DF Malan High School in Bellville, Western Cape, was named after Dr DF Malan, a former Prime Minister (1948-1954) who was instrumental in implementing apartheid. Despite having a reputation for academic excellence and a stated ethos of inclusivity, the school's controversial name contradicted its values. From 2018, the school governing body faced increasing pressure from alumni, parents, and the "DF Malan Must Fall" movement to change the name. In June 2020, the governing body commenced a consultative process to reconsider the school's symbols, including its name. It appointed Dr Jan Frederick Marais, an independent facilitator, who advised a process focusing on the school's identity and values rather than a simple yes/no vote. Between March and May 2021, 150 stakeholders participated in 15 discussion groups facilitated by a steering committee. The Unit for Innovation and Transformation at Stellenbosch University compiled a report from these sessions. On 6 May 2021, the governing body resolved to review the school's name subject to financial investigation. After further consultation, stakeholders voted on two shortlisted names, with 85% choosing "DF Akademie". The appellants (four parents with children at the school) challenged this decision, arguing the governing body lacked power to change the name, the consultative process was unfair, and the decision was irrational.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed. The decision of the Western Cape High Court upholding the governing body's decision to change the school's name to DF Akademie was affirmed.
School governing bodies established under the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 have implied power to change a school's name. This power necessarily flows from their governance functions under section 16(1) and their fiduciary duties under section 16(2) to act in the best interests of the school. The Schools Act must be interpreted contextually and purposively, not restrictively. Section 16(1)'s provision that governing bodies "may only perform such functions... as prescribed by the Act" does not exclude implied powers necessary to give effect to their express governance responsibilities. Powers relating to a school's identity, ethos, and symbols (including its name) fall within the governing body's governance mandate, as no other entity in the statutory scheme is better placed or empowered to make such decisions. A consultative process regarding school name changes satisfies procedural fairness under PAJA section 3 when it provides adequate notice and meaningful opportunity for stakeholders to participate, even if not structured as a simple referendum. It is rational and permissible to frame consultation around broader questions of school identity and values rather than a binary choice, and to conclude consultation when a "saturation point" is reached. A decision to change a school's name is rational when it is based on information gathered through proper consultation and is reasonably connected to the school's stated values and best interests, particularly where the existing name is fundamentally incompatible with the school's commitment to inclusivity and transformation.
The Court made several non-binding observations: (1) Smith JA noted that "more than three decades into our constitutional democracy there are still public institutions which are named after individuals who were instrumental either in the development or implementation of the universally deprecated apartheid ideology" and described such names as an "albatross" around institutions' necks. (2) The Court observed that a public institution's name "often says more about its identity, ethos and culture than its written mission statement." (3) The judgment noted that governing bodies regularly exercise functions not expressly mentioned in the Schools Act (such as fundraising, marketing, and fee enforcement), suggesting the Schools Act is not exhaustive of their powers. (4) The Court emphasized that a governing body's fiduciary duty extends beyond parents and learners to "the broader community in which the school is located and in the light of the values of our Constitution," citing Hoërskool Ermelo. (5) Smith JA rejected the appellants' request for a costs order based on Biowatch principles, observing that the matter "does not raise any constitutional issues but instead concerns the appellants' determination to preserve a name, which is reminiscent of South Africa's archaic past characterised by racial division, inequality and oppression and is manifestly inconsistent with the constitutional values of democracy, racial unity and equality." This reflects judicial disapproval of efforts to retain apartheid-era symbols.
This judgment is significant in South African education law as it establishes that school governing bodies have implied power to change school names as part of their governance and fiduciary responsibilities under the Schools Act. The case confirms the broad scope of governing bodies' powers when interpreted purposively and contextually, extending the reasoning in Welkom High School. It provides important guidance on procedural fairness in school governance decisions, clarifying that consultation processes may be tailored to the circumstances and need not follow a rigid referendum model. The judgment also demonstrates the courts' recognition that transformation requires removing symbols associated with apartheid, even from well-performing institutions. It affirms that governing bodies, as democratically elected representatives of school communities, are best positioned to make decisions about school identity and symbols. The case contributes to South African jurisprudence on administrative law, particularly regarding what constitutes rational decision-making and procedurally fair consultation in the education context.
Explore 4 related cases • Click to navigate