THE LUDICROUS PERSECUTION OF THE PRINCIPAL OF PRETORIA GIRLS
RICHARD WILKINSON
11 JUNE 2025
​
And so, here I am – writing my ninth instalment on the topic. In some respects, I believe the latest developments are the most shocking and most revealing yet.
How we got here
​
The background to this bizarre and draining story can, in brief, be summarised as follows.
In July 2024, twelve white Matric girls were suspended from Pretoria Girls on charges of serious misconduct. Their suspension letters were vague and very poorly drafted, but it emerged that the central allegation was their participation in a so-called “whites only” WhatsApp group where racist messages were allegedly shared. In reality, the truth was quite the opposite. The messages in question simply expressed frustration at being subjected to relentless race-baiting by some of their classmates.
After being briefed by a group of concerned parents, I published a series of articles on the matter. Around the same time, the Gauteng Department of Education launched a high-profile and extremely aggressive publicity campaign against the girls in the lead-up to their disciplinary hearings, fueling sensational press coverage. This controversy drew the attention of Advocate John Mullins SC, a senior counsel at the Pretoria Bar. At very short notice, he assembled a team of lawyers who worked around the clock on a no-fee basis in preparation for the hearings.
Despite intimidation from the EFF – who led a group of schoolgirls in chanting “Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer” at the gates of the school – and despite shockingly poor and biased reporting from a gleeful press pack (coverage so flawed that the Press Complaints Council later ordered the Daily Maverick to issue a retraction and apology[1]), the girls held their nerve and stood firm. On 1 August 2024, all twelve were found not guilty of the charges brought against them.
Clearly incensed by this finding, Gauteng’s MEC for Education, Matome Chiloane, launched a sweeping new investigation into what he claimed was a “culture of racism” at the school. His handpicked investigator, Charles Mdladlamba, was presented as an independent party. In truth, however, Mr Mdladlamba had been on the Department’s panel of lawyers since 2014 – and, according to the Department’s 2023 Annual Report, received R 500,000 in fees for one assignment alone.[2] Regardless, the principal and several senior staff members were suspended whilst Mr Mdladlamba conducted his investigation – an exercise which dragged on for 95 days.
In November 2024, Mr Mdladlamba and MEC Chiloane convened a press conference at Pretoria Girls to announce the outcome of the investigation. In short, Mr Mdladlamba recommended that disciplinary action be instituted against the principal, acting principal, deputy principal, two teachers, the HR manager, the estate manager and the chairman of the school governing body.
What acts of racism had these individuals supposedly committed? It is impossible to say, because Mr Mdladlamba refused to release his report and the remarks which he delivered at the press conference were vague and cryptic. In any event, it became increasingly clear that Mr Mdladlamba had shifted his focus – effectively abandoning his original mandate to investigate the school’s alleged “culture of racism” and instead pursuing allegations of misgovernance and maladministration.
The school governing body formally requested a copy of the report from the Gauteng Department of Education. Inexplicably, they were instructed to file a request under the Promotion of Access to Information Act. They complied – only for their application to be rejected on spurious and plainly irrational grounds.
The school governing body then launched urgent legal proceedings to compel the Department to release the report. Regrettably, Advocate Mullins SC and his team were left with no choice but to remove the matter from the urgent roll after the presiding judge made comments which strongly suggested that he would not approach the matter with an open mind – a deeply troubling development documented in detail by legal academic (and witness to the proceedings), Dr Willem Gravett, in this article.[3]
Meanwhile, former President Thabo Mbeki became personally involved in the matter. He visited both the school and the Gauteng Department of Education, interviewing key role players and, crucially, reviewing the full transcript of the WhatsApp conversation that had triggered the saga. In October 2024, President Mbeki addressed a detailed 13-page letter to Premier Panyaza Lesufi and MEC Chiloane.[4] In what amounted to a devastating and scathing indictment of the Gauteng Provincial Government, he highlighted numerous egregious abuses of power, including clear instances of dishonesty and deliberate distortion by departmental officials.
