Labour Court sets aside reinstatement of three correctional officers over falsified parole visits

The Labour Court in Johannesburg has set aside a settlement that reinstated three Department of Correctional Services employees who were dismissed after an internal probe found they had falsified parolee supervision records. Acting Judge Snyman found the settlement was unlawfully concluded and ordered that the unfair dismissal disputes be returned to arbitration for a fresh hearing.

Who the case involves

The matter concerns three employees identified as M.E. Kgowe, A.W. Zwane and I.O. Banda, who were dismissed in February 2024 following an internal investigation at the Krugersdorp Community Corrections Office. The department said investigators uncovered evidence that the officials had recorded supervision visits that never took place, creating the false impression that parolees had been monitored.

How the settlement unfolded

After disciplinary hearings and the rejection of internal appeals, the employees referred unfair dismissal disputes to the General Public Service Sector Bargaining Council. Before arbitration proceeded, a senior departmental official sought authority to settle the cases, saying there was insufficient evidence to defend the dismissals. A settlement agreement was concluded in March 2025 providing for reinstatement from May 2025, full back pay dating to the dismissals, and withdrawal of the disputes. The agreement was later made an arbitration award and the employees received substantial back-pay payments during 2025.

Departmental review and legal challenge

The settlement attracted scrutiny from the Departmental Investigation Unit, which raised concerns after internal memoranda indicated the official who recommended the settlement had not consulted investigators or witnesses and had incorrectly asserted an absence of evidence. Legal advice obtained by the department found the settlement was vulnerable to review because mandatory internal approval processes, including consultation with the finance division under the department’s delegation framework, were not followed prior to signing.

Court ruling and reasoning

Acting Judge Snyman ruled in favour of the Department of Correctional Services after it launched an urgent self-review application to challenge its own decision to settle. The court concluded the settlement agreement had been concluded unlawfully because the authorising official failed to comply with mandatory delegated authority requirements before entering into the agreement.

“Self-review applications have become increasingly common,”

the judge said, and emphasised that

“organs of state have a constitutional duty to correct unlawful decisions taken by their own officials.”

The judge rejected arguments that the defect could be cured by later ratification or the parties’ subsequent conduct, holding that the prescribed approval processes had to be complied with before the agreement was concluded.

Outcome and next steps

Rather than finally determining the employees’ dismissal disputes, the court set the settlement agreement and the arbitration award based on it aside. Judge Snyman directed that the unfair dismissal disputes be remitted to the bargaining council for fresh arbitration before a different arbitrator on an expedited basis.

On the question of the money already paid to the employees, the court declined to order immediate repayment. It left recovery to the department’s own channels or for consideration by the future arbitrator when determining any final relief.

On urgency and public interest

The employees and their union, the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU), argued the department had delayed too long before bringing the review application. The court acknowledged shortcomings in the department’s explanation for parts of the delay but held the matter warranted urgent hearing because it involved the continued exercise of allegedly unlawful public power, ongoing expenditure of public funds and broader considerations of legality and the public interest.