Court victory for corporal punishment victims — why this ruling on sanctions against teachers is significant

By Joy Hlatshwayo, Livhuwani Malelelo and Demichelle Petherbridge

27 Feb 2025

Rehabilitative sanctions imposed on two teachers goes some way to vindicating the applicants and their children, underscoring the importance of child participation in disciplinary processes and the need to ensure a holistic approach that prioritises the rights and best interests of the child.

In 2020, SECTION27 represented the Centre for Child Law (CCL) and the mothers of two small children in a case against the South African Council of Educators (SACE) involving teachers’ use of corporal punishment. SECTION27 fought for justice after the two young children suffered violent assaults at the hands of their teachers – one was struck with a PVC pipe, while the other was slapped across the face, causing physical and psychological harm.

Despite the gravity of these incidents, SACE imposed disturbingly lenient sanctions: a R15,000 fine (of which R5,000 was suspended) and the teachers’ removal from the teaching roll, suspended for 10 years on condition that they were not found guilty of similar misconduct again. These sanctions effectively allowed the teachers to continue teaching without meaningful accountability or rehabilitative intervention.

The high court judgment

The matter was first heard in the high court in 2022, where the applicants sought a review of the policy SACE used to sanction teachers for misconduct, the Mandatory Sanctions Policy. The applicants argued that SACE, as a state entity, had a constitutional obligation to protect pupils from corporal punishment.

The applicants also argued that SACE’s policy failed to take into consideration the need for corrective or rehabilitative sanctions, the need for the mandatory removal of teachers from the classroom in cases of serious assault against a pupil, the need to recognise the best interests of the child, and the need for victims and their parents to meaningfully participate in disciplinary proceedings. The applicants also requested that the sanctions imposed on the two teachers by SACE be reviewed, set aside and reconsidered.

SACE opposed the relief, claiming, among other things, that the case was moot due to the delay in bringing the case before the court. Moreover, SACE defended the sanctions, saying these were authorised in terms of the SACE Act 31 of 2000 and the Mandatory Sanctioning Policy in force at the time.

The Children’s Institute (CI), represented by the Equal Education Law Centre, intervened in the case as a friend of the court and advocated for a child-centred approach to the sanctioning of teachers. CI also called for alternative forms of discipline aligned with the Constitution and the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, noting that SACE's existing sanctions failed to protect pupils from corporal punishment and perpetuated its use in schools.

In its judgment, the court partially agreed with the applicants and ordered SACE to revise its Mandatory Sanctioning Policy to include, among others, provisions that recognise pupils’ best interests, promote a child-centred approach that requires children and their parents to be consulted on an appropriate sanction, and introduce the use of rehabilitative sanctions such as anger management and training on nonviolent disciplinary techniques. The court also requested SACE to meaningfully engage with the SECTION27, CCL and CI when revising its policy.

However, the court did not agree that the sanctions imposed on the two educators should be sent back to SACE for reconsideration. In this regard, the applicants were granted leave to appeal at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). SACE also launched a cross-appeal, challenging the high court’s order that it revise its Mandatory Sanctions Policy. However, it later abandoned this and agreed to revise its policy as directed by the court.

The Supreme Court of Appeal

The SCA heard the applicant’s appeal on 26 February 2024 and on 8 April 2024 delivered its judgment, ordering SACE to reconsider the sanctions it imposed on the two teachers and to consider imposing appropriate rehabilitative sanctions.

Importantly, the SCA emphasised SACE’s responsibility to thoroughly evaluate the broader impact of teachers’ conduct on children. This includes assessing whether the teacher should return to the classroom, whether it’s necessary to protect children from harm, and whether the underlying causes of the teachers’ violent behaviour needs addressing. The SCA also underscored the importance of rehabilitative and corrective sanctions, such as anger management programmes and training in alternative disciplinary techniques, in equipping teachers with the skills needed to carry out their professional duties responsibly and effectively.

In its consideration of rehabilitative sanctions, SACE was also ordered to consult with the affected children and their parents on the appropriate rehabilitative sanction that should be imposed on the two teachers.

Why this win is a win

SACE’s Mandatory Sanctioning Policy was inflexible and failed to account for the nuances that characterise cases of teacher misconduct, including corporal punishment. It overlooked the importance of context and the external effects of corporal punishment on both a child and their family.

However, in September 2024, in accordance with the high court order, SACE provided its revised Mandatory Sanctions Policy which incorporated many of the suggestions made by SECTION27, CCL and the Children’s Institute. Renewing the policy marks a significant step in the right direction, bringing important changes. For example, affected children and their parents must be consulted on the sanctions they feel should be imposed on a teacher found guilty of misconduct, giving them a sense of retribution and ensuring they play a vital role in protecting their children's wellbeing. In this way, the policy promotes a child-centred approach that prioritises children’s needs.

Read more: Groundswell of opposition needed to end corporal punishment in schools

The inclusion of rehabilitative measures, such as anger management, also ensures that teachers found guilty of corporal punishment are now equipped with the skills they need to handle conflicts constructively and avoid such behaviour in the future. The policy also advances the principle of the child’s best interest and recognises that this should be a key factor to consider in all matters pertaining to the child.

In November 2024, SACE also complied with the SCA’s order and imposed rehabilitative sanctions on the two teachers, which include the completion of training on SACE’s Code of Professional Ethics, as well as rehabilitative training on nonviolent discipline techniques, including anger management. These trainings must be completed within a specific period, and the two teachers must submit a certificate of completion to SACE within a month of completing their training.

The imposition of these rehabilitative sanctions on the two teachers goes some way to vindicating the applicants and their children by ensuring meaningful reform of these teachers’ behaviour, acknowledging the families’ suggestions and imposing measures that reflect their concerns.

Corporal punishment remains a pressing issue in our society. This case underscores the importance of child participation in disciplinary processes and the need to ensure a holistic approach that prioritises the rights and best interests of the child.

This case also highlights the need for practical solutions. By introducing rehabilitative measures, SACE has moved beyond simply imposing fines or punitive sanctions and must now impose sanctions that also promote meaningful reform.

Finally, this case reinforces the importance of reporting cases of corporal punishment, and the role institutions such as SACE must play in safeguarding our pupils and ensuring that the ban on corporal punishment is properly enforced. DM

Categories:

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...

South Africa

The high court judgment

The Supreme Court of Appeal

Why this win is a win