A concerned parent from Pretoria High School for Girls contacted me with several questions regarding the impending investigation. He said that he would like the department to provide the following information:

 

• Full details on the individuals conducting the investigation, along with their credentials;

• The specific terms of reference for the investigation;

• A clear definition of the terms, "racism" and "culture of racism", as understood by the investigating firm;

• Confirmation on whether parents have the right to withhold their daughters from participating in the investigation;

• Clarification on whether a parent or legal representative may accompany an accused person during interviews conducted as part of the investigation.

 

These are all valid concerns, and the disclosure of such information is not merely a courtesy but a legal obligation. According to section 9 of the Gauteng School Education Act 6 of 1995, when appointing an “appropriate person to conduct an inquiry,” the MEC of Education is required to provide written terms of reference outlining the scope of the investigation. Yet, to date, no such document has been published.

 

Many other parents are also determined not to let this investigation interfere with their daughters’ studies. Some have even sent a legal letter to the Gauteng Department of Education to make their position clear. Their concerns are entirely reasonable.

 

Meanwhile, Mrs Erasmus remains suspended until the end of October – effectively for the rest of the academic year. During her absence, there is a school to manage and exams that need to be prepared, supervised, and administered. This places an additional burden on the other senior staff members. Presumably, Mrs Erasmus will also continue to receive her full salary during this period. This raises further questions about the wastefulness of her suspension.

 

The department shows no signs of letting up. Just yesterday, I heard that they had gone one step further – effectively removing Mrs Schoombie from her position as Deputy Principal of Pretoria High School for Girls. To date, the school’s governing body has dealt with the department with tremendous grace and with the objective of maintaining a constructive relationship. I cannot imagine that this will continue much longer.

 

 

The general dissemination of myths and falsehoods

 

Another concern is the Gauteng Department of Education’s tendency to disseminate information that is demonstrably false – and for the press to amplify this misinformation at face value without first verifying its accuracy.

 

The first example of this tendency relates to the publication of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing. The outcome was handed down to the accused girls and their parents at the school on the evening of Thursday, 1 August 2024, with each of these individuals being made to sign a confidentiality agreement. Officials from the Gauteng Department of Education did not pitch on that evening. The officials were notified of the outcome on Friday morning and were invited to collect a copy of ruling. By midday on Friday, they had still not appeared at the school. After press inquiries started gathering momentum, the school finally issued a letter to parents on Friday afternoon notifying them of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing.

 

The reaction of the department’s spokesman was to declare that he was unhappy that the outcome had been “leaked” by the school to the media.[9] Firstly, the results were not “leaked” to the media but were formally announced to the school community after the girls and their parents had been informed of the outcome. This was done in a fashion that was perfectly acceptable considering the high levels of public interest garnered as a direct result of the department’s publication amplification of the matter.

 

A far more serious instance of dishonest spinning occurred the following week when Mr Mabona appeared on Newzroom Afrika. Justifying the decision to suspend Mrs Erasmus, Mr Mabona said that the original disciplinary hearing did not concern itself with racism but rather focused on violence.

 

Mr Mabona said:

 

"Remember, the SGB's role was to discipline learners on allegations that were put to them. Remember we said there was suspected racism. But the SGB decided that they not going to say anything on racism. They said nothing about that. They only focused on bullying, violence, those allegations of physical violence as well as the disruptive nature of the behaviour of learners at the school. So those were the things that were focused on. They did not say anything on racism. So that is why we felt that let's investigate all allegations of racism..."[10] (my emphasis)

 

Mr Mabona's assertions in this dialogue are completely false. To be clear, the letters of suspension stated that:

​

"Your daughter, [redacted], was part of the WhatsApp group that allegedly expressed inappropriate opinions."

 

The letters of suspension stated further that each child was charged with "expressions of opinions to cause the spread of hate" and "any content that refers to race." The letters of suspension make no mention of bullying, violence or disruption, and this was never raised in the disciplinary hearing.

 

The above charges are confirmed in the SGB ruling at paragraphs 6 and 7. At paragraph 66 of the SGB ruling, the panelists held that:

 

“we were unable to find from any of the contents in the group chat, messages that constitute ‘extreme detestation and vilification which risks provoking discriminatory activities against that group.’ Consequently, the charge cannot be sustained.”

 

I cannot emphasise this point sufficiently: at no point were any of the twelve girls ever accused of bullying, violence or disruptive behaviour, as Mr Mabona claimed. Furthermore, the idea that the SGB ruling did not concern racism is also false. Indeed, this was the whole focus of the inquiry. Considering that Mr Mabona is the departmental spokesman and has been integrally involved in this matter, it is difficult to understand how he could have made such errors unless he were acting in bad faith.

 

Crucially, the press has amplified these falsehoods.

 

Writing in News24, journalist Prega Govender stated that “Twelve white pupils were found not guilty of charges of violence and bullying, disruptive behaviour, and violation of school rules.”[11] Meanwhile, on Instagram the Daily Maverick repeated the same unjustified claims, stating that:

 

“A probe by the school governing body was then immediately conducted. Days later, it found that due to insufficient evidence, the implicated pupils were not found guilty on charges of violence and bullying, disruptive behaviour and violation of school rules… Surprisingly, the report made no mention of racism.”[12]

 

It is clear that the journalists who published this content took their narratives directly from Mr Mabona and that they had not had sight of the letters of suspension or the SGB ruling. I believe that Newzroom Afrika, News24 and the Daily Maverick should set the record straight by retracting their stories, issuing a correction as well as an apology to the twelve girls.

 

Mr Mabona and I were invited to be interviewed on In Gesprek met Lourensa Eckardt on Monday 5 August 2024. Despite being listed on the schedule, Mr Mabona failed to attend the interview.  

 

​