The South African Council of Educators has been ordered to review sanctions imposed on two teachers who assaulted learners. (Rosetta Mushimango, City Press)
- The Supreme Court of Appeal has ordered the South African Council of Educators to review sanctions imposed on two teachers who assaulted students.
- The court ruled that in matters relating to violence, consideration must be given to the best interests of the child and whether the teacher needs rehabilitation.
- This issue concerns three students who were assaulted by their teacher. The two teachers continued to teach and were unfairly fined small amounts.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has set aside the sanctions imposed by the South African Council for Education (SACE) on two teachers who assaulted students and directed them to reconsider their decision in line with the best interests of the children.
according to ground upthe court stated that SACE had failed in its constitutional duties and should consider appropriate sanctions to ensure the rehabilitation of teachers using non-violent disciplinary measures.
The case centers on two separate incidents that took place at different schools. In the first incident, a 7-year-old boy was hospitalized in 2015 after his teacher hit him in the head with a PVC pipe. Another child was also assaulted. Both were second-year students.
In the second incident, a 10-year-old girl was slapped by her teacher in 2019, leaving her with blood flowing from her ear.
Teachers received similar sanctions, even though the circumstances and severity of the assaults were incomparable. Both were fined R15,000, to be paid over 12 months, of which R5,000 was suspended. Their removal from the educator rolls has been permanently suspended for 10 years.
The matter was first brought to court “in the public interest” by the Children's Law Center and the two mothers, who represent Section 27. In a submission to the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, they argued that the “slap on the wrist punishment” meant the two teachers were still teaching and the impact on learners had not been considered. .
Although corporal punishment in schools has been outlawed in South Africa for over 20 years, corporal punishment remains prevalent and SACE has an effective and transparent approach to dealing with teachers who commit acts of violence against learners. They said they were obliged to take disciplinary action.
Read | Parents of Welcome student file R350,000 lawsuit against Department of Education after assault
The High Court largely rejected the review because it found there had been an “unreasonable delay” in commencing the application. However, it issued certain orders directing SACE to review and amend the mandatory sanctions and address any deficiencies.
The Children's Law Center appealed to the SCA, arguing that the delay was due to SACE's delay in providing reasons for its decision and that the court should declare the sanctions illegal and unconstitutional under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). did. . Read the judgment here.
In its recent judgment, the SCA agreed that the clock had started ticking on PAJA's deadlines when the reasons were presented and that the High Court was wrong to hold otherwise.
Justice Ronnel Tolmey, writing for the court, said SACE had been “generally unresponsive” to repeated requests for reasons.
He said the main complaint was that SACE's 2016 Mandatory Sanctions, as applied at the time, did not give SACE any discretion in imposing sanctions and did not provide for any rehabilitative or remedial sanctions. , said that it was illegal.
Additionally, disciplinary proceedings did not allow learners and their parents to meaningfully participate in public hearings.
Although mandatory sanctions were revised in 2020, child rights experts say they still do not provide rehabilitation measures and question whether sanctions are in the best interests of the child or follow a child-centered approach. I'm not sure.
Mr Tolmey said SACE's exercise of disciplinary powers must be guided by its constitutional obligation that children's rights come first.
“The South African Schools Act prohibited corporal punishment in all schools, thereby ensuring that children were not subjected to any form of physical violence in the school environment. was supposed to end,” or the use of any form of physical violence is justified.
“Sadly, corporal punishment remains prevalent, as the cases and expert evidence that are the subject of this case demonstrate,” the judge said.
“In a society where violence is widespread, this must be a matter of grave concern.Educators must not only prohibit resort to physical violence as a form of discipline, but also ensure that appropriate and necessary conditions are in place. It is essential that you receive support to develop the skills you need to discipline.'' Measure of Personal Control.
“It is through example that children can be taught how to navigate a world full of complex conflicts without resorting to violence as a solution.”
He said that although the 2016 mandatory sanctions were revised in 2020, further revisions were needed, including the right to be heard by parents and learners.
“SACE includes whether it is desirable for educators to return to the classroom, whether children need to be protected from harm, and what the root causes of the educator’s actions are. There is a duty to assess the impact of actions.'' Violent behavior requires action.
“In addition to that, I think we also need to consider the question of whether psychological or other assistance is required to minimize the harm the child suffers.”
Read | Teenager sues Department of Education for R5.1 million after being raped on school grounds
“Upon perusing the record, no one knows why the educator disregarded the law, and this points to the need to consider remedial action,” Tolmey said.
“Simply imposing sanctions without addressing the root causes of the problem is counterproductive.”
The judge said the decisions taken by SACE in relation to the case did not comply with many provisions of PAJA. The views of the children and their parents were not meaningfully heard and the decision was procedurally unfair. This decision was made without regard to constitutional or legislative obligations regarding the best interests of the child.
Mr Tolmey declared the sanction unlawful, shelved it and sent the matter back to SACE to “consider the imposition of corrective and rehabilitative sanctions such as anger management”.