Sexual Violation Case at Bergview College: Eastern Cape DoE & Deputy Minister engagement

Meeting report

Opening remarks

Mr Llewellyn Brown, Committee Secretary, welcomed the Member of the Executive Council (MEC), the Head of Department (HOD), and officials from the Eastern Cape Department of Education. He informed the Committee that the Chairperson was temporarily unavailable and would be joining shortly. Until her arrival, he requested that Members nominate an Acting Chairperson for the session and then opened the floor for nominations.

Mr S Louw (ANC) was appointed Acting Chairperson. He welcomed Members of the Portfolio Committee and the Departmental officials. He apologised for the background noise, explaining that it was due to transport delays caused by adverse weather conditions in Bloemfontein. However, he confirmed that they had arrived in time for the meeting, which he emphasised was convened to address a matter of national importance.

He stated that the Committee was dealing with a sensitive and distressing incident involving the alleged rape of a seven-year-old girl at Bergview College in Matatiele, Eastern Cape. He described the incident as having gained significant media attention on social media platforms and national television. He thanked the Committee for the opportunity to serve as Acting Chairperson until the Chairperson arrived.

He then requested Mr Brown to flight the agenda for the meeting, which included the opening and welcome remarks, adoption of the agenda, apologies, and a briefing on the progress and status of a case involving a young learner.

Statement on the Case and Purpose of Meeting

The Acting Chairperson reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to receive a briefing from the Eastern Cape Department of Education on the case of the alleged rape of a seven-year-old girl at Bergview College. He described the incident as deeply troubling and said it shocked the local community and the nation. The event had raised serious concerns about the safety and well-being of children within educational institutions.

He stressed that parliamentarians and public representatives have a solemn responsibility to ensure that every learner in South Africa is provided with a safe and nurturing learning environment. He noted that the developments in this case pointed to significant failings in the oversight and accountability mechanisms relating to independent schools.

He emphasised Parliament's oversight role in ensuring that all educational institutions, including private schools, complied with national policies and maintained the highest safety standards. He called for a recommitment to robust school monitoring systems and stated that while frameworks for oversight existed, they needed to be implemented rigorously.

He expressed concern over delays in the investigation of the case, saying these had potentially compromised evidence and might hinder the course of justice. According to him, these delays could enable perpetrators to escape accountability, thereby undermining public trust in the ability of state institutions to protect children and uphold justice.

He cautioned that systemic failures and slow responses to such incidents risked creating a perception that both public and private educational institutions could not protect learners. He underlined the importance of prompt, coordinated action involving law enforcement, education departments, and social services.

The Acting Chairperson called for an interdepartmental approach to managing the criminal aspects of the case and providing emotional and psychological support to the victim and her family. He advocated strict preventative measures, including thorough staff vetting processes and implementing clear safety protocols within schools. He stated that such measures were urgent and necessary to prevent recurrence.

He urged Members to reflect on their collective responsibility to ensure accountability, transparency, and justice in the education system. He repeated that the timeframes and delays in the Department’s handling of the matter concerned the Committee and should be explained during the Department's presentation.

He then formally welcomed all Members and departmental officials to the meeting and confirmed that the meeting was officially open. He noted that the first agenda item had been concluded and handed over to the Department to present its briefing. He asked that the presentation outline all key steps taken in the case and clarify any factors contributing to delays in the Department’s response.

Before proceeding, he requested Mr Brown to check whether any apologies had been received.

Apologies and Attendance

Mr Brown proceeded to confirm the attendance register. He noted an apology from Dr D Christians (DA), who was unable to attend the meeting. He took a roll call of all members who were present.

He stated that an apology had also been received from the Minister of Basic Education, who could not attend due to prior commitments in Limpopo.

He confirmed that the committee Chairperson would be joining the meeting shortly and that it would continue in the meantime.

Departmental Representation

Given the Minister's absence, the Acting Chairperson sought clarity on who was representing the National Department of Basic Education. He expressed concern that, given the critical nature of the matter under discussion, it was important for the Department to be adequately represented. He recalled that one official had previously indicated her availability to attend and requested confirmation of who would speak on the Department's behalf.

Ms Lulama Ndabankulu, Chief Director: Office of the Director-General, Department of Basic Education (DBE), responded. She explained that the Director-General was currently out of the country and the relevant Deputy Director-General had a prior engagement that clashed with the meeting. She confirmed her attendance alongside a colleague who represented the branch responsible for school safety.

The Acting Chairperson thanked her for the clarification and requested that all attendees switch on their cameras, as the meeting was being streamed live. He acknowledged that some participants might experience connectivity issues but encouraged those who could to ensure visibility when speaking.

He then invited the Eastern Cape Department of Education delegation, led by the MEC, to proceed with their presentation.

Remarks by the MEC for Education, Eastern Cape

Mr Fundile Gade, MEC, EC DoE, stated that the case under discussion highlighted critical concerns related to the responsibilities of the education sector and the broader justice cluster.

He explained that the case was eye-opening regarding systemic social issues and the need for coordinated institutional responses. The report would be presented by the Head of Department (HOD), and he was joined by several senior officials, including the HOD, Deputy Director-General responsible for school administration, the Incident Office Manager, and several Chief Directors. He noted that this team had been closely involved since October 2024.

Mr Gade expressed his intention to allow the Committee ample time for questions and discussion, stating that he would not delay proceedings further. He added that one of the key lessons from this case, and other similar instances of gender-based violence and femicide, was the role of education as a fundamental enabler of human rights. He noted that the lack of interdepartmental coordination—particularly among the Departments of Justice, Safety and Liaison, and Basic Education—was an issue that required reflection. Without a coherent, unified approach, there was a risk of conflicting messages being conveyed around a single case. He concluded by inviting the HOD to proceed with the presentation.

Eastern Cape Department of Basic Education on Cwecwe Case

Ms Sharon Maasdorp, Head of Department, EC DoE, confirmed her presence in the meeting alongside several departmental colleagues.

She stated that the Department had prepared a timeline detailing the events of the case, beginning with the incident and ending with the Department’s response.

Timeline of events and initial departmental response

Ms Maasdorp stated that the alleged incident occurred on 14 October 2024. Although the school principal knew about the incident, he failed to report it. She highlighted that this omission was critical in understanding subsequent developments. On 19 November 2024, the circuit manager and a team from the Education Social Support Services visited the school, including psychologists and social workers. This marked the Department’s first engagement with the principal regarding the incident.

The principal was immediately asked to submit a report and explain why he had failed to report the matter earlier. On the same day, the Department referred the case to a place of safety and initiated a further investigation. The principal was formally instructed to provide a written report outlining the reasons for the incident's non-disclosure and his failure to inform the Department or prepare documentation.

Stakeholder engagements and support services

On 2 December 2024, the Department convened a stakeholder engagement meeting to address the concerns of the learners’ parents. By then, the matter had become known to the South African Police Service (SAPS), ward councillors, and other officials. Parents demanded answers from the Department regarding the delayed reporting and lack of documentation.

The Departmental psychologists submitted a report to the district director, and the principal was instructed to obtain written statements from the school’s cleaner and secretary. The Department began questioning all individuals who might have been near the learner during the incident to determine who may have violated the learner’s rights.

On 11 December 2024, a follow-up stakeholder engagement was held with Department officials and the Head Office to provide the parents with updates. However, the principal and school governing body members were absent. Ms Maasdorp highlighted this absence as deeply concerning, noting it compounded earlier failures by the school.

Escalation to Other Government Departments

Ms Maasdorp informed the Committee that the Department had also engaged with SAPS, recognising that the case had evolved beyond the education sector and required a multisectoral response. She explained that six counselling sessions were arranged for the learner and the learner’s parents.