President Mbeki observed that “it seems, for some reason, that the [Gauteng Department of Education] is very determined at all costs to smear the [school] with the charge of racism.” He confirmed that he had personally reviewed the relevant WhatsApp conversation and was satisfied that the remarks contained therein were not, in any way, racist:
​
“We ourselves have also closely studied the comments made by the chat group, independently to determine whether these constituted manifestations of racism and hate speech. Our own firm conclusion is that there is no such manifestation in the said comments. We therefore fully agree with the Ruling of the SGB DC on the matter of the 12 learners in the chat group.”
Undeterred, the political assault on Pretoria Girls intensified. On 25 March 2025, Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Basic Education conducted an oversight visit to the school. What transpired was an outrageous spectacle in which Mrs Erasmus was subjected to over four hours of hostile and aggressive questioning by ANC and EFF MPs. At the same time, the Gauteng Provincial Government proceeded with disciplinary action against Mrs Eramus and other school officials – a process that culminated in the guilty verdicts which were delivered late last week.
Guilty of pruning the roses
Acting on the basis of Mr Mdladlamba’s still-unpublished report, Mrs Erasmus was charged with three counts of misconduct. The disciplinary hearing was presided over by a man identified as Mr V Phephenyani.
The first allegation concerned the now-infamous WhatsApp group that sparked the original scandal in July 2024. Mrs Eramus was accused of failing to enforce the school’s Learner Code of Conduct after becoming aware of the issue in October 2023. Mr Phephenyani dismissed this charge, finding that there was “no substance from the employer’s claim against the accused.”
This is a perfectly obvious and logical finding, for if the WhatsApp group contained no racist content then how could Mrs Erasmus possibly be accused of mishandling the situation when it was first brought to her attention? The significance of this finding cannot be overstated, and so I will state it plainly and emphatically:
Even the Gauteng Department of Education’s own handpicked lawyers have now confirmed that the so-called “racist” WhatsApp group contained no racist remarks, and that Mrs Erasmus responded entirely appropriately. Moreover – despite searching for 95 days – Mr Mdladlamba failed to identify a single other instance of racism at the school.
So, if not racism, then what, exactly, was Mrs Eramus found guilty of?
The second allegation concerned the appointment of the school’s finance manager. It was claimed that the position was not properly advertised and that, accordingly, the appointment contravened the school’s selection and recruitment policy. This allegation is strongly disputed. In any case, the appointment was made by the school governing body – not by Mrs Erasmus. At most, Mr Phephenyani found that Mrs Erasmus’ erred in not giving the school governing body proper advice at the time when the appointment was made.
It is worth noting that no claim has been made that the finance manager is incompetent, or that the school’s finances have suffered in any way as a result of the appointment. On the contrary, Pretoria Girls’ financial position remains strong – no small achievement given the growing challenge of non-payment of school fees. Incidentally, I understand that one of the departmental officials who made inflammatory remarks about the twelve white girls in July 2024 is himself a parent at the school – and is reportedly over R100,000 in arrears on his account.
Nevertheless, Mr Phephenyani found Mrs Erasmus guilty of misconduct in connection with the appointment of the finance manager.
The third allegation is arguably the most absurd of all. It concerns the voluntary actions of Mr Erasmus, the principal’s husband, who – at no cost to the school – assisted with garden maintenance. This arrangement was approved by the school governing body, as recorded in its 2019 meeting minutes. Nevertheless, Mr Phephenyani found that Mrs Erasmus had allowed her husband to "improperly supervise" gardening staff and that this might create the impression of nepotism or favouritism. Precisely how Mr Erasmus benefits from pruning roses in a voluntary capacity remains a mystery.
During his investigation, Mr Mdladlamba also discovered that, on 2 March 2024, Mr Erasmus had signed out a vehicle which he had driven off campus – an act which Mr Mdladlamba characterised as the improper use of school property. In reality, the situation was perfectly regular and mundane. The vehicle – a bakkie – belonged not to the school or the Department, but to the school governing body. Mr Erasmus had used it, with the governing body’s full knowledge and permission, to collect gardening equipment from Builders Warehouse for use in the school gardens. He also collected some terracotta pots which had been donated to the school – all in aid of his voluntary upkeep of the school grounds.
According to Mr Phephenyani, “it makes no difference whether [Mr Eramus] was performing school related work when he used the vehicle… or whether it was a private trip or not, or whether proper permission was granted or not… It is truly immaterial in my view.” On the basis that the principal should have full and total oversight of how school vehicles are used, Mr Phephenyani found Mrs Erasmus guilty on this third charge.
