Teachers found guilty of certain forms of misconduct could in future be forced to attend anger management classes.
Pretoria high court judge Stephanus Fourie ordered the South African Council for Educators (SACE) on October 13 to “reconsider and revise its mandatory sanctions on contravention of the code of professional ethics” adopted in June 2020.
This followed an application brought by Section27, on behalf of the Centre for Child Law in Pretoria and the parents of two pupils aged seven and 10, against SACE for allegedly imposing lenient sanctions on two teachers who pleaded guilty to assaulting pupils in their classrooms.
The teachers, Vangile Mokoena and Khutso Sathekge, who both pleaded guilty to assault, were struck off the roll of educators for 10 years, but their sentences were wholly suspended. They were also each fined R15,000, of which R5,000 was suspended.
Mokoena, teaching at a school in Gauteng, assaulted two children aged seven, who were identified in court papers as TZ and NT, in August 2015 with a black PVC pipe, leaving one of them with a bloody nose.
She faced a total of four charges, including two for assault and two for threatening the children against reporting the incidents.
Sathekge pleaded guilty to assaulting a 10-year-old in February 2019.
Between April last year and March, 248 cases of corporal punishment were reported to SACE which is the professional council for educators. Teachers are also obliged to register with it before they can be employed.
Section27, a public interest law centre, and the Children’s Institute, which was admitted as a friend of the court, also asked the court to direct SACE to reconsider and revise its latest version of mandatory sanctions.
However, judge Fourie dismissed the Centre for Child Law’s application for the sanctions handed down to Mokoena and Sathekge to be reviewed and set aside and sent back to SACE for reconsideration.
Section27’s counsel, Chris McConnachie, argued in court during the review application in June that the sanctions were “shockingly ... inappropriate”.
Fourie also refused an application by Section27 to condone its delay in bringing the review application after the required 180 days had lapsed.
He said even if both matters were sent back to SACE for new disciplinary hearings, “it would mean that the second and third respondent (Mokoena and Sathekge) would be subjected to another disciplinary hearing on the same facts after more than two years”.
But the judge ordered that SACE, within six months of the granting of the order, reconsider and revise its mandatory sanctions “to address the deficiencies in the decision-making process”.
It is in the interests of a learner that his educator be provided with the necessary support and be taught the necessary skills regarding non-violent forms of discipline in the classroom and school environment.
He ordered SACE to pay due regard to the need for the inclusion of corrective and rehabilitative sanctions such as anger management and training on non-violent child discipline techniques.
“It is in the interests of a learner that his educator be provided with the necessary support and be taught the necessary skills regarding non-violent forms of discipline in the classroom and school environment.”
The council was also asked to pay attention to the need to recognise the best interests of the child and the rights of pupils in the guiding principles.
Fourie also asked SACE to consider the need for “a child-centred approach” which requires that children and their parents be consulted on the appropriate sanction and be afforded a meaningful opportunity to make representations on an appropriate sanction.
He said the Centre for Child Law and the Children’s Institute specialised in child law and “should therefore be suitable candidates to assist the respondent (SACE) in formulating the necessary measures”.
“SACE is ordered to engage meaningfully with them to give effect to the order.”
SACE had to submit affidavits to the Centre for Child Law, Children’s Institute and the court “setting out the process that has been followed to reconsider and revise its mandatory sanctions”.
It was given a month after the expiry of the six-month period to file copies of the revised mandatory sanctions.
SACE was also ordered to pay the Centre for Child Law’s costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Last Thursday, Section27, which described the judgment as a “partial victory”, filed a notice for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Section27 said the judge erred in refusing the application for condonation “on grounds that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so”.
Welcoming the judgment, the CEO of Sace, Ella Mokgalane, said the council will meet in November to decide on the way forward.
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
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.