On 26 March 2025, the circuit manager met the principal and governing body members to address ongoing media scrutiny. She described the community as agitated and demanding accountability due to the slow response from government structures.

During this period, the MEC for Education was in the area for a school handover, which coincided with increasing community pressure for the Department to demonstrate urgency and visibility in its response. Ms Maasdorp acknowledged that although teams had been deployed and psychosocial support had been provided, the Department’s initial response lacked the necessary urgency. She emphasised that the broader government—beyond the Department of Basic Education—was responsible for responding more swiftly.

Deregistration of the School and Legal Challenge

On 28 March 2025, the Department served the school with a deregistration notice. Ms Maasdorp described this step as necessary to ensure that all relevant authorities responded to the matter appropriately. She said the deregistration triggered a strong media reaction, which elevated national awareness. The Department used this action to call for an urgent, collaborative response from all government sectors.

However, the school’s legal team later challenged the deregistration, and the Department was compelled to withdraw it after being advised that the action had been unlawful. Despite this, Ms Maasdorp strongly believed that the principal’s refusal to provide a report, undergo DNA testing, or cooperate with officials was unacceptable. She reiterated that no one was above the law and that the Department had acted to ensure accountability.

On 31 March 2025, the MEC for Education appealed to the MEC for Community Safety to become involved. Additional assistance was also sought from the Departments of Health and Social Development. Ms Maasdorp confirmed that these Departments were now participating in the response.

Lessons Learnt and Current Interventions

Ms Maasdorp reflected that one of the key lessons from this incident was the need for early disclosure, rapid intervention, and an integrated response among government departments. She said that the Department had since adopted a multidisciplinary approach.

Following the court’s declaration in April 2025 that the deregistration was unlawful, the process was halted. The Department formed a team comprising labour relations, legal, and risk management officials. From the following week, they would begin conducting a “blitz” across all independent schools to verify personnel vetting. She explained that similar incidents had been reported in independent and mainstream schools.

The blitz had already begun with special schools, and the Department was now expanding it to all independent schools to ensure that anyone working with learners was properly vetted. On Monday, 07 April 2025, Department teams would return to the affected school with labour, legal, and psychosocial support teams.

Future Communication and Oversight

Ms Maasdorp concluded that the Department would continue to inform the media through joint statements from the Office of the MEC and maintain its multidisciplinary approach to engaging with the media and the community on this matter.

She thanked the Committee for its time and indicated that the Department remained committed to resolving the matter and supporting the affected learner and community.

[see attached for full presentation]

Discussion

Mr M Shikwambana (EFF) acknowledged that he reviewed the document the previous evening and had prepared several questions for the Department. He emphasised the seriousness of the matter under discussion, particularly the sexual assault. He lamented the broader context of widespread sexual violence in the country, stating that children, women, and elderly people were increasingly becoming victims of rape and murder. He expressed concern that this was becoming a societal norm and criticised the lack of accountability when such acts were committed.

He requested responses from the Department to the following questions:

• Under the section on periodic inspections and evaluations, which includes curriculum compliance, teacher qualifications, infrastructure, safety, and learner welfare, he asked how frequently the district had visited Bergview College—the school at the centre of the incident. He further asked whether this was the only reported rape case at the school or whether there were additional, unreported cases.
• Referring to the requirement of strict penalties for non-compliance, he questioned whether the principal’s alleged refusal to take a DNA test and the slow handling of the matter constituted non-compliance. If so, he asked how the Department intended to act—specifically, whether it would consider deregistration of the school or the revocation of its licence.
• He cited public comments by the Eastern Cape MEC for Social Development, who had indicated two additional cases involving a six-year-old girl and a seven-year-old boy. He asked whether the Department was aware of these cases and, if so, whether it could provide a progress report on them. He also asked whether any arrests had been made concerning these incidents.
• He inquired about the current well-being of the child victim and what forms of support—medical, psychological, and social—the Department was providing to the victim and the family. He asked whether the Department had a plan to ensure justice and closure for the family.
• He further questioned the frequency of communication between the Department and the family since the matter was brought to its attention.

Lastly, he sought clarity regarding a public statement allegedly made by AfriForum, claiming that the incident in question did not occur on school premises but in the surrounding community. He asked the Department to clarify the accuracy of this statement and confirm whether it was aware of the assertions being made publicly.

Ms P Mngadi (MKP) referred to Section 3(21) of the Constitution, which she interpreted as placing an obligation on the state to address all forms of gender-based violence and abuse against children and persons with disabilities. For uMkhonto wesiZwe Party, the matter was a deeply principled one. It believed that the Department of Basic Education should be held accountable.

She expressed concern that government departments often only responded when there was significant public pressure. Drawing a comparison with the 16 June 1976 youth protests, she suggested that public mobilisation remained a vital tool for holding the government accountable. She warned that the Cwecwe matter risked setting a dangerous precedent in the Eastern Cape if handled appropriately and seriously. She further drew a comparison between the current Government of National Unity (GNU) and the apartheid regime, stating that, as in the past, people were again taking to the streets in protest—this time against the GNU.

Ms Mngadi called for justice for the child, the family, and the affected community. Given the national attention the matter had received, she stressed that the Department should avoid speculation and instead provide factual clarity.

She requested that the Department confirm whether a vetting process had been conducted on the school principal implicated in the matter and share the outcome of that process, including the individual’s prior employment history, with the Committee. She voiced dissatisfaction with what she characterised as a lack of urgency and decisiveness on the part of the government, warning that if the state failed to act, MKP would continue to pursue the matter independently.

She further raised a query about Bergview College, which had allegedly been reinstated following a request, and questioned whether proper procedures had been followed in that instance. She expressed concern that a principal linked to a serious case could be reinstated without clear evidence being shared, and asked what mechanisms were in place to ensure due process in future cases of a similar nature.

Ms Mngadi also asked what interventions the Department had planned to enhance school safety and promote security in surrounding communities. She called for accountability for officials who may have contributed to spreading misinformation and urged the Department to ensure that ongoing investigations would not be subject to political interference.

Ms C Jordaan (DA) began by strongly condemning the reported violation of a seven-year-old girl at Bergview College. Speaking as both a woman and a mother of daughters, she described the incident as heart-breaking and deeply disturbing, asserting that no child should ever endure such cruelty. She emphasised that the perpetrators must face the full force of the law and called for justice for the child, her family, her school, and the broader community. She thanked the Committee and the Chairperson for convening the urgent briefing and asked the Department a series of questions.

She raised concern about apparent shortcomings in the vetting process for educators, stating that regardless of the outcome of the investigation, the Eastern Cape Department of Education appeared to have acknowledged this gap, particularly concerning independent and related schools. She asked whether all prospective employees were screened against both the National Register for Sex Offenders and the National Child Protection Register, and whether the necessary certification was applied for in respect of the implicated school. She enquired whether the current province-wide vetting process had revealed any preliminary findings or non-compliance cases.

She asked for clarity on the timeframes associated with the Department’s vetting intervention and requested a progress report. She further raised the issue of vetting for non-educator staff, noting that vetting procedures typically focused on educators but not necessarily on other adults with access to school premises and learners, such as drivers, groundskeepers, and service providers. She asked whether these individuals were subject to the same vetting procedures and, if not, what steps would be taken to address this gap.

Referring to the obligations under Regulation 33 of the Children’s Act, she enquired whether Form 22 had been completed to ensure the incident was recorded in the Child Protection Register. She further asked how the Department was monitoring and enforcing protocols to prevent violence and abuse in schools and whether any anti-gender-based violence campaigns or training programmes were in place in both public and private schools to support the identification and reporting of abuse.

