INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ON PRETORIA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL @KASIBCNEWS
Gauteng Education, Sport, Arts, Culture & Recreation MEC, Mr Matome Chiloane, released an independent investigative report on Monday, 4 November 2024, which probed allegations of a culture of racism at Pretoria High School for Girls and provided recommendations to address such.
The Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) had received reports of allegations of racial discrimination at Pretoria High School for Girls. Similar allegations had been previously reported at the school and were subsequently investigated by the Department, but recently resurfaced as a result of the purported continuation of the same issue. It is against this background that the Department sought to initiate further investigation into the allegations of racism at Pretoria High School for Girls.
The Department appointed Mdladlamba Attorneys – an independent investigative law firm – to conduct an investigation into these allegations.
In summary, the investigative report outlines the following:
The facts of the investigation are that on 12 August 2024, an inquiry into allegations of racism at Pretoria High School for Girls was instigated. The call for the inquiry was trigger by a public outcry, following allegations of racism at the school which were based on what was discussed and said by some learners in a “White Girls” WhatsApp group about other learners at Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG).
12 learners who were part of the said WhatsApp group were subsequently charged and taken through a formal disciplinary inquiry by the School’s SGB and were all found not guilty, on the basis that the WhatsApp group was deemed to be a private platform. A 13th learner – who was also charged and taken through a disciplinary hearing after she was accused of having made racial remarks towards white learners in a video that she made in February 2024 during a Black History month which is based on an American concept on TikTok – was also not found guilty by the disciplinary hearing.
The GDE issued a public media statement to indicate that it respects the outcome of the disciplinary hearings.
Following the outcome of the disciplinary hearings of the 13 learners, various sections of society expressed disappointment with the outcome of the disciplinary process, pleaded with the GDE and the Honourable MEC Mr. Chiloane to commission an independent inquiry into all allegations of racism at Pretoria High School for Girls since similar allegations of racism were previously reported at Pretoria High School for Girls and were investigated by the GDE.
Notwithstanding the previous investigation - which made clear findings and recommendations - similar allegations had resurfaced.
This is a high-level summary of the Investigative Report. The mandate was to investigate all allegations of racism at the school, and the scope of the investigation was to look into the following:
• whether incidents alleged by the aggrieved persons at the school did take place;
• the circumstances around the allegations made;
• the conduct of the principal in handling such allegations;
• whether such allegations were reported to the GDE;
• if the allegations were reported to the GDE and/or its district office in Tshwane, what actions (if any) were taken by the GDE and/or its district office in Tshwane;
• whether there is a general problem of this nature at the school;
• the conduct of the School Management Team (“SMT”);
• the role (if any) of the School Governing Body (“SGB”);
• in the event that there is merit to the allegations of racism and learners were affected by such incidents, whether counselling was provided to the learners; and
• whether there are any disciplinary steps that ought to be taken by the GDE against any person based on the findings of the inquiry.
The allegations that were put forward, were tested against the records and policies of the school and the law. The report is based on evidence and the rules of engagement were explained thoroughly to all individuals who were interviewed. Therefore, the findings of the investigation are based on evidence and concessions made by some of the implicated persons.
Having investigated the matter, the law firm made the following findings, whether incidents alleged by the aggrieved persons at PHSG did take place. It is a finding of this investigation that following incidents did take place at PHSG:
Allegation 1: The allegations relating to the WhatsApp group were reported to School Official 1 and School Official 2 in October 2023 by Learner 3, Learner 6 and Learner 23. In July 2024 a disciplinary hearing was instituted against 12 learners who were said to have been part of the WhatsApp group were racial comments are said to had been made. The disciplinary hearing found the learners not guilty of the charges that were preferred against them.
School Official 1 mishandled this matter and thus failed to comply with her obligations under paragraphs 5.1.1.2 c) and 5.1.1.5 i) and n) of the School Policy. She further breached the learners rights under paragraph 10.1.1 of the PHSG Learner code of conduct and thus item 3 – sections 9 (1) and 10 of the constitution. It follows therefore that School Official 1 has committed misconduct as envisaged in section 18 (1) (a) and (f) of the Employment Equity Act (EEA).
