A PROMISSING PERSPECTIVE FOR PRISONS IN AFRICA:
A More Community-based Correctional System

INTRODUCTION
The perspective emerged out of empirical materials collected in the Democratic Republic of Congo(N. Masamba Sita, 1989); the UNAFRI and the Uganda Prisons Service (UPS) joint project on Social
Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Prisoners in their Communities of origin or choice; and from anumber of United Nation Instruments. It explores the prospects of getting, whenever possible, local
communitiesʼ members eﬀectively involved in the Criminal Justice System (CJS) process, at the Pretrial, Trial and Post-trial levels. The ultimate aim of this perspective is to reduce overcrowding inprisons.
It goes beyond the CJS in exploring the downstream of the CJS, in view of getting the inmates
and their local communities be prepared for reunification. This facilitates their effective social
rehabilitation and reintegration. The inmate, the social worker or probation officer, members ofcommunities (relatives, neighbours, friends and others), have been identiﬁed as key stakeholders. And
to be eﬀective, the process requires a shift from the strictly punitive, retributive logic of the penal
style to compensatory/conciliatory styles of social control described by A. V. Horwitz (1990:22).
The presentation clariﬁes the concept of Local communities (Section 1), examines brieﬂy somestyles of social control (Section 2), proposes a reference framework (Section 3), and in using empiricalmaterial, it reveals the types of (human, material, socio-cultural, ﬁnancial, etc.) resources available
within local communities; or of contribution the members of the concerned local communities oﬀer or
may oﬀer for the CJS to achieve its mission: the eﬀective social rehabilitation and reintegration of
the law breakers (Section 4). Due to its exclusive focus on a retributive justice, the CJS is unable toget access to the above resources, which pave way to restorative outcomes. The same explains thefailure of alternatives measures.

SECTION 1: LOCAL COMMUNITIESThe concept Local Communities or communities in general is referred to as a micro-sociologic level concept, that helps get access to local available (human, material, socio-cultural, ﬁnancial)resources. It involves, as key social actors, relatives (of the offender and the victim), neighbours,
friends, local authorities and other members sometimes diﬃcult to categorise, but quite relevant in thehealing process of the community.

245

DIAGRAM 1: SOCIAL STRUCTURES WITHIN LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Relatives
Friends

Local
Authorities

Neighbours

Among others, the following has been observed:••••

When there is a problem, the quality and the nature of the existing relationship will determine
the way the problem will be handled.
In case of good relationship, the involved actors will often opt for a restorative outcome,through a restorative process.
Restorative process is mainly about compensation and/or reconciliation.
Local community members contribute to the process, whose outcome is not only the
successful handling of a problem out of the CJS; but also the successful social rehabilitation andreintegration of former prisoners in their communities of origin or choice for the cases thathave gone through the CJS. On release of an oﬀender, members of the community are kin tofacilitate his/her social rehabilitation and reintegration (mainly when well prepared by a social
worker or a probation oﬃcer).

The concept is in use in some International Instruments such as the Basic Principles on the use of
Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters (ECOSOC Resolution 2002/12, annex). Principle 20 of
the Resolution posits:“Member States should consider the formulation of national strategies and policies aimed at thedevelopment of restorative justice and the promotion of a culture favourable to the use of restorative
justice among law enforcement judicial and social authorities, as well as local communities”.
These Instruments recognise the important role communities have to play for effective crime
prevention. Paragraph 16 of the ECOSOC Resolution 2002/13, annex on Guidelines for the Prevention of
Crime posits:“In some of the areas listed below, Governments bear the primary responsibility. However, the active
participation of communities and other segments of civil society is an essential part of effective crime
prevention. Communities, in particular, should play an important part in identifying crime prevention
priorities, in implementation and evaluation, and in helping to identify a sustainable resource base”
Our opinion is that the important part played or to be played by local communities, is nottaken into consideration by policymakers and traditional stakeholders. Practices observed within
local communities reveal that provisions of a number of international instruments are effectively
implemented, unfortunately not reported as they do not necessary take place within the Criminal
Justice System (CJS). These practices eﬀectively contribute to the achievement of the mission of CJS:
1This modality of justice is often wrongly referred to as informal, but in the context of those who refer to it as arecognized way of resolving local conﬂicts in their communities, it is a legitimate option for dispute resolution.

246

the successful social rehabilitation and reintegration of oﬀenders.
Reference to public should be understood as communitiesʼ involvement. Rule 17.1 of Tokyo Rules
stipulates that:“Public participation should be encouraged as it is a major resource and one of the most importantfactors in improving ties between offenders undergoing non-custodial measures and the family and thecommunity. It should complement the efforts of the criminal justice administration”.
Therefore, the evaluation of such practices should be seriously envisaged and the training
curriculum of correctional officers in particular and of the CJS officials in general, should refer tosuch innovations for a more community-based Criminal Justice System, as realistic and needed penal
reform in particular in Africa whereby local communities members informally 1 contribute to the
CJS measures. This should facilitate to get the CJS aligned to the observed practices in the local
communities as stipulated in a number of international instruments.