Ms Jordaan expressed disappointment that neither the South African Police Service (SAPS) nor a representative from the Ministry of Police had been invited to the briefing, despite the issue's importance. She referred to a written reply by the Minister of Basic Education to Parliamentary Question 710, which indicated that the Minister had met with Mr Senzo Mchunu, Minister of Police, on 4 December 2024 to discuss school safety and vetting processes. The Ministers had reportedly agreed to establish a technical task team to improve vetting protocols. Ms Jordaan asked for an update on the progress and outcomes of this task team, and whether updated safety protocols had been developed.

She sought clarification on the intervention commitments mentioned in the provincial Department’s presentation, including the SAPS undertaking to provide bi-daily updates to the family and the district's responsibility to arrange counselling. She asked whether these actions were ongoing, and whether the affected child was still receiving psychosocial support. She emphasised the importance of long-term care, stating that recovery from trauma, especially of this nature, could take months or years.

She asked whether additional support had been extended to the wider school community, including peers, educators, and family members, in light of the trauma caused by the incident. She expressed concern about the principal's alleged initial refusal to cooperate with the investigation, including a refusal to submit DNA. She argued that all implicated individuals, regardless of guilt, should cooperate fully with the investigation and that the Department should provide clarity on this issue.

Turning to the deregistration of the school, Ms Jordaan asked whether all implicated individuals had been suspended and whether the Department would also address reports of other cases, such as one involving a boy from the same or a nearby area. She enquired how many such cases had been reported, investigated, and referred to SAPS, and whether the Department followed up on the progress of such investigations or responded only when the matter gained public attention.

She requested further details on how the school’s registration notice revocation had affected teaching, learning, and staff attendance. She asked whether learners and educators were adequately supported during this period and what the school's current status was following the withdrawal of the deregistration notice.

Lastly, she asked for an explanation of the timeline of departmental action, noting a gap between December 2024 and March 2025. She asked what steps, if any, the Department had taken during this period and why its response appeared delayed until the matter gained national attention.

Ms Y Govana (ANC) thanked the Department of Basic Education and began by reflecting on the emotional difficulty of dealing with traumatic cases involving children, especially when one is both an activist and a leader. She said such cases often confuse one about how to feel, particularly when confronted with the story of a young girl whose life has been irrevocably altered.

She remarked that the damage caused to the child was permanent and that no intervention could undo what had been done. The trauma would remain with her throughout her life. This incident should have been anticipated and that policymakers needed to factor in the needs of minors when handling such matters.

She described rape as an act that "kills a person inside and out while leaving them alive." She expressed concern about the delays in the case and the lack of visible progress, especially when the crime allegedly took place at school—a space that should be safe. Although the details had not yet been confirmed, the situation had placed a heavy emotional burden on the Department, the police, and the community.

She said everyone remained a victim until the perpetrator was found, and she called for thorough investigations. She asked what long-term psychological support would be provided to the child, noting that two or three counselling sessions would not be sufficient. She emphasised the need for a sustained support plan throughout the child’s school life to enable her to regain hope.

Ms Govana voiced concern over how the child’s identity had been exposed in the media, which would follow her into adulthood. She said the stigma would continue to haunt her, even after justice had been served. She asked what role the Departments of Social Development, Education, and civil society could play in helping the child overcome the trauma.

She raised the issue of a teacher who had reportedly resigned after the incident and asked whether DNA testing had been conducted, particularly on those who had close proximity to the child. She stressed that the individuals in question were still only alleged perpetrators but expressed concern about anyone refusing to cooperate with the investigation.

Ms Govana criticised the justice system's slow pace, saying it repeatedly failed victims. She cited another case as an example and expressed concern that they might walk free even if the culprit were found. She highlighted the need for urgent reforms in how such cases are handled.

She also stressed the importance of thoroughly vetting all individuals working in schools—not just teachers but also cleaners and general assistants—because everyone interacting with children should be trustworthy. She stated that the failure to create safe school environments showed that something fundamental had been overlooked.

Ms Govana said the media played a role in keeping the case alive and pushing for accountability, but she also criticised the lack of sensitivity in the child’s public exposure. She called for ways to protect the child's identity and to place her well-being above all else.

She suggested creating safe spaces for the child to continue healing—possibly by relocating her within Alfred Nzo or neighbouring areas—while ensuring sustained psychological support. She called on the South African Police Service to intensify efforts in solving the case and said the Ministry of Police should prioritise this matter.

Ms Govana said she was deeply disappointed with the school’s principal's attitude. She noted that the school would not have been shut down had it not been for public outcry. She found the principal's apparent indifference disturbing and said it raised concerns for the safety of other children in the area.

She closed by thanking the media for reviving the case despite their criticism of the government. She said the case must now be treated as a national priority.

Mr L Komane (EFF) thanked the presenter but expressed strong dissatisfaction with the quality of the report, describing it as incomplete and indicative of a lack of diligence by the Department of Basic Education in the Eastern Cape. He criticised the absence of key stakeholders, such as the SAPS, and remarked that their presence would have been crucial given the nature of the matter under discussion.

He argued that the principal should be suspended immediately for failing to report the incident timeously and for allegedly refusing to undergo a DNA test. He further proposed that the police officer in charge of the case also be suspended, stating that the police had mishandled the matter and caused unnecessary delays. He suggested that the case be escalated to a higher authority (different police station) within the police service to ensure justice is pursued without obstruction.

Mr Komane questioned how many other incidents might have occurred under the same school leadership without being reported. He argued that the school should not continue operating without addressing these serious concerns and called for decisive disciplinary steps against all those close to the principal who failed to act appropriately.

He also raised concerns about the effectiveness of School Governing Body (SGB) members, arguing that they were often poorly trained and disrespected within the education system, rendering them powerless to intervene in school matters. To illustrate his concerns, he cited an example of ongoing issues at JG Meiring High School, Cape Town.

Mr Komane urged the Department to reconsider its approach, asserting that it must align more closely with lived community experiences rather than rely solely on bureaucratic standards. He called for a future engagement where the Committee could meet with the relevant stakeholders in person rather than via virtual platforms to ensure full accountability. He reiterated that the school in question must be suspended or closed and that the matter should be treated with the seriousness it deserved.

Ms N Gasa (MKP) noted the seriousness and sensitivity of the matter under discussion and expressed the hope that justice would be realised for the family and community affected. She indicated that she would be brief but raised several points requiring clarification.

She requested information on the school's security arrangements, including the number of security guards, the condition of the perimeter fencing, and the existence of closed-circuit television cameras. She explained that she intended to assess all possible contributing factors to the incident, including whether an unauthorised person may have gained access to the premises.

Ms Gasa asked whether the school had taken any steps following the incident and, if so, what those steps were and what outcomes had resulted. She referred to the principal’s failure to report the matter to the circuit management and asked whether reasons had been provided for this. She enquired whether disciplinary processes had been initiated against the principal for non-compliance with reporting procedures.

She requested details on the racial composition of the School Governing Body. She referred to comments made by another Member regarding the limited training and authority of such structures. She suggested that the School Governing Body should have taken action without any response from the principal.

Ms Gasa asked why the principal had not complied with the school’s resolution to undertake DNA testing and sought clarity on his subsequent decision to undergo testing. She referred to media reports alleging that three DNA samples collected in the matter had not produced any matches and requested confirmation from the Department on whether it had received similar information.

Mr M Feni (ANC, Eastern Cape) welcomed the presentation and appreciated the report. He acknowledged the seriousness of the matter and commended the school principal's leadership in deciding to close the school following the incident. He characterised the decision as reflecting both responsible leadership and parental concern.

He raised concern regarding certain groups that, in his view, sought to undermine national unity. He referred specifically to AfriForum, suggesting that the organisation had adopted an oppositional posture during a time of national challenge rather than offering constructive assistance. He remarked that such conduct detracted from efforts to build cohesion and address systemic issues collaboratively.