The GDE should engage the school to establish if indeed an invoice was submitted to PHSG for the chairperson of the Disciplinary Hearing to be paid for the services he rendered. In the event, it is found that the said payment is contrary to the provision of section 27 of South African Schools Act (SASA), PHSG must take the necessary steps to recover such payment and take disciplinary steps against those that authorised the payment accordingly.
Allegation 2: It is found that Learner 6 had duly reported the incident of her being bullied by the 12 learners in the WhatsApp group and School Official 2 failed to act on the complaint. This is notwithstanding that the bullying having been reported twice and School Official 2 having informed the learner that she would look into the matter. School Official 2 appears to have misled School Official 1 and the GDE district officials that she was awaiting on Learner 6 to provide evidence and/or written statement. Same could be said about the bullying of Learner 10 when she wanted to stand for prefect position. In breach of paragraph 7.1.5 j) of the PHSG Code of Conduct for Educators.
School Official 2 breached item 3 of the SACE Code in breaching the two learner’s constitutional right under sections 9, 10 and 12 of the Constitution of South Africa. School Official 2 thus committed misconduct under section 18 (1) (a), (f) and (z) of the EEA.
Allegation 3: The incident relating to School Official 3 accused of having acted unprofessionally against Learner 1 and Learner 2 in class and said to have made inappropriate remarks regarding the academic performance of Learner 2. The matter was reported by the mother of Learner 1 as a racial issue and School Official 3 was requested to response. Having interacted with School Official 3 and the two learners, it is the finding of this investigation that School Official 3 violated item 3 of the SACE Code of Professional Ethics and thus committed misconduct as envisaged in section 18 (1) (a), (f), (q) and (t) of EEA.
Allegation 4: The incident relating to School Official 4 and Learner 8 where School Official 4 is said to have shoved a phone to her face and spoke aggressively against Learner 8.
It is the finding of this investigation that School Official 4 has violated item 3 of SACE Code of Professional Ethics and thus committed misconduct as envisaged in section 18 (1) (a), (q) and (t) of EEA).
Allegation 5: It is common cause that there are complaints that were lodged with the school relating to some learners in July 2024 racially abusing white learners. These complaints are being investigated by the management of PHSG who have indicated that disciplinary steps would be taken against those learners that have violated the PHSG Learners’ code of conduct.
Allegation 6: The 2020 incident where black learners are said to have racially abused white learners was reported by School Official 1. According to School Official 1, a decision was however taken by the SGB of the time that the accused learners not to be disciplined. It is clear from School Official 5’s submission that she had lodged a complaint of her own about the incident to School Official 1 but she was never given any feedback on her complaint including being informed of the decision taken by the SGB.
Both School Official 5 and School Official 6 are harbouring under the mistaken belief that the matter was reported to the GDE and it failed to act. This is however incorrect as it is explicit from the SGB minutes that the PHSG particularly the SGB were satisfied with the support received from GDE and its district office at the time.
School Official 1 failed to take School Official 5 and School Official 6 and the rest of the PHSG community of the decision that was taken by the SGB in 2020. It is therefore a finding of this investigation that School Official 1 breached paragraph of 5.1.1.2 (c) and paragraph 5.1.1.5 (f) and (i) of the Policy. School Official 1 thus committed misconduct as envisaged in section 18 (1) (a) and (f) of EEA;
Allegation 7: The allegation that white educators do not greet their black colleague was confirmed by School Official 1 and, according to her, this is a frustration that she has to deal with at PHSG together with the ill-treatment of the administration staff by some educators. School Official 1 challenge is that the administration support staff do not want to name the educators that are ill-treating them and thus cannot take the necessary disciplinary steps against them.
