South Africa: Bowmans assists prison inmates in asserting their rights to further education

Bowmans recently acted pro bono for the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) in challenging a policy banning the possession and use of computers by prison inmates in their cells.

On 30 April 2025, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others v Ntuli [2025] ZACC 7 declaring the policy unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it prohibits the use of personal computers in cells in circumstances where such use is reasonably required for further education, and setting the policy aside.

JICS was admitted as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) and made written and oral submissions to the Constitutional Court on the State’s obligations in respect of the right of inmates to education under the Constitution and international law and the role of education in the rehabilitation of inmates. 

JICS is an independent statutory body that oversees correctional centres and remand detention facilities in South Africa. It is responsible for inspecting and monitoring correctional centres and detention facilities so that the Inspecting Judge, Justice Edwin Cameron, may report on the treatment of inmates and on conditions in these centres and facilities.

The facts

The matter was initiated in the High Court, where Mr Mbalenhle Sydney Ntuli, at the time an inmate at Johannesburg Medium C Correctional Centre, challenged the Department of Justice and Correctional Services’ Policy Procedures on Formal Education Programmes (Policy).

The Policy prohibits the possession or use of computers by inmates in their cells. At the time, Mr Ntuli was a registered student at a tertiary institution pursuing computer studies, with a focus on data processing, and required the use of a computer for educational purposes.

Mr Ntuli was confined to his cell for 17 hours and 45 minutes every day. He argued that the limited amount of time during which he was permitted outside of his cell and, therefore, to use a computer provided for use by inmates in the prison’s shared facilities, and during which he also had to attend to various daily tasks, was insufficient for him to meaningfully pursue his studies. 

The High Court judgment

The High Court held that the Policy infringed the right to further education conferred by section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution and, further, that the Policy and its implementation constituted unfair discrimination in violation of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000.

The Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, the National Commissioner of Correctional Services and the Head of Correctional Centre, Johannesburg Medium C (collectively, the State) appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

The SCA judgment

The SCA dismissed the appeal as it related to the Policy’s infringement of inmates’ right to education but upheld the appeal against Mr Ntuli’s unfair discrimination claim. The State appealed the SCA’s decision to the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court judgment

Justice Majiedt, writing for a unanimous Court, dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that education plays an important role in inmates’ rehabilitation and held that, to effectively access education, inmates must have access to adequate learning resources. In the digital age, the right to further education, ‘plainly encompasses access to… tools necessary for fulfilling the right [to further education], including electronic tools’.

The Court reasoned that the State has a negative duty not to impair inmates’ right to further education, which includes both removing barriers to education and allowing access to the resources necessary to realise the right to education.

The Policy’s blanket ban on the use of computers by inmates in their cells was held to be a limitation of Mr Ntuli’s right to further education, especially given the restricted time that Mr Ntuli was permitted to spend outside his cell and the fact that the use of a computer was central to Mr Ntuli’s data processing studies.

The Court held that the State’s attempt to justify the limitation by relying on security concerns relating to the use of computers was vague and unsubstantiated. In addition, and drawing on JICS’ submissions, the Court held that the Policy is inconsistent with South Africa’s obligations relating to inmates’ right to education under international law.

The full judgment is available here.