Mr Feni expressed support for the involvement of the broader government cluster, especially the security cluster, in resolving the matter. He suggested that interdepartmental coordination was essential to ensuring accountability and that the individual responsible should be apprehended without delay.

He voiced dissatisfaction with delays in effecting an arrest and stated that such inaction contributed to public frustration. He cautioned against politicising the issue and encouraged a collective focus on ensuring justice. He stated that such incidents, when mishandled, risked escalating into broader societal crises.

He referred to the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Act, noting that it provided clear guidance on school governance. He confirmed that the processes currently underway appeared to be under the legislation. However, he reiterated concern about delayed intervention by law enforcement agencies and stated that this matter required urgent attention.

Mr Feni clarified that no determination had been made regarding the principal’s guilt. However, he noted that the principal’s limited engagement with the investigation had raised concern. He suggested that the principal should have made himself available from the outset and urged full cooperation with the ongoing processes.

He expressed support for the Minister's commitment to establish and maintain a national register of offenders. He encouraged Members to support this regulatory intervention and discouraged actions aimed at political expediency. He affirmed the need for a unified and lawful response, stating that all parties should remain focused on resolution and accountability.

Mr V Zungula (ATM) expressed regret that the Committee had to convene to address such a matter, which he characterised as a result of departmental failure rather than effective oversight. He emphasised that the incident in question had gained public attention not because of the efforts of the Department or its Eastern Cape division, but due to the persistence and advocacy of the child’s mother. He argued that the issue should be addressed from two perspectives: the specific incident and broader systemic failures that may enable similar occurrences across the country. He stressed that many parents may lack access to digital platforms to raise such issues, and minors, in particular, may not have the capacity to articulate or report violations.

He expressed disappointment in the Eastern Cape Department of Education’s handling of the case. He stated that, had the Department acted appropriately, remedial action would already have been taken, including disciplinary action against the principal and other involved parties. He said the Department’s lack of response and leadership had necessitated the Committee’s involvement.

Mr Zungula asked what mechanisms and processes the Department had in place to receive and act on complaints of this nature, particularly where minors were allegedly violated by individuals entrusted with their care. He questioned what procedures were followed from the time the child's mother reported the matter, beginning at the school level. He noted that justice should not rely on social media or public platforms to be actioned and asked what systemic failures resulted from this dependency.

He requested clarity on the current status of the principal, noting that the Department should not conflate its responsibilities with those of the SAPS. He questioned whether the principal remained employed, whether he had been suspended or allowed to resign, and what safeguards were in place to prevent him from moving to another school and potentially committing similar violations. He noted that the principal had failed to report the incident timeously, had not cooperated with the investigation, and had missed key meetings on the matter. He further stated that there had been delays in securing his DNA sample and queried what action the Department had taken in response.

Mr Zungula asked what circumstances led to the deregistration of the school and the withdrawal of its registration.

He enquired about the relevant departmental policies and procedures that ought to be triggered when such allegations are reported. He asked whether the principal had complied with these and requested clarity on what timelines and responsibilities were set out in policy. He said it was unacceptable that an incident reported in October 2024 was still unresolved by April 2025, with the alleged perpetrator continuing as though unaffected.

He said it was concerning that there had to be a public outcry for justice to be served. He argued that this reflected a failure of the state, particularly its institutions responsible for the protection of minors. He noted that many children in the school system might not even be aware they were being violated, let alone capable of reporting it. He questioned what this reality said about the performance of the Department and SAPS.

He asked how many officials in the school system, including teachers, principals and caretakers, currently faced allegations of a similar nature. He highlighted that this was not the first such allegation against the principal in question, yet he remained in a position of authority and access to minors. He said allegations of this nature—regardless of whether guilt had been legally established—should result in the immediate removal of the individual from any role involving the care of children, to avoid interference with investigations and to prevent further harm.

Mr Zungula asked whether an independent body was conducting an investigation into the incident. He argued that the Eastern Cape Department of Basic Education could not investigate itself, as it was implicated in the failure to act. He said the mother of the child had stated publicly that the justice system had failed her and would not allow her child to be similarly failed. He supported this position and proposed that the Committee engage other parliamentary committees—specifically those responsible for justice, policing, and social development—in a joint sitting to ensure a coordinated and thorough response to the matter.

He concluded by stating that while Parliament was in recess, the emotional and physical trauma experienced by children and families continued. The Committee, he said, could not remain idle in the face of such widespread and public concern.

Mr C Shongwe (MKP) stated that the matter under discussion was serious and had affected the dignity and privacy of the learner’s mother, who had been forced to take her personal life into the public domain. As a result of her decision to speak out, she now faced public scrutiny and questioning. He emphasised that this intrusion resulted from systemic failures across multiple departments, including the SAPS, the Department of Basic Education, and school security.

He noted that the learner’s mother was herself a member of SAPS, and had reportedly needed to ‘pull rank’ to be taken seriously. This illustrated the complacency of public servants who failed to follow up on incidents and remained inactive while continuing to receive salaries. He stated that this culture of negligence had become entrenched within the system and damaged the government institutions' reputation.

Mr Shongwe stated that the Department had been embarrassed by the incident, particularly because it had been brought to public attention by social media rather than through formal channels. He asked who in the Department of Basic Education had first become aware of the allegations, when this happened, and what action had been taken. He posed the same questions concerning officials at the school, particularly the School Governing Body and security personnel. He wanted to know who the matter had been reported to, how many security officials were on the premises, and their role since the incident was first raised. He found it unacceptable that so many months had passed without consequence.

He expressed concern about the timeline and questioned why the school had taken so long to react. In his view, the delay in the school’s closure appeared to be a strategy to protect the principal. He pointed out that the principal had written to AfriForum but had not immediately offered to provide DNA evidence to the police. Mr Shongwe argued that this failure had compromised the integrity of the school’s security systems. He asked about the whereabouts of the deputy principal and other staff members during the period in question. What action did they take once they became aware of the incident? In his view, the entire staff, including security, had failed to protect the children.

Mr Shongwe indicated that he would not feel comfortable sending his children back if he were a parent at the school. He called for the principal and security staff to be removed before the school could be reopened. He also asked the MEC to provide the rationale behind the decision to reopen the school and the conditions under which this would take place. He believed that the principal’s refusal to submit DNA evidence timeously had contributed to the delay in resolving the matter and had undermined public trust. He contended that, had the principal been Black and the learner White, the outcome would likely have been different, with immediate arrest and legal action.

He confirmed his intention to write formally to the MEC to request that the school not be reopened until new leadership and security measures were in place. He repeated that the principal and deputy principal should be removed and replaced with individuals who understood their duty to protect learners. He criticised the apparent lack of awareness or response from school security staff, who had failed to detect the incident despite its alleged occurrence on school grounds. He said the situation had brought shame to the Government of National Unity and argued that race had played a role in how the matter was handled.

He shared that the learner’s mother had alleged threats from the principal and was currently living away from home out of fear. He described the principal as a ‘tenant’ in the situation, and alleged that his actions had been enabled by racial privilege and external support. He strongly criticised AfriForum, questioning whether the organisation would have acted similarly if the principal had been Black.

Mr Shongwe supported the earlier suggestion that various Committees work together on this issue and proposed that the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) be included. He observed that social media platforms were key in raising awareness. He suggested a mechanism for public digital communication to be monitored or guided in such cases. He maintained that the system had failed the learner and her family, citing delays in investigation and concerns over the integrity of the DNA collection process. He called for an independent medical review of the DNA evidence and questioned the handling of the testing kit.

In conclusion, Mr Shongwe stated that he feared for the safety of the learner’s mother and felt deeply disappointed by the handling of the matter. He reiterated that the school should not be reopened under its current leadership and security structure and described the matter as a system failure at large. He submitted his remarks to the Committee.

