The missing investigative report at Pretoria Girls

19 November 2024

It has been over two weeks since the Gauteng MEC of Education, Matome Chiloane, made a dramatic appearance at Pretoria High School for Girls. Accompanied by Charles Mdladlamba, the attorney who was appointed by MEC Chiloane to conduct an investigation into the alleged “culture of racism” which is said to exist at the school, the MEC had come to announce the findings of Mr Mdladlamba’s report to an assembled media pack.

The whole event was a farce.

On the evening of Sunday 3 November 2024, the Gauteng Department of Education (without notifying the school) issued a media advisory indicating that MEC Chiloane would be presenting the report to the media the following day. But there was a problem. Pretoria Girls was in the middle of year-end exams (with the Matric students scheduled to write their Mathematics paper) and the school hall and gymnasium were both occupied. There was no suitable venue for a press conference and, in any event, the school was not in a position to host a high profile media circus at this time of year. Space was eventually found in a cramped, hot and stuffy pavilion by the sports fields.

The department had instructed the entire School Governing Body (“SGB”) – a group of nine parents and other role players – to be present at 07:00am. This was quite an imposition at short notice, especially considering that most SGB members are not full-time staff members. Rather, they are parents who have their own careers and appointments to attend to on a Monday morning. Nevertheless, they complied with the request and arrived early to ensure that the pavilion was set up on time.

At the appointed hour of 07:00am, MEC Chiloane was nowhere to be seen. When his convoy eventually swept into the school – at 09:45am – members of the SGB as well as the media had been kept waiting for nearly three hours. MEC Chiloane’s first order of business was to install himself in the principal’s office and then declare that he was hungry and would like some breakfast. The principal of Irene Primary School – some 20 kilometers away – was made to deliver boxes of food for the MEC and his entourage. Pretoria Girls’ crockery had been used at a prior event and so a member of staff was sent to obtain clean plates and bottles of water from the school’s hostel.

Eventually, at 11:00am, the MEC and Mr Mdladlamba got down to business.

An investigator of dubious independence

In remarks made to the media and in the written statement released to the media, MEC Chiloane placed great emphasis on Mr Mdladlamba’s firm being both external and independent of the department.^[1]

However, during the question-and-answer session following the press conference, Mariska Nanni of Maroela Media asked whether Mr Mdladlamba had previously done work for the Gauteng Department of Education.^[2] Mr Mdladlamba responded that his “firm has done a lot of work for [the] GDE because the firm has been on the panel for [the] GDE since 2014, if I am not mistaken.”^[3] Exactly what this work entails is unclear, but according to the Gauteng Department of Education’s 2023 Annual Report Mdladlamba Attorneys was awarded a R 500,000 “contract expansion” to handle litigation for the MEC of Education against a scholar transport company called Toots Coaches Bus Hire.^[4] It is not clear which firm was contracted to handle the original matter which was valued at R 33 million.

As I have previously noted, there is virtually no online trace of Mr Mdladlamba’s firm, Mdladlamba Inc, and there is no indication of what work it performs other than ad hoc assignments for the Gauteng Department of Education. A truly independent investigator would have no ties to the Gauteng Department of Education, and certainly would not be hand-picked by the MEC from a panel of law firms that has undertaken work and is seeking to undertake work for the department in the future. In these circumstances, I think that Mr Mdladlamba’s status as an independent investigator is open to question.

The non-release of the report

What about the substance of the Mr Mdladlamba’s report?

Well, what report? At the press conference Mr Mdladlamba presented what was effectively a media summary of the investigative report. This consisted of a sprawling, confusing and poorly written document which contains many assertions but absolutely no evidence or justification. Two weeks later and the department is yet to release the report.

Following Mr Mdladlamba’s presentation, attorneys acting on behalf of the School Governing Body wrote to the Gauteng Department of Education requesting a copy of the report. The department responded by advising the attorneys to submit a formal freedom of information request in accordance with the Promotion of Access to Information Act. In addition to that, yesterday morning legal representatives launched urgent proceedings in the Gauteng High Court to compel the department to release the investigative report and to interdict the department from taking any steps pursuant to the report.