A laughable – but very serious – farce
I could delve further into Mr Phephenyani’s findings and Mr Mdladlamba’s conduct, but I will spare the reader the tedium. The quality of their work speaks for itself – riddled with spelling and grammatical errors and marked by glaring legal incoherence, it scarcely warrants serious analysis.
None of this, of course, offers much consolation to Mrs Erasmus, who now faces the heavy burden of clearing her name. It also remains uncertain what effect a dismissal might have on her salary and pension benefits.
Naturally, Mrs Erasmus will continue to fight. The immediate next step is to submit arguments in mitigation ahead of Mr Phephenyani’s decision on sanction. While the verdict may be appealed, the value of such a process is questionable considering that the appeal authority is none other than MEC Matome Chiloane, the very figure who initiated and relentlessly pursued this entire debacle. Should the appeal be dismissed (as seems inevitable), Mrs Erasmus will then be entitled to approach the Labour Court for redress. At every step, she will be supported by Advocate Mullins SC and his remarkable team of lawyers. Without such assistance, any other principal would have surrendered long ago.
It will be interesting to see how the mainstream press chooses to report this latest development. I expect that the Gauteng Department of Education will seize the opportunity to trumpet the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, with newspapers and television channels eagerly broadcasting the damning verdict. It is easy to imagine the coming headlines:
“PRINCIPAL OF PRETORIA GIRLS FOUND GUILTY OF TWO COUNTS OF MISCONDUCT”
And it’s not hard to see how the public might be led to infer that there was, after all, some form of racism at the school – despite the fact that even Mr Phephenyani’s report found otherwise.
But will South Africa’s media be astute enough to see through it? Will any journalist apply some scrutiny to the Department’s press release? Will any of them do more than uncritically echo the official narrative – amplifying its distortions, evasions, and outright lies? If past performance is anything to go by, the answer is a resounding “no.”
Meanwhile, those who truly deserve sanction – the disgraceful departmental officials who inflicted such harm on the twelve innocent girls in July 2024 and who continue to bully and harass Mrs Erasmus (some while deeply in arrears on their school fees) – carry on with their careers untouched, facing no consequences and no scrutiny from the media.
School Capture
Setting aside the absurdities of the case, one must take a step back and ask: what is this really about? What explains the relentless and ruthless political assault on Pretoria Girls? What, exactly, is going on here?
In one respect, the latest developments are telling. Having finally abandoned the “racism” narrative, the Department has simply shifted tactics in its effort to remove Mrs Erasmus. Their approach can be summed up in a single line:
“If we can’t get her for racism, we’ll get her for something else”.
But in doing so, the mask has truly slipped. In the final analysis and at its core, this was never about racism. It was – and remains – about power and control. It is about the political capture of schools, no different from what has already occurred in countless government departments, state-owned enterprises and public and private institutions over the past few decades.
Why Pretoria Girls? Why this school in particular? Perhaps its status as one of Gauteng’s historic heritage schools is intolerable to the racial nationalists and ideological Marxists who dominate the province’s leadership. Perhaps its academic excellence is an embarrassment in the face of widespread educational failure elsewhere. And undoubtedly, its sound financial standing presents an attractive target for the ANC and its allies in the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union. Envy, jealousy, greed, loathing, opportunism – the truth likely lies in a toxic mix of all of these.
What is not in doubt is that should they succeed in removing Mrs Erasmus then they will waste no time in coming after any other teacher or school official who stands in their path. Under this cynical and distorted vision of “diversity,” true inclusion will not be achieved until every last White, Coloured, and Indian staff member and child has been driven out of the school. And once they are done with Pretoria Girls, they will set their sights on every other centre of excellence in Gauteng.
That is why Mrs Erasmus will continue to fight – because what is at stake is not merely her career or the future of one school, but the future of education in Gauteng itself.
​
References
[2] https://provincialgovernment.co.za/department_annual/1351/2023-gauteng-education-annual-report.pdf
[3] https://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/tilting-at-windmills--judge-mothas-quixotic-quest-
[4] https://www.school-capture.com/former-president-mbeki-letter
​