09 March 2009

The CEO and Registrar

Health Professions Council of South Africa

Dear Adv Mkhize,

MEDICAL PAROLE: MR SCHABIR SHAIK

I warmly welcome your promise on radio this morning that the Health Professions Council of South Africa would, if it is asked to, investigate the medical professionals involved in the granting of medical parole to Mr Schabir Shaik. I would therefore like to make a formal request for such an investigation.

As you are aware, Mr Shaik was recently granted medical parole after serving two years and four months of a fifteen year sentence. This decision was taken by the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board of Durban-Westville Management Area of the Department of Correctional Services, on the advice of three medical practitioners.

You will also be aware that this decision invoked a great deal of controversy. Section 79 of the Correctional Services Act (Act 111 of 1998) reads in part as follows:

Any person serving any sentence in a prison and who, based on the written evidence of the medical practitioner treating that person, is diagnosed as being in the final phase of any terminal disease of condition, may be considered for placement under correctional supervision or parole....to die a consolatory and dignified death. [my emphasis]

In terms of the procedure followed by Parole Boards, the medical practitioner(s) must state both that the illness is terminal, and that the offender is in the final phase of that terminal disease or condition - in other words an assessment has to be made of life expectancy of the offender.

The controversy has been exacerbated by:

• the close ties between Mr Shaik and the President of the ANC, Mr Jacob Zuma, a person very likely to become the next President of South Africa;
• the statement by Mr Zuma that he would consider pardoning Mr Shaik if it was legally possible, only days before Mr Shaik's release on medical parole;
• the persistent refusal by the Minister of Correctional Services, Mr Ngconde Balfour, to refer the decision of the Parole Board to the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board, chaired by Mr Justice Siraj Desai;
• the statement by Professor DP Naidoo, the head of cardiology at Inkosi Albert Luthuli hospital and a former president of the SA Hypertension Society, that he had "personally" discharged Mr Shaik from hospital in November last year because he considered him well enough to return to prison.

I am sure that you will appreciate that, as a result of these factors, wide-spread scepticism has been expressed that Mr Shaik was indeed in the "final phase of any terminal disease or condition", as is required in terms of section 79 of the Act. This has the potential to undermine the public's confidence in the medical procedures followed in this case as well as the integrity of the medical profession as a whole.

Section 22 of the Ethical and Professional Rules of the Health Professions Council of South Africa stipulates that "a practitioner shall not permit himself or herself to be exploited in any manner". Should it emerge that the three medical practitioners involved in approving Mr Shaik's release had been influenced by any individuals to reach a decision based on non-medical criteria, then this may constitute exploitation in terms of the Rules. 

For this reason, I request that the Council conduct an investigation into the grounds advanced by the three medical practitioners to justify Mr Shaik's release on medical parole and to determine whether they acted in compliance with the Rules in doing so.

Yours sincerely

JAMES SELFE, MP
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES SPOKESPERSON
DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE

Statement issued by the Democratic Alliance March 9 2009