Inmates housed in Unit D/P3 at Groenpunt Maximum Correctional Centre have embarked on a hunger strike, citing what they describe as unfair treatment, deteriorating living conditions, and the confiscation of personal belongings. The protest follows mounting frustration among offenders who claim their attempts to raise concerns with senior prison officials were dismissed.
According to a memorandum drafted and signed by several inmates, tensions escalated after they requested a meeting with the area commissioner to formally present their grievances. Prisoners allege that management refused to accept the memorandum, particularly because it included criticism of the unit’s leadership. The rejection of their submission reportedly deepened feelings of being silenced and ignored.
What initially began as an effort to seek dialogue has since developed into a full hunger strike, with inmates refusing meals in an attempt to draw attention to their complaints. They argue that peaceful communication channels have been blocked, leaving them with no alternative but to protest in this manner.
One of the central issues raised involves the confiscation of personal items that inmates say were legally obtained through approved family visits. These items allegedly include kettles, irons, radios, and USB devices. Some prisoners claim that damaged USB ports have rendered their radios unusable, further adding to their frustration. For many, the removal of these belongings represents what they view as inconsistent or arbitrary enforcement of prison rules.
Beyond the loss of property, inmates have also expressed concern about what they describe as restrictions on basic rights and privileges. They claim access to educational programmes, recreational activities, and communication with family members has been limited. According to the memorandum, offenders were informed that their rights are restricted primarily to food, accommodation, and medical care, while other privileges that contribute to rehabilitation are being withheld.
Hygiene conditions have also been highlighted as a serious concern. Inmates allege that access to toiletries is insufficient, with reports that some prisoners are forced to share a single bar of soap for bathing and washing clothes. Families are reportedly not allowed to send additional toiletries through postal services, which inmates say worsens already difficult living conditions.
Another major grievance involves what prisoners describe as collective punishment. They claim that when contraband is discovered during searches, the entire unit faces penalties rather than only those responsible. Inmates argue that such measures create tension within the unit and may lead to unnecessary conflict among prisoners.
At the time of reporting, correctional authorities had acknowledged awareness of the situation and indicated that they were gathering information before issuing a comprehensive response. The matter remains unresolved as the hunger strike continues.
The protesting inmates are calling for what they believe to be fair and consistent treatment in line with the Correctional Services Act. They are demanding the return of confiscated property where appropriate, improved access to hygiene products, and the restoration of educational and rehabilitative opportunities.
As the standoff persists, attention now turns to whether prison officials and inmates can find common ground to address the concerns raised and restore stability within the facility.
About the Author