SECTION 2: STYLES OF SOCIAL CONTROL
It has been observed that to solve a conﬂict, and depending on the quality and nature of the existing
relationship (relatives, neighbours, friends, etc.), members of a given local community often look at
a restorative outcome. This leads us to the Compensatory and Conciliatory Styles of Social Control of
Horwitz.
TABLE 1: ELEMENTS OF MAJOR STYLES OF SOCIAL CONTROL (A .V. HORWITZ: 1990:22)
STYLE
ELEMENTPENALCOMPENSATORYCONCILIATORYTHERAPEUTIC

1 HARMVALUE

MATERIAL

RELATIONALPERSONALITY

2 LIABILITYINDIVIDUAL

GROUPSHAREDNONE

3 GOALRETRIBUTION

SETTLEMENTRECONCILIATIONNORMALITY

4 SOLUTIONPUNISHMENTPAYMENTNEGOTIATIONTREATMENT

Under compensatory and conciliatory styles of social control, the liability is respectively on thegroup or shared. Settlement and/or negotiation are initiated for a restorative outcome. This leads us
to state that without an eﬀective involvement of the concerned groups (communities), access to local
available resources is compromised and consequently a restorative outcome is doomed to failure orprone to serious challenges.

SECTION 3: A FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE
The following international instruments serve the purpose:
1. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for non-custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules);2. The Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters (ECOSOC
Resolution 2002/12, annex);
3. The Kadoma Declaration on Community Service and recommendations (Seminar held in San
José, 3-7 Febr4ary, 1997);
4. The Lilongwe Declaration on Accessing Legal Aid in the CJS measures in Africa (ECOSOC
Resolution 2007/24).
These instruments introduce a new perspective in the CJS, focusing principally on the effective
involvement of local communities; considered as key stakeholders, in the implementation of the
CJS measures. This approach aligns the CJS to the practices observed within local communities andfacilitates, among others, the implementation of the above instruments by Member States. Hereafter
are some illustrations.
2

See Diagram 1, p. 2.

247

1. Tokyo Rules:

Tokyo Rules call for the involvement of the community. For illustration, Rule 13.4 stipulates that:“The competent authorities may involve the community and social support system in the application of
non-custodial measures”.

Let us refer among others to Community Service Order as non-custodial and a post-trial measureof the CJS that is mainly meant to facilitate the successful social rehabilitation and reintegration of
oﬀenders.

2. Basic Principle on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters:

The actors of the structures identified above2 often are directly affected and are parties to the
problem. Operative paragraph 1.4 of the Basic Principles deﬁnes parties as follows:“Parties” means the victim, the offenders and any other individuals or community members affectedby a crime who may be involved in a restorative process.”
The victim is not necessarily an individual. Other members: relatives, neighbours, friends, etc.
are also victims depending on the nature and quality of the relationship as already indicated above.
Each involved actor has a status and will act accordingly consistent with his/her status. There are also
facilitators. Paragraph 19 singles out a condition being met by local communities and even sometimes
observed by CJS oﬃcials (e.g. social workers, probation oﬃcers), that stipulates:“Facilitator shall possess a good understanding of local cultures and communities and, whereappropriate, receive initial training taking up facilitation duties”.
UNAFRI training course for correctional oﬃcers3, as facilitators involved in the process of social
rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners, serves the purpose. The course helps them comply withthe requirements mentioned in the instruments, and take advantage of the available local (human,material, socio-cultural, etc.) resource in communities for an effective social rehabilitation andreintegration of prisoners in their communities.

3. The Kadoma Declaration:

The Kadoma Declaration on Community Service recognises the value of traditional practicesof healing the damage caused by crime as observed in local communities. Its Operative paragraph 3
posits:“Community service is in conformity with African traditions of dealing with offenders and withhealing the damage caused by crime within the community. Furthermore, it is a positive and cost-effective
measure to be preferred whenever possible, to a sentence of imprisonment”.

4. The Lilongwe Declaration:

This is also an instrument that recognises traditional and community-based alternatives to formal
criminal processes. Paragraph 5 stipulates:“Traditional and community-based alternatives to formal criminal processes have the potential toresolve disputes without acrimony and to restore social cohesion within the community. These mechanisms
also have the potential to reduce reliance upon the police to enforce the law, to reduce congestion in the
courts, and to reduce the reliance upon incarceration as a means of resolving conflict based upon alleged
criminal activity. All stakeholders should recognise the significance of such diversionary measures to the

3

UNAFRIʼs specialized course for correctional oﬃcers from East African sub-region took place in May 2009 at the
Secretariat. The same course is proposed to other sub-regions. Workshops were organized in Kampala (Uganda),
Nairobi (Kenya), Lusaka (Zambia) and in Juba (Sudan) in November-December 2008.

