cautioned that the party's executive had considered launching a motion of no confidence in the president in parliament - and might do so in the future. "It is clear that the DA is in the process of losing confidence in the president's ability to act as a leader not only of the ANC, but of the GNU of which we are the second largest component," Steenhuisen said. Ramaphosa was clearly rattled over the weekend - South Africa's TimeLive news site reported he cancelled an official trip to Spain at the last minute as he awaited the DA's decision on the future of the GNU. Steenhuisen's speech did reveal what seems to be a real communication breakdown in the coalition - with the DA leader blaming Ramaphosa for failing to bring the GNU party leaders together to iron things out after a crisis. "Similarly a proposed breakaway for the cabinet to deal with how we interact with each other and resolve disputes that will inevitably arise in a government made up of 10 political parties, a year later nothing has happened," he said. "No breakaway, no dialogue and no mechanisms internally to determine how we deal with disputes between each other when they arise." A marriage counsellor would surely suggest they stop squabbling and sit down and talk frankly - without the megaphone politics. South Africa in 'uncharted waters' as budget splits coalition government Unpacking the South African land law that so inflames Trump How Ramaphosa might gain from US showdown Ramaphosa fires stinging rebuke at coalition partner Is South Africa's coalition government about to fall apart? Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica Focus on Africa This Is Africa