Mr S Ngcobo (IFP) noted that he had struggled for some time to be recognised, although he acknowledged that this was not the Chairperson’s fault. He greeted the members and departmental officials and said he would not repeat concerns that had already been raised. He emphasised his dissatisfaction with the role played by the Department in the matter under discussion. He suggested that the Department appeared hesitant or fearful in its handling of the issue, and respectfully proposed that the involvement of AfriForum may have influenced this. He remarked that officials had appeared to be proceeding with extreme caution, as if “walking on eggshells”, which he found concerning.

He raised concerns about the timeline and the sequence of decisions related to the school's deregistration and reregistration. He questioned the rationale behind the initial deregistration and subsequent reregistration and asked whether these decisions were based on internal legal advice or external pressure. He queried whether the Department had acted independently and lawfully. He noted confusion regarding the process and questioned whether the reregistration was a reactionary decision.

Mr Ngcobo also raised the issue of learner safety, specifically concerning the placement of the affected learner at West Bank Primary School. He underscored that while SAPS had a role, the Department equally bore responsibility for ensuring a safe learning environment. He argued that the Department could and should have done more, and stressed that its responsibilities extended beyond the legal or punitive functions assigned to law enforcement.

He returned to his concern about the Department’s overall handling of the matter, but stated that he would not elaborate further in the interest of time. He expressed disappointment that the meeting had significantly exceeded the scheduled end time.

Ms T Magagula (ANC) noted the disadvantage of speaking last but welcomed the opportunity for reflection. She described the meeting as an important intervention that exposed critical gaps in policy related to the registration of independent schools. She questioned the current legislative framework, stating that it was problematic that the state had financial obligations to such schools without the ability to enforce disciplinary measures when irregularities occurred. She suggested that the Department should strengthen its regulatory approach to ensure accountability by independent institutions.

She welcomed the Department’s response once the report had been received and commended it for providing leadership. She acknowledged its efforts in convening meetings, supporting the affected family through psychosocial services, and addressing the issue in a structured manner. She criticised the school principal and board for failing to attend the scheduled meeting on 11 March 2024, interpreting this as a sign of disregard, possibly influenced by the fact that the learner was African.

Ms Magagula suggested that the provincial education department conduct a comprehensive investigation to determine how many learners may have been affected. She indicated that some parents may not have come forward due to fear of victimisation. She highlighted that unequal confidence levels and access to information prevented some individuals from speaking out.

She questioned the nature of AfriForum’s involvement and asked why the organisation had taken an interest in this case when it had not done so in similar cases in the past. She speculated that AfriForum may have had prior knowledge of the principal’s background, and raised concern that the organisation’s selective engagement created an impression of bias.

She further questioned the Department’s legal processes, noting that while the legal advisors had indicated that the deregistration letter was unlawful, they had not provided clarity on what procedures should have been followed. She called on the Department’s legal services to outline the correct deregistration process and emphasised the importance of ensuring that unlawful actions are avoided in the future. She argued that the school in question should be closed and recommended significantly strengthening the regulatory process for registering independent schools.

Ms Magagula proposed that the Committee invite the principal and the school management to appear before it to account for their actions. She stated that, as the Department is the registering authority, it had the right to demand accountability. She noted that the Department had fulfilled its role by issuing the deregistration letter, and criticised the school for having concealed that communication. She explained that the matter only came to light because a parent had spoken out. She stated that Members could not blame government departments without acknowledging their roles and limitations as public representatives. She noted that lack of information had previously constrained action, but welcomed the fact that the current meeting provided a platform for such matters to be aired.

She recommended that SAPS be held accountable, particularly regarding the delays experienced by the complainant and the extent of similar incidents in other communities. She reiterated her support for strong follow-up action and requested that the committee adopt her proposal for a hearing with the school.

The Acting Chairperson welcomed the Portfolio Committee Chairperson's return and acknowledged her presence in the meeting. He reminded Members that he had served in an interim capacity while the Chairperson travelled. Now that she was present, the meeting would proceed under her leadership as previously agreed.

Ms K Maimela (ANC) informed the Committee that she was still travelling and joining the meeting from a moving vehicle. She indicated that her network was unstable and she kept losing connectivity occasionally. For this reason, she had raised her hand to request permission to contribute early, after which she would continue listening to the meeting as best she could. She asked the acting chairperson to allow her to give her input, after which he could summarise and close the meeting.

The Acting Chairperson accepted this request, assuring her there was no issue. Following her request, he explained that she could proceed with her input and that he would contribute last.

Ms Maimela thanked the Acting Chairperson and extended greetings to Members. She apologised for not turning on her camera, reiterating that her network was unstable due to her being on the road. She commended Members for attending the meeting despite it being a Friday at the end of the parliamentary term, and noted the importance of the matter under discussion.

She then praised the bravery of the mother of the victim, stating that, based on the Committee's experience, many families facing cases of statutory rape often sought to resolve such matters privately due to stigma and humiliation. It was painful, she said, for families to deal with such matters publicly, and many opted to remain silent. In contrast, the mother in this case had chosen to speak out and mobilise the public in the pursuit of justice, which she felt deserved commendation.

Ms Maimela greeted the leadership of the provincial Department of Basic Education and acknowledged the team’s presence. She referred to a media briefing led by the Minister of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, which many Members had likely followed. According to the Minister, it had been confirmed that the child had indeed been violated. Ms Maimela appreciated the Department of Basic Education’s participation in that briefing and noted that officials had shared recordings and details of the case with her. These, she said, revealed gruesome facts about the incident and highlighted serious gaps in the country’s criminal justice system.

Ms Maimela argued that many victims of Gender-Based Violence (GBV) and sexual assault were not receiving justice due to how the law was currently structured. In her view, the burden placed on victims to prove violations was excessive. She remarked that the system effectively treated victims’ bodies as crime scenes, which echoed sentiments commonly shared by women advocating against GBV. She found it heart-breaking that the young victim in question might not receive justice, especially as the case appeared to hinge on the availability of DNA evidence. She referenced public discourse that suggested the suspect had been cleared due to a lack of DNA evidence. Still, she stressed that the police had reportedly indicated that no comparative DNA sample was available to begin with. This raised concerns about the effectiveness of investigations and the nature of evidence required in such cases.

She emphasised that, although the Department of Basic Education was primarily responsible for providing quality education, schools had custody of millions of children for eight hours a day. As such, it was reasonable for parents and communities to expect their children to be safe during that time. Given that gender-based violence had been declared a second pandemic in South Africa, she said it was vital to assess whether laws adequately protected victims.

Ms Maimela proposed that the Committee should invite the SAPS division responsible for investigating such cases to explain the processes followed when cases of statutory rape or child sexual abuse were reported. She noted that a departmental circular required schools to complete a specific form when a learner under the age of consent was found to be pregnant. She wanted to understand why the conviction rate in such cases remained low, and what types of evidence were considered admissible or necessary for prosecution.

She explained that as a parent, she would expect law enforcement to act swiftly in investigating, apprehending, and prosecuting suspects when a child had been violated. Similarly, she would expect schools and the Department to offer strong, visible support to parents whose children had been harmed while in the school’s care.

Ms Maimela proposed that the Committee agree to convene a meeting with the relevant SAPS division and Departmental officials to understand each step taken in such cases. She felt that without accountability and transparency in the process, more parents and children would refrain from reporting cases due to a perceived lack of consequence.

While acknowledging the importance of holding departments and individuals accountable, she said the Committee also had a responsibility as lawmakers to interrogate whether existing laws and systems were failing victims. She stressed that such reflection was necessary to determine whether failures stemmed from structural gaps or officials not fulfilling their duties.