Legal proceedings aside, take a moment to consider the absurdity of the situation: the department announces that it will be publishing the investigative report, the media is called to a press conference, what is released is nothing more than a press statement – and then the department actively resists furnishing the report to the implicated individuals! If the report really did contain damning and credible evidence of racism, surely the MEC would want it to be published in full.

The dampest of squibs

It is impossible – and also unwise – to try and respond to allegations that have not been properly disclosed. Indeed, some of the allegations are so vague and so cryptic that senior members of staff are unable to know how to respond or even how to identify who the accused individuals are. Nevertheless, a cursory review of Mr Mdladlamba’s media statement indicates that the alleged instances of wrongdoing are so far-fetched and so trivial as to be laughable.

- The report alleges that the husband of the school principal (who is himself not employed or contracted by the school) has been involved in maintaining the school gardens. As a matter of fact, he performs this work in a voluntary capacity and his involvement was properly ratified at a School Governing Body meeting in 2019. Nevertheless, Mr Mdladlamba alleges that the principal’s husband has given instructions to the school gardeners and has made use of a school vehicle without authorisation. I understand that the vehicle belonged not to the school but to the School Governing Body and that the principal’s husband used it to collect gardening equipment from Builders’ Warehouse as well as some terracotta pots which had been donated to the school.

- The report alleges that a school official used foul language towards subordinate employees.

- The report also alleges that the school’s finance manager was appointed irregularly in that she does not possess the requisite qualifications. It has been submitted by the Chairman of the School Governing Body that Mr Mdladlamba has confused mandatory requirements for the role with possible criteria.

You may well be wondering what any of the above has to do with racism. The answer is that these alleged incidents have nothing to do with racism and are merely some of the debris that Mr Mdladlamba picked up during his 95-day fishing expedition. It is abundantly clear that he has strayed far beyond the already broad terms of reference of his investigation, which were to investigate whether a “culture of racism” existed at the school.

The one apparent incident of racism that is contained in the media summary relates to some white staff allegedly not greeting black staff, an issue which Mr Mdladlamba claims the principal confirmed. This is typical of a Woke witch-hunt: an allegation is made that is extremely broad and cannot be proven but also, crucially, cannot be disproven. Importantly, the principal has confirmed via a written affidavit that her stated view on this matter was misrepresented by Mr Mdladlamba.

Bizarrely, the report also alleges that the principal mishandled the complaint arising from the WhatsApp conversation that gave rise to the initial racism scandal. This is very difficult to understand considering that the girls were found not guilty of racism by an independent inquiry earlier this year, thus vindicating the principal’s actions.

It is worth considering the context behind all of this. I think it is perfectly clear that, having failed to win the initial inquiry in July, the department has come back for a second shot using a lawyer of their own choice. And when even Mr Mdladlamba could not find any racism at the school, he pivoted to trying to find misconduct in respect of general governance issues.

This is revealing. It indicates that the objective of this entire exercise is not and never has been to expose and combat racism at Pretoria Girls. Instead, the objective is simply to get rid of the principal and other senior officials in a move that is deeply reminiscent of the bloodbath that occurred at SARS after Tom Moyane was appointed as its Commissioner. Allegations of “racism” serve as a useful smokescreen to achieve this objective.

But if the racism tactic does not work, then the department is happy to resort to other means, attacking the principal’s husband for volunteering in the school garden and trying to breathe life into the now thoroughly debunked WhatsApp hoax from July. And, indeed, they are coming for everyone, with the report recommending disciplinary action against the principal, the acting principal, the deputy principal, two teachers, the HR manager, the estate manager and the chairman of the school governing body.

Once again, with a few notable exceptions South Africa’s credulous media has been oblivious to this broader picture, serving only to mindlessly amplify the department’s narrative, as can be seen from the tweets below.