248

administration of a community-based, victim-oriented criminal justice system and should provide support
for such mechanisms provided that they conform to human rights norms”.

SECTION 4: LOCAL COMMUNITIES’ MEMBERS CONTRIBUTION
The diﬀerent instruments referred to above and the perspective they pave, are realistic as it is insupport of practices already in use within local communities and sometimes in the CJS. Policy makers
and implementers should be sensitized about such studies reveling the ﬁeld social realities for needed
and realistic reforms. Some few quotations hereafter show how, at Pre-trial (with a focus on pretrial detainees) and Post-trial levels of the CJS, and even after a CJS caretaking, some of the selected
instruments are implemented due to the eﬀective involvement of local communitiesʼ members.

1. The Pre-trial Level

Statistics at our disposal (See ICPS Report 2007) led us to consider that overcrowding in the
African prisons is the consequence of long illegal detention (long periods awaiting trial, undue delay incommencement of trial). Some statistics from the Washington and Lee University project in Liberia
on the implementation of the Lilongwe Declaration reveal the impact of an eﬀective implementationof the Declaration. It is an eﬀective implementation because it involves communitiesʼ members in theexercise.
It is reported that the Central Prison in Monrovia, Liberia, was built to take in 300 inmates andprior to the implementation of the Lilongwe Declaration, there were 2000 inmates, as a result of
the factors referred to above. About 400 participants including lawyers, magistrates, communitiesʼ
advocates, law enforcement agents, tribal and religious authorities were trained. These trainees had
also trained a countless number of other people. After a year of the implementation of the project:
August 2008 to April 2009, only 700 remained in the Central Prison. The project has been extended toother areas (S. Nkouli, 2009).

2. The Post-trial Level

Quotations hereafter reveal what the contribution of the members of a local community may be.
In order to get access to these local available resources, social workers or probation oﬃcers shouldbe trained to shift from exclusively penal style to compensatory and or conciliatory styles of Social
control. This helps them, inter alia, to identify the local available resources within local communities.
The statements here below reveal the types of contributions or assistance a neighbor, a friend and alocal authority may oﬀer for an eﬀective implementation of the CJS measure.

1. Neighbours’ contribution:

A young woman with children, sentenced to a Community Service Order in Kadoma, Zimbabwe (…),
had to serve her sentence in a hospital. When asked who was taking care of her children every time
she was at the hospital. She answered that:“I have very good neighbours. When I am here, they take care of my children. I am lucky having
them”.

2. A friend’s contribution:

The second illustration is in line with the mission of the CJS: the social rehabilitation andreintegration of prisoners . It reveals the type of support a friend was able to offer to a former
prisoner. A friend facilitated a former prisoner to get a job giving him the opportunity to practice theskills learnt in prison (N. Masamba Sita et al., 2005:27). During the social worker visit to AS (initialsof the name of the former prisoner), one of his friends reported to the social worker the following:“Truly I convinced AS to come to stay with me. He brought all his family this way. We are going tostart a project with him. I have a school down here, it is a Muslim school. As is an expert in tailoring, so I
would like him to teach the children tailoring …”.

249

3. A Local Authority’s Contribution:

This is about a Local Council 1 Oﬃcial (LC 1), the lowest administration unit in Uganda, who has
connected KM, a former prisoner, to his employer who gave him the job of driver. The social worker
reported the following:“I asked him whether he was the one who had secured a job for KM. He said that since he knew that
KM was a driver, he had a friend who was looking for one; so, it was easy to connect KM to him. Luckily
enough he started working straight away, and informed me that everything had been a success for him
and his family ever since he started working”.

IN CONCLUSION
Cases referred to above reveal that the perspective sketched in the selected instruments isrealistic. The exclusive focus on the traditional operation of the CJS, leaves unreported useful andinnovative practices, accounting for the key role local communities have to play in support to theCorrectional System in particular and to CJS mission in general.
UNAFRI calls upon Members States to internalise in their legislations the related instruments asthey pave a realistic and a needed penal reform that leads to: a more Community-based Criminal
Justice System in Africa and wherever it is appropriate. This perspective gives access to local
available (human, material, socio-cultural, etc.) and crucial resources for an eﬀective implementationof the CJS measures; and consequently facilitates restorative outcomes.
UNAFRI also calls upon it partners to reinforce their collaboration in order to oﬀer Member States
the needed technical assistance in the fields such as: action-oriented and/or evaluative research;capacity development of the CJS personnel, whose attitude generally is punitive, retributive, andreveals a conflict of caretaking logics: punitive/ retributive versus compensatory and conciliatory
caretaking logics that lead to effective implementation of alternative measures for a restorative
outcome.
This will deﬁnitely help to make this perspective fully operational. Such a perspective may help
involve local communities even in the peace-keeping processes, in preparing both those who havebeen responsible for atrocities and the members of their communities of origin or of their choice, foran eﬀective social rehabilitation and reintegration after release. The mission of the CJS, even during a
post-conﬂict situation, does not change.

250