She added that although the Committee was engaging on this specific case due to the bravery of one mother, there were many other similar cases across the system. She expressed concern that many of these cases might not have progressed beyond the initial reporting stage and instead existed only as checkboxes on a form, with no meaningful follow-up or justice.

Remarks by the Acting Chairperson on the Cwecwe Case

The Acting Chairperson aligned himself with the sentiments expressed by other Members, stating that it was deeply regrettable that the Committee had to convene under such painful circumstances. He remarked that the day’s discussion reflected a failure of systems and leadership within public institutions, particularly those entrusted with the care and safety of learners.

He noted that while the Department's presentation offered factual information, it failed to address the underlying concerns around accountability and protection. He questioned how, in 2025, the country had come to rely on social media to uncover serious allegations of abuse instead of established systems within the education sector.

He emphasised that learners were meant to be safe within South Africa’s education system—an institution that should provide them with knowledge, safety, and a foundation for becoming responsible citizens. He said it was unacceptable that in this case, the matter had only gained traction because of public outcry, not because of proactive action from the Department or relevant stakeholders.

The Acting Chairperson stated that the response from the Department should not have been limited to jurisdictional or legal technicalities. Once the matter came to light, there should have been an immediate, demonstrable commitment to ensuring that the allegations were fully investigated, including DNA testing, and that the learner and her mother were given appropriate support. He stressed that, regardless of whether the school involved was a private institution, the Department still bore responsibility for monitoring, assessing, and intervening when necessary, in line with legal standards governing all educational institutions.

He expressed concern that the mother, who had courageously brought the issue to national attention, appeared to lack institutional support. He said this reflected a broader failure of intergovernmental collaboration and stakeholder coordination. He added that the Department had been cautioned previously about the need for effective partnerships, integrated action, and prompt responses to critical matters—but these concerns remained unaddressed.

He further questioned the period between the matter being first raised and the school principal's refusal to submit to DNA testing. He asked what measures the Department had taken during that interval and whether any protection or support had been provided to the affected family. He called for clarity on whether there had been any collaborative effort to ensure that the allegations received the attention and legal follow-up they deserved.

The Acting Chairperson reiterated the need for a clear action plan from the Department. He said the Committee expected to hear what steps would be taken to ensure the matter was resolved, that prosecution followed due course, and that the credibility of public institutions was restored. He underscored the importance of supporting the learner, her mother, and the Minister, who had indicated a willingness to bring clarity and resolve to the issue.

In closing, he stressed that Members had offered constructive recommendations and expressed serious concerns about the Department’s apparent failure to fulfil its oversight responsibilities, particularly private institutions still subject to the country’s laws and educational standards. He maintained that it was unacceptable for such schools to operate without adequate monitoring or assessment.

He appealed to the Department to respond honestly and carefully to the concerns raised. The Committee sought not only to fulfil its oversight role but also to ensure collaboration and decisive action that would prevent such incidents from recurring. He concluded by indicating that he would hand over to the MEC, who would, in turn, allow the Head of Department and the Deputy Minister to provide further responses. The Committee would then consider a way forward based on the deliberations.

Response

MEC Gade appreciated the meeting and acknowledged the presence of the Chairperson, Members, Deputy Minister, and government officials from the legislative and executive arms. He said it was important to welcome the guidance the Committee offered and reflect on how that advice could support a shift in the Department’s approach to handling such matters.

He suggested that the Office of the HOD elevate private school regulations and policies, which the Chairperson had already highlighted. The MEC cautioned that the Committee could unintentionally apply public school regulations to a case involving a private school, which could complicate any findings or recommendations.

He acknowledged the Chairperson’s remarks regarding the regulatory gaps within the private education sector. He confirmed that these shortcomings had led him, as MEC, to write to the MEC for Safety and Liaison to request clarity on when prosecution could occur. He noted that without legal action guided by the relevant frameworks, the situation would deteriorate further rather than be resolved.

Returning to registration and deregistration, MEC Gade noted that the government’s only authority over independent schools was through the legislative process of registration and deregistration, since independent schools appoint their Principals through boards rather than government channels. He referred to legal prescripts and relevant clauses cited by the Chairperson, which had informed the Department’s initial decision to seek deregistration of the school. However, he raised concern about the lack of cooperation from other state actors, specifically the Department of Justice, in invoking Section 05, which addresses obstruction of justice by individuals who refuse to cooperate with law enforcement. He believed the Department had expected greater support in reprimanding individuals who withheld information necessary for the State to act.

He went on to question the implications of the report reportedly held by Mr Monwabisi Mbangeni, Chief Director at the Eastern Cape Department of Basic Education, which suggested that no rape had occurred. He warned that this introduced confusion into the Department’s already initiated deregistration process and complicated the fate of the approximately 400 learners expected to return to the school the following week. He reiterated that the Department’s original intention to close the school stemmed from serious concerns, including the non-cooperation of a key suspect, which the school board or the justice system had not adequately addressed.

MEC Gade stressed that this was not recent but dated 25 October 2024. Despite that, the individual in question had yet to be arrested, even as the Department pursued avenues for closure. He pointed out administrative limitations and policy gaps that had surfaced through this incident and called on the Committee to assist in formalising a stronger legislative framework, particularly as it pertained to private schools. He referenced a related case involving allegations of abuse of vocal rights, which had been brought to the Department’s attention around the same time. In that instance, swift departmental investigation led to the immediate arrest and dismissal of the accused individuals. He contrasted that case with the current one, which had stagnated due to non-cooperation by the suspect and lack of alignment among state actors.

He then raised serious concern about the apparent racial disparities in how the school board had responded. He said the board had suspended the African caretaker who had cooperated with police and undergone a DNA test, which returned negative. However, the white individual implicated in the case had consistently refused to cooperate with law enforcement, yet faced no similar disciplinary action from the board. MEC Gade stressed that this inconsistency suggested underlying racial dynamics that could not be ignored. He called for this aspect to be formally acknowledged as part of the broader policy discussion and lessons to be drawn from the case.

He reiterated the gravity of gender-based violence and femicide in South Africa and criticised the legal representative of the accused for prioritising technicalities to avoid accountability. He said the Department had been forced to rely on deregistration to address the situation, but was concerned about balancing this with contradictory reports emerging from different ministries. He proposed that the Department compile a comprehensive written report that captured all aspects raised by Members, including outstanding policy issues. This report would include an index and highlight elements not reflected in earlier submissions.

He revealed that the Department had only become aware of the matter through whistle-blowers and not via the school or the parent. By the time the Department became involved, over six weeks had passed. He said the case required a multidisciplinary team, led by Mr Mbangeni, to conduct a holistic investigation at the school. That investigation recommended that law enforcement question three individuals: the principal, the caretaker, and the school transport driver. Two of these individuals had cooperated, while the third had refused from the outset. Despite this, the school board failed to act until the Department intervened.

He concluded that the case illustrated the need for a deeper understanding of policy and administrative mechanisms for dealing with such matters, particularly in independent schools. He confirmed that the Department had resolved the matter related to the vocal rights case and said it was now up to the Department of Justice to finalise it with the affected families. He apologised for the length of his input and reaffirmed the Department’s commitment to respond to the Committee’s recommendations.

Eastern Cape Department of Basic Education on oversight and compliance at the school

Mr Monwabisi Mbangeni, Chief Director: District Director, EC DoE, stated that he was the Chief Director responsible for the district in which the school in question was located. While he might not present his input in a fully structured manner due to how he captured the responses, he aimed to provide a complete overview as requested.

He explained that the school was an independent institution on private property, specifically in a residential house. The school’s front gate was white, and the learner population stood at 665, spanning from Grade R to Grade 12. All learners were black, and there were no white learners enrolled. The principal, however, was white. The school complied with the Department’s curriculum and examination requirements, and the most recent check had confirmed that the 35 educators employed there were qualified and registered with the South African Council for Educators (SACE).