Irregularities, bias and unprofessionalism

The court papers filed yesterday provide extraordinary details regarding the manner in which Mr Mdladlamba has conducted the investigation. According to affidavits deposed by staff and members of the School Governing Body:

- Mr Mdladlamba openly admitted during his interview with the Vice Chairperson of the School Governing Body that he could not find evidence of racism at the school, and that he would instead be focusing on issues of governance.

- Several members of staff have confirmed that Mr Mdladlamba’s questioning was unpleasant, intimidating, humiliating, rude and aggressive and that he was extremely accusatory. One staff member described his manner as being condescending and inappropriate.

- A senior teacher has attested that Mr Mdladlamba refused to allow her to be accompanied by a union representative during her interview and that he wagged his finger at her while interrogating her.

- In one instance, Mr Mdladlamba raised his voice at a member of staff and accused him of forging a document which he had presented to Mr Mdladlamba – a document which countered the narrative which - Mr Mdladlamba sought to advance with respect to the appointment of the finance manager.

Other members of staff who wished to present evidence to Mr Mdladlamba indicating that there is no “culture of racism” at the school have reported being ignored and shunned by Mr Mdladlamba. One staff member who presented information to Mr Mdladlamba attests that none of the information which she submitted appears to have been included in Mr Mdladlamba’s report. Several other members of staff put their names forward to be interviewed but were never contacted by Mr Mdladlamba.

Furthermore, the implicated individuals have not been provided with an opportunity to address any findings against them before MEC Chiloane and Mr Mdladlamba presented their summary to the media.

The issue of Mr Mdladlamba’s fees

A final concern relates to the lawfulness of the inquiry itself. Section 9 of the Gauteng School Education Act only permits the person conducting the inquiry to be reimbursed for “allowances” (what lawyers typically call “disbursements”) i.e. costs relating to travel and printing and so on, but not fees. And yet, in a written response to a question submitted in the Gauteng Provincial Legislature by the Democratic Alliance’s Sergio Dos Santos MPL, MEC Chiloane stated that the agreed amount of Mr Mdladlamba’s services was R 360,000. This clearly goes far beyond the scope of “allowances” as contemplated by the Gauteng School Education Act.

The obvious question which arises is whether the payment of Mr Mdladlamba’s fees would give rise to unlawful or irregular expenditure in terms of the Public Finance Management Act. I think it would also be worth following up on what Mr Mdladlamba’s final fee came to, considering that his original quote was only for seven days of work but he ended up spending 95 days investigating the school.

One skirmish in a broader battle for the future of education

The party which has engaged in the most disgraceful conduct throughout this story is, of course, the Gauteng Department of Education. And they are only getting started.

Towards the end of his presentation, MEC Chiloane stated that “Ultimately, we are going to take this school forward, and many other schools that have similar challenges across our province.”^[5] He said ominously that:

“We might be talking about Pretoria Girls High now, but maybe next door at Hoerskool Menlyn there is a similar challenge. Or a school in Ekhurhuleni there is a similar challenge; a school in Ekurhuleni South or Gauteng West etc. So, this is a model… It calls for an engagement and a dialogue so that we clear up these issues. But one thing that I do not tolerate at all and that I am aggressive towards is racism. I don’t want racism. I hate racists. Literally, I hate racists. I am tired. When you are racist, you are my enemy.”^[6]

So, Pretoria Girls is just a preview of what is to come as Premier Panyaza Lesufi’s government wages war against the few centres of excellence that remain in what is otherwise an abysmal education system.

Fortunately, there is a small but very determined network of activists who are committed to resisting the capture of Pretoria High School for Girls. This network consists of parents, teachers, governing body members, lawyers and politicians. The legal team, led by Advocate John Mullins SC of the Pretoria Bar, is once again acting without charge, having previously successfully represented the 12 wrongly accused girls in July. Their efforts to save Pretoria Girls have been as tireless as they are heroic.

The way to beat lies and bullies is to fight back with the truth and to demand transparency and accountability. That is exactly what we will do. We will not give up on Pretoria Girls, for what is at stake is not just the fate of one school. What is at stake is nothing less than the future of education in Gauteng.