“When that hate don’t work, they start telling lies”— French Montana

Anyone who is familiar with the process of buying or selling a home will know of the value of having an appraisal done of the property. This independent assessment is critical in determining a tangible value of the asset. Without one, mould damage might go undetected, a termite infestation might not be discovered, plumbing issues might not be disclosed by the seller — or a host of other issues.

Because the public do not receive independent reports about our prisons, most rely on media reports and ministerial press releases to stay informed. In recent months, there have been a number of stories reported by various local outlets shining a negative light on the prison — more importantly, the prison population. It is common that these stories are attributed to anonymous sources within the Department of Corrections. However, on a few occasions, the president of the Prison Officers Association has made public statements in relation to these anonymous leaks.

It is common that when incidents arise at Westgate in relation to inmate misconduct, anonymous sources will leak details to the media. This only serves to further perpetuate to the public that we are dangerous “animals” that must be locked away. Yet if we are so dangerous, why does the department consistently staff an all-male facility with female officers? Why would the department, for months, knowingly have a pregnant officer work in the housing units if we are so dangerous? And why, just before her maternity leave this year, would the department have this basic officer serve in an acting capacity as a divisional officer? Divisional officers are the first rung on the promotional ladder and are more directly involved on a daily basis in inmate interactions — including resolving conflicts — than any other officer of management rank.

When the actual operational practices of the department are compared to the many press leaks, and even public statements from the POA, it doesn’t harmonise. You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.

I believe there are those in the department’s administration that, through their actions or lack thereof, express a disdain for us. They use archaic policies, inefficient processes and a chain-of-command management structure — allowing them to run from responsibility and hide from accountability — to frustrate the prison population. Opportunities for personal and professional development for the resident population are scant. New ideas are often stifled and idle time has become most of the population's best friend.

Recently, the administration has even gone as far as obstructing the constitutional right of men in our prison from lawfully obtaining information through public access to information. This has destroyed the trust that we had in this administration. A trust that is essential when department policy requires all legal communication — written or digital — to be handled by corrections staff before being forwarded to one’s lawyer. How can we have faith in those who oversee our care when they don’t want us to have access to information that can be used to hold them accountable?

Accountability is an integral part of any successful organisation. Businesses are held accountable by their shareholders. Public bodies are held accountable by government boards, and their government ministers are, ultimately, held to account by the electorate at each General Election. Good leaders welcome accountability at all levels in their organisation. And they will ensure that their policies, processes and operations can even withstand public scrutiny.

For far too long the Department of Corrections has been shrouded in secrecy. Over the years, and outside of the purview of the public, the Treatment of Offenders Board and the Ombudsman have received numerous complaints from inmates against officers and the department’s policies. But neither have the teeth to enforce any action where wrongdoing has been found — although the offenders board has the power to punish prisoners for violations of prison rules. It is only the minister who has the power to bring about change within the department. Yet if there is no political pressure from the public, there is little likelihood that any minister would feel the need to act.

The Department of Corrections has a duty to the public to ensure that those within its care receive the rehabilitation that is required before our eventual release. Even though the Prison Act 1979 and Prison Rules 1980 — both in need of modernisation — afford broad discretion in how our prisons are run, they don’t explicitly state how they should be run in 2025. And so, it allows the department’s administration to do the bare minimum with us, even though that is not in the public’s interest. What kind of neighbours do you want? That is the question that you must ask yourselves.

But how can the public trust that this is being done; that their money is being used wisely. This is why the release of the Wheatley and Munns reports is so important — because the press statements, photo ops and media leaks from those inside the department cannot be trusted as the full truth. These independent appraisals of our prisons should be a matter of public record. The public have a right to understand the challenges facing Bermuda’s prison system. Because it is, ultimately, the taxpayer that continues to overpay for the operation of our prisons via patchwork fixes to ageing infrastructure and a high rate of recidivism.

I don’t expect the public’s mindset about the incarcerated to drastically shift. But just as everyone has to balance their proverbial chequebook at the end of each month, my hope is that the public begin to take more interest in how their funds are being spent in our prisons and if the programmes in place meet the goal of releasing productive citizens back into society.

• Behind The Walls is a resident of Westgate Correctional Facility