However, he raised a concern regarding independent schools in general. He noted that when such schools submitted educator qualifications for verification, they only provided details for those properly qualified and registered with SACE. Often, staff remained unaccounted for or withheld qualifications, and the Department had no oversight over such individuals unless further information surfaced. That said, the Department retained all available documentation and would disclose any additional findings should further investigations uncover unqualified staff hired after the initial assessment.

The school's infrastructure consisted of a mix of prefabricated structures, mud structures, and brick-and-mortar buildings. The district regularly used multidisciplinary teams to visit such public and independent schools. These visits were structured and ongoing.

He further acknowledged that, aside from the serious incident currently under discussion, the Department had also investigated an earlier complaint against the principal. In that case, educators had accused the principal of racism. That investigation had not yet been finalised, and even the MEC and Head of Department had not received a report on it. Progress on that investigation was interrupted by the more urgent recent matter of alleged sexual assault, which took precedence.

Addressing the incident's timeline, Mr Mbangeni said the case had not been reported by the parent or the principal, but was discovered through social media a month and a half later. Upon becoming aware of the situation, the Circuit Manager visited the school immediately. During his visit, it emerged that the incident had occurred on 13 October and was reported by the parent on 14 October. The principal had not informed the Department, reasoning that he had already reported the matter to the police and a place of safety. The parent had assumed that the principal would notify the Department and was unaware that this had not occurred.

The Department responded by mobilising its psychosocial support services, including psychologists and occupational therapists, in collaboration with the Department of Social Development. These services were extended to both the learner and her parents. Although the mother later chose to seek her own professional support, she remained in contact with the Department and never indicated that she felt unsupported.

Mr Mbangeni said that after the matter was escalated to the Department, he convened a meeting with relevant stakeholders, including the local municipal leadership, police station commander of Matatiele (Ms Sithole), officials from the Department of Social Development, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), and representatives of special programmes. The meeting agreed that the three individuals in direct contact with the learner—the school principal, the driver, and the caretaker—should undergo DNA testing. This was not contested. However, SAPS has informed the department that the DNA process will take time. The Department requested that SAPS update the learner’s mother and the circuit manager every two days, though this follow-up was inconsistent.

Mr Mbangeni explained that the Department had collaborated with the Departments of Social Development and Health to host awareness sessions on sexual abuse and related social challenges at both public and independent schools. These sessions included training on school safety protocols and were attended by principals from independent schools, including the principal in question. A specific dialogue had also been held for male educators to address the issue of sexual molestation of learners. The principal of Bergview College had been present at this event. He confirmed that independent schools were included in all capacity-building initiatives.

Responding to remaining questions, he said the MEC had already outlined the Department’s role in supporting the ongoing investigation. The key officials involved included the circuit manager, the district investigator, and himself, under the supervision of the local police station commander. He added that all schools had been issued with standardised incident reporting forms and were required to report incidents as they occurred. While most schools complied, the current case had only come to the Department’s attention through social media, which remained a matter of concern.

He concluded by emphasising that the Department remained committed to providing equal oversight and support to both public and independent schools.

Response by the Deputy Minister of Basic Education

Dr Reginah Mhaule, Deputy Minister, DBE, expressed appreciation for the concern shown by the Portfolio Committee and its Members, highlighting the seriousness of the matter under discussion. She welcomed the report presented by the Eastern Cape Department of Education and greeted all officials in attendance.

She remarked that the final segment of the Chief Director’s presentation should have been included in the main report, as this may have helped avoid many of the questions raised. Dr Mhaule reiterated the Department’s appreciation for the engagement and acknowledged that the issue was particularly challenging. She stated that while the Department bore responsibility for safety within schools, challenges arose when individuals who were meant to be protectors of children became suspects in alleged misconduct. This, she said, represented a very serious concern.

Dr Mhaule stressed that the safety of learners was paramount and that it remained the responsibility of every individual within a school environment – from the Minister to the security personnel at the school gate. However, she noted that certain functions, such as staff vetting, fell outside the sole purview of the Department. While the Department might refer teachers for vetting, it often had to wait months for reports to be finalised due to backlogs in the responsible sister Departments. In the interim, schools still required teachers to deliver the core function of teaching and learning, meaning those individuals might begin working before their vetting results were available.

She pointed out that the Department of Basic Education employed the largest number of public servants, due to the nature of its mandate. In instances where schools sent high volumes of staff for vetting, delays were common. The Department was often told that staff shortages and budgetary constraints in sister Departments contributed to these backlogs.

Dr Mhaule explained the reporting structure within the education system, emphasising that the Department would only become aware of an incident once it had been reported up through the school, circuit, and district levels. In large districts, which could oversee between 50 and 100 schools, it was difficult for district officials to have immediate awareness of events at every school. In this case, the Department only learned of the incident approximately six weeks after it occurred, not through official channels but once it reached broader public attention.

She rejected the notion that the Department had only reacted due to media pressure, asserting that officials had acted immediately upon receiving the report. The MEC for Education in the province had informed the national Department and followed up consistently. The matter was subsequently referred to the police. However, she indicated that the investigation had faced obstacles, particularly because the principal, who might have held crucial information, had allegedly failed to cooperate. As a result, the evidence obtained by the police and submitted to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) may not have presented a complete picture.

She noted that the alleged incident had occurred in 2024 and that the Department had been dealing with the matter for some time, even though civil society organisations had only recently become vocal. She pointed out that letters accusing the Department of inaction were misinformed, as many responsibilities, including investigation and arrest, lay with other institutions. The Department’s duty was to report incidents to the relevant authorities.

Dr Mhaule acknowledged the racial undertones in the public discourse surrounding the matter. She explained that while all the learners at the school were black, the governing board and principal were white. Only the black teachers were subjected to testing, which had caused frustration. She appealed to the Committee to assist the Department in safeguarding the well-being of children and affirmed the Department’s willingness to cooperate with the Portfolio Committee going forward.

She highlighted that because the matter involved an independent school, the Department faced additional limitations. While the school was registered with the Department, governance – including staff appointment – fell under the purview of the school’s board. This meant that the Department could not directly dismiss individuals not employed by it. However, since the issue had been formally raised, the Department intended to involve the SACE to conduct its own investigation and to ensure that the school principal cooperated with the relevant authorities. She added that the Department also worked with the Education Labour Relations Council, which opposed the employment of individuals accused of serious offences such as rape.

Dr Mhaule concluded by referring to the Children’s Act, which prohibits individuals who have previously faced such allegations from working with children. She explained that while the Department might initially appoint individuals on probation based on available information, any adverse results from subsequent vetting processes would lead to immediate termination. She appreciated the committee's commitment and reassured Members that the Department had been engaged on the matter from the beginning.

However, she acknowledged the emotional weight of the issue, stating that it was difficult to remain unemotional when discussing the well-being of children. She recognised that the child in question had been seriously affected and that the trauma would likely have lasting consequences. The Department would continue to report on developments and undertake to return to the Committee with updates.

In closing, she reiterated that the Department relied on school governing structures, including SGBs and boards, in the case of independent schools. She said that if this had been an SGB, the Department could have taken firmer action, but in this instance, it had to engage with the board. She thanked the Committee for its oversight and support.

Further discussion

Mr Komane expressed dissatisfaction with how the matter was being handled. He thanked the Acting Chairperson and the MEC. Still, he questioned why the MEC had not been more directly involved in the presentation, as he believed that much of the information required for proper oversight could have been addressed at that level.

