Correctional services minister Pieter Groenewald ignited outrage in parliament on Tuesday when he called for the possible return of court-ordered lashes as a cure for SA’s overcrowded, violent prisons.
He argued that young offenders convicted for petty offences could receive three to six lashes instead of jail time.
Groenewald said young boys caught shoplifting waited up to three months behind bars to appear before a judge and during that time were often raped and assaulted, coming out as hardened criminals.
Instead, he said, a court could sentence them to between three and six lashes, adding that this would address the problem of overcrowding in SA’s prisons.
He was speaking during a correctional services portfolio committee meeting.
Groenewald clarified that when he spoke on the issue during the budget vote, he was not referring to corporal punishment at schools.
“When I said open the debate, I didn’t say it should be a blank sort of corporal punishment.
“I never spoke about schools, but correctional services.
“You have some remand detainees, and they were arrested because of petty offences.
“They stole bread or a shirt, shoplifting, that sort of thing.
“I said the question is whether we should look at corporal punishment, not like in the previous dispensation where, for instance, when a police officer caught a juvenile, specifically juveniles taken to the station, four lashes, three lashes, whatever the case may be.
“I said very clearly that it should be part of the sentence and the decision of a court to say, listen in this specific case, in terms of the offence that took place, that the sentence is, then, say, three or four or six lashes.
“It’s a sentence from the courts.”
Groenewald said he was aware that human rights organisations would be up in arms about his proposal.
“Well, I will invite them to look at the circumstances in our correctional centres.
“You have a juvenile shoplifting, but the trial is going to take at least three months, and for three months, that juvenile is in an overcrowded facility.
“He gets raped, assaulted, goes in there, and comes out as a hardened criminal.
“What is more inhumane for a proposed punishment, sentence by a court, or those circumstances?” he said.
During the debate, the EFF, DA and MK Party rejected Groenewald’s proposal.
The PA agreed with Groenewald.
Groenewald said SA’s prison infrastructure was under immense pressure.
He said the number of sentenced inmates grew from 103,700 in July 2024 to 108,201 by November 2025.
“So, if we bring in the remanded detainees, and it’s part of legislation, we have to take our responsibility, then we go up to a total of about 167,000 inmates.
“But if you have so many inmates, in terms of legislation, we are supposed to provide a bed for each one, and if you cannot provide it, then you have overcrowding.”
His department planned to add 16,500 bed spaces at a cost of about R3bn, with individual cells costing aboutR708,000 and maximum-security cells R1m.
ANC MP Mzwanele Sokopo said Groenewald’s proposal wasillegal.
Corporal punishment, including judicial corporal punishment, has been illegal in schools and institutions, since the implementation of the South African Schools Act of 1996 and the Abolishment of Corporal Punishment Act of 1997.
“I don’t think it’s proper that because we have challenges of overcrowding, that we’re even tempted to consider things that are illegal,” Sokopo said.
PA MP Ernest Hendricks said the public wanted corporal punishment and that it should be revisited.
“Lashes were a good deterrent when I was young. With the current situation in our correctional facilities, I think such a deterrent should be debated.”
DA MP Kabelo Ngcaba said corporal punishment was belittling and undignified.
“I do not believe in corporal punishment.
“You’re an office bearer, and it’s your responsibility to uphold the constitution, which includes the right to dignity.
“From where I stand, your attempt to spark debate was correct, but how you did it was not consistent with your position, with your position in government.”
DA MP Janho Engelbrecht questioned whether Groenewald was using his platform to promote a populist stance rather than focusing on the complex work of his department.
“Now I take it that people will be in favour of such a policy until it is them or their children that find themselves on the wrong side of the law.
“Your department’s official mandate is rehabilitation.
“How does championing violent, degrading punishment not sabotage the credibility of your department’s rehabilitation programmes and the professionals trying to implement them?”
The EFF’s MP Carl Niehaus said both he and Groenewald went through the process of constitutional negotiations.
“The proposal you’ve made is unconstitutional and illegal.
“Beyond that, it’s for us as leaders not to simply buy into the emotions of people who are tired of crime.
“Our responsibility is to deal with the situation in a responsible manner, understanding the history of where our country comes from.
“It’s a false dichotomy presented by you by saying to us ‘it’s either the usage of corporal punishment for minor crimes or people suffer terrible conditions in our prisons’.”
Niehaus said the committee should apply its mind to how to address conditions in prisons.
“By making the proposal you made, you were not just opening the debate but advocating for it,” Niehaus said.
Responding, Groenewald said: “No Act, no constitution is cast in concrete.
“The constitution depends on the will of the people. That is democracy.”
The Herald
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.