A teacher at Hlonipha Secondary School in KwaMhlanga, Mpumalanga, who argued that the girl accusing him of inappropriate behaviour was stalking him, has been fired and declared undesirable to work with children.
Izman Ntlebi was originally accused of sexual harassment by the school, but Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) senior arbitrator Coen Havenga decided differently and escalated the charge to sexual assault.
The case presented to the ELRC was that Ntlebi, who was employed as a physical science teacher, was charged with misconduct after a complaint was made by a 16-year-old girl in June last year.
Ntlebi is alleged to have harassed the grade 10 pupil over the second and third school terms by telling her to offer him a sexual favour termed “akufakise ihloko”, touching her thighs, peeping under her desk and commenting that she was causing him an injury with her short skirts — “niyasilimaza” — and spanking her on the buttocks with his hand during a Saturday class.
When the allegations were put to Ntlebi, he responded with a blanket denial, declaring he was not guilty of any of the charges and the girl was lying.
In the case before the council, it was stated that the girl would be identified as ‘the complainant’, while another minor witnesses would be referred to as ‘learner X.
The complainant’s mother testified that her daughter had called her crying one day. The child said Ntlebi had refused to let her write her final exam because she hadn't attended an extra class he had held the Sunday before. She was upset because at the extra class she had attended on Saturday, the teacher had asked her to allow him to put the head of his penis into her and that it wouldn’t hurt.
The mother immediately called her husband, who went to the school and spoke to Ntlebi and the principal. Ntlebi denied the allegation of inappropriate conduct but told the father that parents must teach their children how to dress. He said girls should not come to school in short skirts and be mindful that there are men present.
In her testimony, the mother told the council her daughter was not a liar and had not been coping well with what had happened. While she had always been eager to attend school, she had grown reluctant.
She said she did not want Ntlebi to be dismissed because he was a young teacher, but she wanted it known that what he had said to her child was not normal or acceptable.
School principal Wilhelmina Ngoma testified that the father had come to the school on June 12 2023 at about 9.45am, angry about his daughter’s claims that Ntlebi had touched her buttocks during the Saturday extra class.
[Ntlebi] could not provide a reason why the learners would accuse him falsely. The complainant’s mother testified that she told the principal that she did not want the employee to be dismissed as he was still young. This is not the conduct of a person who had a vendetta otherwise she would have insisted on dismissal
— Coen Havenga, Education Labour Relations Council senior arbitrator
He was upset that because she did not attend Ntlebi’s Sunday extra class, he would not allow her to write her exam on Monday and he had also asked the girl for a sexual favour.
Ngoma told the father that they would not be discussing the matter further because it was exam time, his daughter was writing and Ntlebi was invigilating. She asked him to come back later, which he did.
At the later meeting with the father, the complainant and Ntlebi, the principal asked the girl what happened, and the child repeated the same version her father had given.
She said Ntlebi had been shouting at girls for wearing short skirts as they were “hurting him” as a young teacher. She had not reported this earlier because she was afraid that Ntlebi would fail her if she complained.
On the allegation that Ntlebi had asked the girl to allow him to “put in the head”, the complainant said the requests had started in term two and her friend, learner X, was aware of them.
When asked to respond, Ntlebi admitted that he always reprimanded the girls for wearing short skirts. He denied all the other allegations but said he was in the habit of walking fast and may have accidentally touched the complainant’s buttocks. He apologised if this had happened.
The father was angry and demanded Ngoma take action. She said she would write a report and refer the matter to the District Office. She also understood “put in the head” to refer to sexual actions.
The complainant testified that she had decided to leave Hlonipha Secondary School and was repeating grade 10 in Zakheni Secondary School. She moved because she was not comfortable with Ntlebi in the same school.
She said when Ntlebi first told her she was hurting him when she wore her short skirt to school, she viewed the remark as a sexual advance. She said that in one incident, she was sitting with learner X and another friend when Ntlebi greeted them. He put his hand on her thigh. She removed his hand, and learner X asked him what he was doing.
Ntlebi told learner X that she must talk to the complainant and ask her whether he can “put the head in a little bit”.
During the Saturday class the complainant said she and learner X went to the bathroom and found Ntlebi standing outside when they returned to the classroom. According to her, Ntlebi said: “You grade 10s, you are playing games.”
Learner X entered the classroom, and the complainant said that as she followed Ntlebi hit her on her buttocks and called out again to learner X again with the same inappropriate request.
The complainant said she did not know why Ntlebi had singled her out as she had not tried to seduce him, and that many other girls wore short skirts. She said he had peeked under her desk when she sat with her bag on her lap. She said she had only one skirt which she wore on days she didn’t wear trousers. She had been uncomfortable when Ntlebi had used the opportunity to touch her thigh.
Ntlebi testified he had been employed at the school since 2018 and was HOD of physical science and mathematics. He said his classes were crowded, and he didn’t know the complainant well but had issues with her absenteeism.
He said he had called on his grade 10 class to attend an extra lesson on Saturday, June 12 2023, and because they were unable to finish, he decided they should all return on the Sunday.
That Monday he told the learners he would not allow those who did not attend the Saturday class to write the exam, but had done this only to scare them.
He said that Monday he was called to the principal’s office where the complainant and her father were present. He admitted to having fought with the complainant because she had a cellphone in class. He had asked to see what she was doing on the phone, but she refused, so he took the phone and gave it back after a while.
He said he could not remember what had happened at the Saturday class as it was long ago. He said he was strict on discipline and many learners didn’t like him because of this. He had no memory of the complainant and learner X having gone to the bathroom and said he had not done anything to them.
He said her claims about “putting the head in” meant putting brains in her head. It might also have happened that he never said this. He said he always chases learners when he finds them outside class. He always runs.
He claimed he did not say he wanted to put the head in; he did not hit her buttocks; he did not know why she would say such things; and that it had been a mistake to tell her she would not be allowed to take her exam.
He said he couldn’t remember peeking under her dress, he would never do this in class, and he had no idea why she would falsely implicate him. He agreed that she had been emotional, but she hadn’t cried.
Commenting on Ntlebi’s blanket denial, Havenga said: “He could not provide a reason why the learners would accuse him falsely. The complainant’s mother testified that she told the principal that she did not want the employee to be dismissed as he was still young. This is not the conduct of a person who had a vendetta otherwise she would have insisted on dismissal.”
He found the complainant’s version was corroborated in all material aspects and her explanation that she was afraid to report it earlier because she feared being failed was “not uncommon behaviour in cases of sexual misconduct involving children”.
Havenga said he found Ntlebi’s claim he would chase young girls about the school to be a “disturbing admission”, and even if claims that the complainant had stalked Ntlebi on Facebook were true, it was Ntlebi's duty not to respond or take advantage of a vulnerable young girl.
He said Ntlebi’s claims that his alleged request for a sexual favour meant he wanted to put brains in her head “borders on the ridiculous” and the only inference to be drawn was that he wanted to have sex with her.
He said the idea that sexual assault must involve contact with genitalia was a common misconception, as the assault was defined as an “unlawful and intentional act which results in another person’s bodily integrity being impaired”. This meant that the complainant’s sexual integrity had been violated.
Havenga found that though Ntlebi had been charged with harassment, he was guilty of assault and should, therefore, be immediately dismissed.
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.