The Centre for Child Law, together with the mothers of two minor learners, sought to review disciplinary decisions taken by the South African Council for Educators (SACE) against two educators who had assaulted learners at school. One educator assaulted two Grade 2 learners with a PVC pipe, allegedly causing serious head injuries and long-term consequences; the other assaulted a learner by hitting her on the head, allegedly resulting in bleeding and hospitalisation. Disciplinary hearings in 2019 resulted in both educators pleading guilty and receiving identical sanctions under SACE’s 2016 Mandatory Sanctions regime, namely removal from the educators’ roll wholly suspended for ten years and a fine. The children and their parents were excluded from meaningful participation in the disciplinary hearings and were not consulted on sanctions. Despite repeated requests, SACE failed to provide reasons for its decisions. The appellants launched review proceedings under PAJA and legality, which the High Court dismissed for undue delay but granted systemic relief directing SACE to revise its sanctions policy. The appellants appealed the dismissal of the review.
The appeal was upheld. The High Court order dismissing the review was set aside. SACE’s disciplinary decisions of October 2019 and February 2020 approving the plea and sentence agreements and confirming the sanctions against the two educators were declared unlawful and invalid and set aside. The matters were remitted to SACE for reconsideration in compliance with its constitutional obligations, including consideration of appropriate rehabilitative sanctions. SACE was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, including the costs of two counsel.
This judgment clarifies that under s 7(1) of PAJA the 180-day period for review does not begin to run until reasons are provided, reaffirming Constitutional Court and SCA authority. It underscores that disciplinary bodies may not fetter their discretion through rigid mandatory sanctions and must act in accordance with constitutional obligations. The case strengthens the recognition of children’s rights in administrative and disciplinary proceedings, affirming the right of learners and parents to participate and the duty to prioritise the best interests of the child, including consideration of rehabilitative rather than purely punitive sanctions.