Allegation 8: it is a finding of this investigation that School Official 7 was appointed to the position of finance manager in violation of the PHSG recruitment policy as there was no recruitment process followed and does not possess neither a degree nor diploma. It is further clear from the consultancy agreement entered into between PHSG and School Official 17’s company that School Official 17 is not merely rendering handover services but covers more than that. School Official 1 have thus breached paragraph 5.1.5 of the Policy and thus committed misconduct in terms of section 18 (1) (a) and (f) of EEA; School Official 8 has also failed to comply with her obligation to ensure adherence to the PHSG recruitment policy as she is obligated by paragraph 8.1.3 of the same policy. She has thus committed misconduct under paragraph 11.4 – “non-compliance with policies and procedures” – of the PHSG Disciplinary Code and Procedure for Support Staff. School Official 8 therefore ought to be charged by the relevant authority.
Allegation 9: It is established that School Official 10 acts in unprofessional manner and uses foul language towards his subordinates and thus ought to be charged with misconduct by the relevant authority for breaching paragraph 11.4 of the PHSG Disciplinary Code and Procedure for Support Staff – “directing foul or abusive language towards a fellow employee”.
It is further the finding of this investigation that School Official 9, the husband was permitted to manage and employ gardeners at PHSG albeit he is not employed at PHSG. School Official 1 is aware and thus has been allowing her husband School Official 9 to manage gardeners and drive the school’s vehicle. School Official 1 thus exposed PHSG and the GDE to a potential risk under section 60 of SASA. School Official 1 thus committed misconduct as envisaged in section 18 (1) (a), (c), and (f) of the EEA.
School Official 10 also committed misconduct under paragraph 11.4 (5.3) of the PHSG Disciplinary Code and Procedure for Support Staff for allowing the misuse of the PHSG vehicle by School Official 9 and thus exposing the PHSG and GDE to risk.
Moreover, he committed misconduct under paragraph 11.5 of the same disciplinary code and procedure by giving false evidence or for making false declarations to District official when he claimed that it was not true that School Official 9 was using the school’s vehicle when in was at all material aware this to be a false statement as he was the person that School Official 11 was communicating these requests by School Official 9 to use the vehicle to him (School Official 9).
School Official 8 further acted contrary to her obligation under 8.1.3 when she requested School Official 11 to sign the contract of School Official 16 without having all the necessary documents authorising the appointment when she was at all material times aware that School Official 16 was said to have been appointed irregularly by School Official 9 and there were no SGB minutes ratifying the appointment.
School Official 11 has also acted negligently when she failed to ensure that proper procedure was followed in the appointment of School Official 16 before signing the contract of employment on 11 September 2024. School Official 11 was the acting principal of PHSG and is thus bound by paragraphs 8.1.2, 14.3 and 14.4 of the PHSG recruitment policy. School Official 11 thus committed misconduct under section 18 (1) (a), (b) and thus (f) unjustifiably prejudiced the administration and efficiency of PHSG.
The conduct of the Principal of PHSG in handling such allegations according to the report:
Allegation 1 was first reported to School Official 1 and School Official 2 in October 2023. She undertook to investigate the matter. She however closed the matter without informing the complainants (i.e. Learner 3, Learner 6 and Learner 23) and but discussed same and informed the father of Learner 20 that the matter was closed. There was lack of transparency in breach of the Policy and section 18 (1) (a) and (f) of EEA.
The incident was only reported to the GDE district office and the SGB only in July 2024. According to School Official 1, it is because when the incident was reported in October 2023 it was not reported as a racial incident but merely about prefects not being discipline for their infarctions of the PHSG learner code of conduct and wearing of short shorts. This submission by School Official 1 and School Official 2 has a learner ready been found to be implausible considering the submissions of Learner 3, Learner 6, School Official 13, School Official 14 and School Official 1 based on her interaction thereafter with Learner 19.