He criticised the absence of the Deputy Minister during the presentation, stating that her comments sounded disconnected from the lived realities of ordinary South Africans. He was particularly disappointed by what he perceived as unequal treatment based on race, arguing that if the accused in the case had been a black person, the response from the Department and the justice system would have been markedly different. He claimed that black individuals were often arrested and subjected to DNA testing without delay, while the white suspect in this case appeared to receive special treatment. In his view, the Department’s approach reflected racial bias and a reluctance to hold certain individuals accountable.

Mr Komane argued that this matter should not be managed in a way that appeared to protect privileged interests, warning against allowing South Africa to become a place where racially segregated structures like those in Orania were tolerated. He was critical of the Department for lacking the legislative or policy instruments to dissolve Independent Schools when necessary, suggesting this amounted to institutional weakness or unwillingness to act decisively.

He also accused the Department of failing to act in the interests of children, urging the Deputy Minister to adopt a parent's perspective rather than that of an office bearer. He maintained that the Department had not responded adequately to a situation where a child’s rights had allegedly been violated.

Mr Komane called on the Committee to assert its authority by visiting the school at the centre of the controversy rather than summoning its representatives to Parliament. He viewed this as a symbolic move demonstrating that the Committee was not intimidated by organisations such as AfriForum. He concluded that he was not satisfied with the responses provided by the Department and rejected the idea of accepting what he considered to be lenient treatment of a white suspect in comparison to how black suspects were ordinarily treated.

Ms Jordaan said she was equally disappointed with the responses received, echoing Mr Komane's concerns. She observed that Members had posed specific questions requiring direct and detailed answers, but the responses thus far appeared vague and inadequate. In her view, the Department’s claim that its hands were tied due to the matter involving an Independent School was unconvincing, especially as the only actions highlighted were the convening of two meetings and the MEC’s letter to the MEC for Police.

She noted that the Provincial Department of Police's absence might have limited the range of responses available to the Committee, but this did not excuse the failure to answer some fundamental questions. She reminded the Department that she had asked about the vetting status of educators across the province. This was important, particularly as the presentation had referenced an ongoing task to visit other Independent Schools, suggesting that the Department did have the authority to act, contrary to earlier implications.

Ms Jordaan said this contradiction raised questions about whether the Department’s hands were truly tied. She supported proposals made by other Members for a joint meeting involving the Provincial Department of Police and the Department of Social Development. She believed this would help the Committee gain a fuller understanding of the support being provided to learners, parents, and the broader community regarding re-registration and responses to the incident.

She seconded the proposal for a joint meeting and further proposed that Members submit their questions in writing. Given the Department’s apparent inability to provide the necessary information during the meeting due to a lack of knowledge or difficulties processing the range of questions, a written response would likely be more useful.

Mr Ngcobo stated that, in accordance with suggestions from other members, he did not intend to pose a follow-up question but rather to make a brief comment before the meeting concluded. He agreed with the input provided by the Chairperson and said he would not repeat what had already been supported.

He remarked that the Department’s presentation and responses clearly showed that while it described its actions, it simultaneously indicated that there was nothing further it could do. He found this unacceptable and stressed that such a stance should not be allowed to stand. In his view, this was not the kind of South Africa citizens aspired to live in.

Mr Ngcobo appealed to the Portfolio Committee members to commit to ensuring that the matter was not allowed to fade without resolution. He proposed that the Committee hold its own dedicated meeting in the near future—possibly even before the proposed joint meeting—to reflect on the day’s proceedings and plan a way forward.

Deputy Minister’s Remarks

Dr Mhaule supported the proposal to convene a joint meeting involving the Portfolio Committee, the SAPS, and the NPA. She noted that such a session would help clarify some of the outstanding questions that Members had raised. The Deputy Minister explained that the role of the Department of Basic Education was limited to reporting matters. After that, the police would investigate and refer the case to the NPA, which would then decide on whether to authorise an arrest and proceed through the justice system.

She acknowledged that the outcome of the justice process had left many people dissatisfied, including the NPA and SAPS. She cited the well-known Pastor Timothy Omotoso case as an example of a case in which all parties felt unhappy with the conclusion. She reiterated that the judiciary operated independently, which often constrained the actions of other departments.

Dr Mhaule added that she would not oppose Mr Ngcobo’s suggestion for the Portfolio Committee to hold its own internal meeting, excluding the Department. However, she emphasised that in a subsequent joint meeting, it would be important to ensure that each relevant department was given the opportunity to report on its respective role in the matter. She believed this would allow Members to understand the case fully. In a personal remark, she said she spoke as a deputy minister and a mother and grandmother.

Way Forward

Ms Maimela thanked the Acting Chairperson and proposed a clear way forward. She suggested that the committee's support team be tasked with compiling the various recommendations made by Members during the meeting. These could then be circulated via email, after which the Committee could begin to implement them. One such recommendation was to engage directly with the school's governing body, as there appeared to be emerging issues requiring further scrutiny.

She said Members believed that the Eastern Cape Department of Education had not adequately addressed certain matters and requested that those outstanding questions be responded to in writing. She agreed with other Members that the issue must not be left unresolved and required consistent follow-up and further meetings until it had reached a proper conclusion.

Ms Maimela supported a proposal for the Committee to hold an in-committee meeting where the SAPS unit could brief Members on the specific case. She believed this would provide necessary insight, especially given the troubling nature of some of the details shared. It was also suggested that the school’s board be invited to the same session so that the Committee could comprehensively understand the situation.

In her concluding remarks, Ms Maimela recalled that Members had previously raised concerns about how the Department interacted with independent schools, including issues around the administration of examinations. She said the current case validated those earlier concerns and was a wake-up call. She emphasised the need for the Department to strengthen regulatory oversight of independent schools and urged the Committee to act decisively on the recommendations made.

Further remarks by Members

Mr Shikwambana expressed frustration at the lack of adequate responses from the Department and MEC, stating that many questions posed by Members had gone unanswered. He emphasised the need for clear expectations in future meetings, where departments should respond substantively to questions raised by the Committee. He criticised the Department's perceived helplessness and questioned the rationale for having independent schools in the country if the government could not exercise oversight over them.

He called for a joint sitting with relevant departments, reiterating a previous meeting request. He thanked the Chairperson for convening the current meeting and emphasised that the matter could not be allowed to fade without resolution. According to him, the Eastern Cape Department of Education appeared unable to act effectively, and the national Department also seemed unwilling to take meaningful steps.

He further suggested that all relevant departments, including the police and National Prosecuting Authority, be called to account. Mr Shikwambana insisted that Members’ questions must be answered in full, warning that the Committee might have to conduct an oversight visit to the school in question. He alleged that certain individuals at the school had disregarded the Department, claiming they had only reported the matter to the police and had felt no obligation to inform the Department. This, he argued, demonstrated a lack of respect for the Department’s authority.

Mr Shikwambana expressed concern about the DNA results recently received, which he said exonerated a particular individual. He questioned the credibility of the doctor who conducted the tests and proposed that the Committee investigate that individual’s bank records to rule out foul play. He accused the Department of continuously undermining the Committee’s efforts over several months and said the Department of Health should also be included in the proposed joint sitting.

Closing remarks by Acting Chairperson

The Acting Chairperson thanked Members for their contributions and reiterated that all follow-up questions should be submitted in writing. He confirmed that the Committee expected responses by Sunday to assist with preparations, including for the Committee’s day-to-day work. He supported the suggestion to hold an internal Committee meeting before convening the proposed Joint Committee meeting. This would allow Members to establish a clear framework for addressing the matter.

He stated that department responses must be honest and reflect on what might have caused the failure to deal with the matter earlier. This was essential in determining how consequence management would be applied. He supported the proposal to undertake an oversight visit to the Eastern Cape, affirming that the Committee must proactively defend the public's and learners' rights and interests. He closed by stating that the matter remained urgent and required immediate attention.

The meeting was adjourned.