The SA Council for Educators (Sace) has turned to the Constitutional Court in a desperate attempt to reverse a high court judgment that set aside Sace’s decision to refer a complaint for a hearing.
In July last year the Bloemfontein high court ruled that Sace’s disciplinary committee’s intention to refer allegations against Deon Scheepers, Grey College Secondary School principal, for a hearing was “irregular and unlawful”.
This followed a complaint that members of the school’s governing body lodged against him with Sace, after a decision in May 2018 to strip him off all his powers.
Scheepers successfully challenged the governing body’s decision in the high court andthe Supreme Court of Appeal, which held that the governing body acted beyond its statutory authority.
The Free State education department then appointed an independent task team (ITT) to investigate the underlying facts and causes that led to conflict between Scheepers and the governing body.
The task team recommended to the head of department of the Free State education department that Scheepers be charged for serious misconduct.
The details of the alleged misconduct were not provided in court papers.
However, OFM reported in October 2021 that some of the allegations against Scheepers in court documents before the high court, are that he victimised teachers and bullied them; he couldn’t handle complex racial issues at the school; he sought to manipulate the outcome of the appointment of the SGB’s annual office bearers in the run-up to the March 2018 elections; and he broke his trust and contractual obligations with the department by prematurely informing certain candidates that they were unsuccessful in their bid to become deputy principal of Grey College.
The department then invited him to make submissions why “necessary measures should not be considered” against him.
But while the department was still mulling over whether to take action against Scheepers, Sace entered the fray after obtaining a copy of the ITT report and issued him with a summons in November 2020 to appear before a disciplinary hearing that was scheduled for February last year.
He then brought a review application in the Bloemfontein high court arguing Sace did not conduct a proper independent investigation of its own but simply “latched” on to the independent task team’s report.
The actions of Sace were considered tantamount to undermining he department’s authority. The department further professed its support for Mr Scheepers should Sace continue to undermine the department.
— Counsel for the Free State education department
Judge Phillip Loubser and acting judge Collin Nekosie agreed, stating “it is manifestly clear that the council did not embark upon an independent investigation” and that “it merely took notice of the report of the ITT and the recommendations contained therein”.
Disappointed with the judgment, Sace applied to the high court for leave to appeal, but it was turned down in December. A subsequent petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeal was dismissed in March.
On Thursday, the Constitutional Court will consider, among other things, a submission by Sace’s manager for legal affairs and ethics, George Moroasui, who stated in court papers that the high court “ought not to have found that an investigation was not conducted”.
“The decision to refer the complaint against Mr Scheepers for a hearing was procedurally fair,” the submission read. “There is public interest in the correct and proper maintenance and/or application of the code of professional ethics for educators.”
Moroasui contended that Sace was drawn into the proceedings “simply because it sought to uphold public interest in the discipline of educators”.
“There exists no suggestion of mala fides against Sace or that the proceedings were pursued for aggrandisement of Sace.”
Scheepers, now the principal of Wynberg Boys’ High School in Cape Town, stated in court documents that the Free State education head of department commissioned an investigation “as a direct result of the running battle between the governing body and myself”.
“The core of my complaint in the review application was that Sace did not conduct a proper investigation of its own but that it simply latched on to the ITT report.”
He stated Sace’s failure to conduct its own investigation, which was required in terms of the Sace Act, “constituted a procedural irregularity”.
Counsel acting on behalf of the Free State head of education and the education MEC said they abided by the decision of the high court.
Both the head of department and the MEC are cited as interested parties.
Counsel for the department and MEC said in a submission that the department wrote to Sace indicating dismay at its notice to investigate Scheepers “without prior warning or communication with the department”.
“The actions of Sace were considered tantamount to undermining the department’s authority. The department further professed its support for Mr Scheepers should Sace continue to undermine the department.”
A meeting between Sace and department officials then took place.
“Sace sent a letter to the department requesting Scheepers’s suspension. The head of department responded that no investigations are now pending against Scheepers.”
The department’s counsel stated he was no longer employed by the Free State education department.
“It appears to be common cause that the ITT report ignited the governing body to file a complaint against Scheepers with Sace.
“The governing body was dissatisfied with the pace at which the department chose to deal with the situation and chose to take matters in their own hands.”
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.