Hamata and Another v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee and Others

The first appellant, Max Hamata, a student at Peninsula Technikon (Pentech), was subjected to internal disciplinary proceedings that culminated in his expulsion. During the proceedings before the Internal Disciplinary Committee (IDC), he requested to be represented by an external legal practitioner of his choice. This request was refused on the basis of a Technikon rule which provided that a student may be assisted only by another student or a member of staff. The IDC believed it had no discretion to allow external legal representation. Hamata withdrew from the proceedings in protest, did not cross‑examine witnesses, nor present evidence. The subsequent appeals to the Council Disciplinary Committee (CDC) and the Council were unsuccessful. Hamata and the Freedom of Expression Institute sought to review and set aside the disciplinary proceedings.

The appeal was upheld. The proceedings and decisions of the Internal Disciplinary Committee, the Council Disciplinary Committee, and the Council, including the expulsion of the first appellant, were set aside. No declaratory relief regarding the general validity or constitutionality of the rules was granted.

This case is a leading authority in South African law on legal representation in administrative and domestic disciplinary proceedings. It establishes that while there is no general right to legal representation, decision‑makers must have and exercise a discretion to allow it where required by procedural fairness. The judgment integrates constitutional values into the interpretation of institutional rules and influenced later jurisprudence and the application of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.