With regards to Allegation 2, it seems School Official 1 was misled by School Official 2 about this incident. According to School Official 1, School Official 2 had informed her about the bullying incident of Learner 6 by the 12 learners but indicated to her that she was awaiting on Learner 6 to provide a written statement in support of her complaint. This was incorrect as School Official 2 had informed Learner 6 that she was being bullied because the 12 learners were cross with her for having reported the WhatsApp group messages and advised Learner 6 she would investigate the bullying incident. It is now common cause that School Official 2 never acted on the bullying incident including the complaint that Learner 20 breached the confidentiality of the October 2023 meeting.
Allegation 3 was reported to the school on 18 July 2024 but was handled in August 2024 by the acting principal School. Allegation 4 was not handled by School Official 2 and not by School Official 1. Albeit Allegation 5 was reported in July 2024 and the acting principal School Official 11and School Official 18 – one of the four deputy principal – are attending to these complaints to establish whether disciplinary actions would be warranted against the accused learners.
School Official 1 was aware of Allegation 6 and same was reported to both the GDE and the then SGB. According to School Official 1, no disciplinary steps were taken against the accused learners based on a resolution of the SGB. School Official 1 however failed to ensure that the SGB decision is communicated to School Official 5 and School Official 6 amongst others as they hold an incorrect view that the incident was reported to the GDE and it failed to act. is contrary to the SGB minute which School Official 1 was at all material times aware of for approximately four years not but failed to communicate same.
School Official 1 has indicated that Allegation 7 is her biggest frustration at PHSG and she constantly has to address this issue with educators. She further submitted that the challenge is that the administration staff that is experiencing ill-treatment by educators do not want to name them and thus is unable to take the matter further.
As far as Allegation 8 is concerned, School Official 1 is the person that made the proposal to the then SGB for the appointment of School Official 7. This was done in violation of the PHSG recruitment policy and thus section 16A (2) (a) (iv) read together with section 18 (1) (a) and (f) of the EEA.
In respect of Allegation 9, School Official 1 indicated that she was unaware of School Official 10 being unprofessional and using foul language towards his subordinates. She indicated that previously reported complaints she attended to them. School Official 1 was aware of her husband – School Official 9 – managing gardeners and driving school vehicle. School Official 1 permitted this to continue notwithstanding the potential risk to PHSG and the GDE under section 60 of SASA. This resulted in this investigation finding that School Official 1 has committed misconduct as envisaged in section 18 (1) (a), (c), and (f) of the EEA.
School Official 10 also committed misconduct under paragraph 11.4 (5.3) of the PHSG Disciplinary Code and Procedure for Support Staff for allowing the misuse of the PHSG vehicle by School Official 9 and thus exposing the PHSG and GDE to risk.
Moreover, he committed misconduct under paragraph 11.5 of the same disciplinary code and procedure by giving false evidence or for making false declarations to Mr. Nkadimeng when he claimed that it was not true that School Official 9 was using the school’s vehicle when in was at all material aware this to be a false statement as he was the person that School Official 11 was communicating these requests by School Official 9 to use the vehicle to him (School Official 10).
School Official 8 further acted contrary to her obligation under 8.1.3 when she requested School Official 11 to sign the contract of School Official 16 without having all the necessary documents authorising the appointment when she was at all material times aware that School Official 16 was said to have been appointed irregularly by School Official 9 and there were no SGB minutes ratifying the appointment.
School Official 11 has also acted negligently when she failed to ensure that proper procedure was followed in the appointment of School Official 16 before signing the contract of employment on 11 September 2024. School Official 11 was the acting principal of PHSG and is thus bound by paragraphs 8.1.2, 14.3 and 14.4 of the PHSG recruitment policy. School Official 11 thus committed misconduct under section 18 (1) (a), (b) and thus (f) unjustifiably prejudiced the administration and efficiency of PHSG.
Whether such allegations were reported to the GDE and/or its district office in Tshwane South. If the allegations were reported to the GDE and/or its district office in Tshwane South, what actions (if any) were taken by the GDE hand/or its district office:
It is common cause that Allegation 1 was only reported to the district office of the GDE on 18 July 2024 and the district office engaged the management of PHSG on the allegations. It is worth noting that certain allegations about how the district officials acted in attending to this matter were made by School Official 1, some members of staff and some members of the SGB.
