Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Ntuli (Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services intervening as amicus curiae)

The respondent, Mr Mbalenhle Sidney Ntuli, is a sentenced prisoner serving a 20‑year term at Johannesburg Medium C Correctional Centre. With family support, he enrolled in a computer studies course with Oxbridge Academy, which required the use of a computer. He requested permission to use his personal computer in his cell to further his studies, particularly during long periods of daily confinement. Prison authorities refused, relying on a Department of Correctional Services policy adopted in 2007 that prohibited personal computers in cells, permitting their use only in designated computer rooms at limited times. Mr Ntuli challenged this refusal in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, contending that the policy unjustifiably limited his constitutional right to further education and amounted to unfair discrimination under the Equality Act. The High Court upheld his challenge. The Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and other officials appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was partially upheld. The Equality Act findings of the High Court were set aside for lack of jurisdiction. The policy prohibiting the use of personal computers in cells was declared invalid to the extent of that prohibition, with the declaration suspended for 12 months. The appellants were ordered to revise and promulgate a new policy permitting such use for study purposes, subject to conditions, and to allow interim use of personal computers in cells without modems. Costs were awarded against the first and second appellants, including attorney‑and‑client costs for the condonation application.

This judgment is a leading authority on the content of prisoners’ constitutional right to further education. It clarifies that s 29(1)(b) includes a negative right protecting prisoners from unjustified state interference with the effective pursuit of further education. The case affirms that blanket prison policies restricting educational tools must be constitutionally justified and that vague security concerns are insufficient. It also clarifies the jurisdictional limits of High Courts in Equality Act matters, reinforcing procedural requirements for equality court jurisdiction.