School Official 12 even claimed to be in possession of audio recordings of such meetings but failed to share such audio recordings notwithstanding having promised to share them. School Official 15 also confirmed the existence of these audio recordings.
These allegations have however been denied by both officials.
Similarly, both District officials only became aware of Allegation 2 when they were attending at PHSG to make enquiries about Allegation 1. It was in a meeting with Learner 6 and her parent that the SGB deputy chairperson acknowledged mishandling of the bullying incident of Learner 6 by the PHSG management and apologised to both Learner 6 and her mother. The District official also apologised on behalf of the GDE and School Official 1.
The district office was unaware of Allegation 6 to the extent that it was said to have led to a mass departure of white learners at the school. It was further denied by the district – that any instructions were given to the PHSG management not to act against any learner that is said to have racially abused white learners.
District officials were unaware of Allegation 7 as same was never reported to the district office of the GDE. Accordingly, Allegation 8 was reported to the district office of the GDE and the then IDSO was assigned to attend to the allegations at the time they were made. It would appear the IDSO – who has since retired – never attended to the allegations as they are now resurfacing.
The District officials were unaware of Allegation 9 until July 2024 when they were attending at the school in respect of Allegation 1. Accordingly School Official 11 and School Official 10 were engaged by a district official on the allegations particularly of School Official 9 said to be driving the school vehicle and School Official 10 refuted the allegation.
Notwithstanding having been promised same, this information never shared with him by School Official 10. However, he could not follow up as his efforts to probe the matter further were overtaken by this Inquiry.
Whether there is a general problem of this nature at PHSG:
Due to the time this investigation was instituted, the educators and learners were commencing with preliminary examinations and thus this investigation cannot be said to have received all allegations of racism.
Consequently, it would seem from the investigation that, there are incidents of a racial nature that have been reported from time to time since 2019 up to July 2024.
In addition, there are learners and staff members that are of the view that racism exists at PHSG but it is subtle or disguised. According to them, this is their lived experienced at PHSG.
It was submitted that because it is subtle or disguised, it then makes it difficult to prove hence whenever they find something tangible like the WhatsApp group messages so that it can be exposed. According to them, albeit the disciplinary hearing of the 12 learners relating to the WhatsApp group may have not found the learners guilty but at least they are content that they at least forced PHSG to act and for the public to see their lived experience.
The conduct of the School Management Team according to the report:
The SMT was unaware of all these Allegations 1 to 9 and seems to be content. Their submission was that they are more concerned with issues that falls within their individual portfolios which is academic related.
The role (if any) of the School Governing Body (SGB) of PHSG:
Allegation 1 was reported to the SGB chairperson and his deputy by School Official 1 the same time she informed Mr Nkadimeng. The SGB further learnt of Allegation 2 the same time as the district officials hence the deputy chairperson apologised to Learner 6 and her mother.
School Official 12 and School Official 15 attempted to interfere with the decision taken by the principal – after having duly consulted with the district regarding the Allegation 1 – to provisionally suspend and charge the 12 learners in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Gauteng Misconduct Code.
The SGB appears to have acted contrary to the provisions of Regulation 9 read with Regulations 28 and 29 of the Governing Body Regulation in co-opting the chairperson of the disciplinary panel who is not a parent at PHSG.
It further appears that the chairperson invoiced PHSG but it is unclear at this stage what the basis of that invoice as the SGB has refused to share this invoice and PHSG management failed to disclose same.
In the event the said invoice is for the services of the chairperson then such a payment would be irregular and contrary to paragraph 27.1 of the PHSG SGB constitution as no SGB member may be remunerated for the performance of his or her duties other than reimbursement expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of his or her duties.
The SGB claimed to be unaware of Allegation 3 but undertook to enquire into the matter by engaging the mother of Learner 1. Allegation 4 was not reported to the SGB. The PHSG management is investigating the incidents relating to Allegation 5. The current SGB was elected this year and thus were not play any role in relation to Allegation 6. Except for School Official 1, the SGB has not played any role in relation to Allegation 7.
The current SGB – except for School Official 12 who signed the SGB minutes of 9 November 2023 had indicated he was not party to the discussion to “restructure” the Finance unit and to appoint School Official 7 – was unaware of Allegation 8.
In relation to Allegation 9, School Official 19 was unaware of these allegations and found them to be concerning. School Official 15 also claimed to unaware of these allegations. School Official 12 indicated he was merely aware of School Official 9 being a volunteer but was not aware of the specifics of him volunteering. School Official 12 further submitted that he was unaware of School Official 9 employing gardeners and driving school vehicles. Similarly, he was unaware of the allegations relating to the unprofessional and use of foul language by School Official 10.
Having investigated the matter, the law firm made the following recommendations:
It will be prudent for the GDE to ensure that the school offer counselling to all learners who were affected by the incident including the 13 learners that were found guilty by the disciplinary hearings. Learner 8 was not offered counselling for the incident relating to School Official 4 and should thus be offered counselling. Learner 1 and Learner 2 should also be offered counselling in relation to School Official 3.
Whether there are any disciplinary steps that ought to be taken by the GDE against any person based on the findings of the investigation. Section 18 (2) of the EEA provides that when it is alleged that an educator has committed misconduct as envisaged by section 18 (1), the GDE must institute disciplinary proceedings. It follows that - for those employees at PHSG that are not employees of the GDE - the relevant authority would have to institute the disciplinary proceedings against those employees employed by it.
It is recommended that the following persons be charged with misconduct – School Official 1 for the various infractions of the Policy, SASA and section 18 (1) of the EEA; School Official 2 in terms of section 18 (1) of EEA for failure to act on the bullying incident that was reported to her by Learner 6 misleading School Official 1 as to the reason why she failed to act on the bullying incident; and the bullying incident of Learner 10. School Official 3 for the infraction of item 3 of the SACE Professional Ethics and section 18 (1) of EEA; School Official 4 for the infraction of item 3 of the SACE Professional Ethics and section 18 (1) of EEA; School Official 10 for his unprofessional conduct and use of foul language towards the employees including allowing School Official 9 to manage gardeners and to drive school vehicles thus exposing PHSG and the GDE to a potential risk under section 60 of SASA;
School Official 8 for her failure to ensure there is substantial compliance with her obligations as Human Resource Manager with regards to the advertisement of posts and for gross negligence in requesting School Official 11to sign the employment contract of School Official 16 on 11 September 2024 when she was made aware that School Official 16 was employed by School Official 9. Consequently, unjustifiably prejudicing the administration and efficiency of PHSG;
School Official 11 for her failure as acting principal of PHSG in ensuring that there is compliance with paragraphs 8.1.2, 14.3 and 14.4 of the PHSG recruitment policy. She is thus to be charged with misconduct under section 18 (1) (a), (b) and (f) of EEA with regards to her negligence of having signed the employment contract of School Official 16 without having any resolution from the SGB ratifying the appointment.
The GDE to consider removing School Official 12 from the SGB in terms of Regulation 13 of the Governing Body Regulations for making unwarranted allegations in his letter to the MEC and HOD to frustrate and derail this investigation, which letter appears was not sanctioned by the SGB and thus was in breach of paragraph 17.4 (a) of the SGB constitution. This letter was further in breach of section 16 (1) and (2) of SASA as it sought to interfere with the legislative powers and functions of the MEC and the HOD.
According to School Official 12, this was drafted on the advice and guidance of his personal legal representative and not one appointed by the SGB.
This was in clear breach of confidentiality as envisaged in paragraphs 17.4 (a), 26.3 to 26.5 of the SGB Constitution and unlawful interference with the legislative powers and functions of the MEC and with the professional management of the school.
“We will implement the recommendations, and bring social cohesion into the school in a manner that involves everyone, learners and teachers alike. We will also bring the school closer to the National Dialogue that is being purported by the Government of National Unity,” said MEC Chiloane.
