The South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (Sadtu) has again set its sights on Basic Education Minister, Siviwe Gwarube, after she failed to attend the signing of the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill (Bela Bill) into law at an event at the Union Buildings.
Sadtu said it was fearful that the DA, which opposed elements of the bill, would run a separate Parliament and a separate Cabinet.
President Cyril Ramaphosa on Friday signed the bill into law but due to opposition from the DA, delayed the implementation of clauses four and five for three months to allow for negotiations with parties in the Government of National Unity (GNU).
Clause four of the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act relates to the provincial department being responsible for the admitting of pupils into a public school, taking away the responsibility from school governing bodies (SGB), while clause five sees the power of determining a school’s language policy move from the SGB to the provincial department.
Sadtu general secretary Mugwena Maluleke yesterday said while they welcomed the signing of the Bela Bill, they were still unsettled by the deferral of the immediate implementation of clauses four and five by three months to allow for further consultations.
“Clause 4 of the bill gives the Department of Basic Education greater control over admissions policy and clause 5 compels the school governing body to submit the school’s language policy to the provincial head of department for approval,” Maluleke said in a statement.
He said both clauses were crucial towards meeting the objectives of the bill to deal with administrative challenges that hinder the transformation agenda of the country’s education system to be accessible to all.
Maluleke said despite the bill being signed into law, the union had doubts about its implementation “judging by the absence of Gwarube at the signing ceremony at the Union Buildings”.
“Her absence is unacceptable. It vindicates our fears that the DA will run a separate Parliament and a separate Cabinet.
“We call on the minister to decide where she takes her orders. The ball is in the minister’s court. She must decide and make the president’s work easier by resigning, as she seems to be operating with two bosses,” Maluleke said.
Gwarube’s spokesperson Lukhanyo Vangqa said she had engaged with Ramaphosa before the bill was signed and made it clear that space should have been given for further consultation.
“The minister had concerns about the bill and to have attended (Friday’s) ceremonial process was not feasible and the president knew that she would not attend.
“It was not a snub, she tabled reasons why she would not attend and made it clear that she would not until these clauses are resolved,” said Vangqa.
Professor Wayne Hugo, from the School of Education at the University of KwaZulu-Natal said the Bela Bill was 10 years in the making and contained strong points on equality but there were potential consequences “that could play out on the ground”.
“There is already very good legal ground that the bill will go forward as the Constitution is about equality and making sure learners have access to equality in education.
“On the other hand there is a genuine case of this making schools dysfunctional.”
Hugo said the key issue was that Sadtu would want to ensure that the act was maintained to the “hilt and enforced”.
“It could lead to radical political parties going to single language schools and insisting they open them up. In the name of equality you could end up destroying some of the best functioning state schools in the country.”
He said there were concerns parents would opt for private schools over state schools.
Political analyst Professor Sipho Seepe said that Ramaphosa should have established a task team to look at all the concerns, instead of signing the bill into law.
“He wants to please everyone and does not want to take a position but things ‒ whether it is inequality in education or State-Owned Enterprises ‒ cannot continue as they have because it is not working.”
Meanwhile, Ramaphosa in his weekly newsletter on Monday, defended the signing of the Bela Bill, saying it was his responsibility to sign it after Parliament passes it.
“Some parties in the GNU were publicly urging me not to sign the bill, while others were saying that I should sign the bill. The Constitution is quite clear on the responsibilities of the president with respect to signing legislation. Once a Bill has been passed by Parliament, the president must either assent to the bill or, if they have reservations about its constitutionality, refer it back to Parliament. Since, after considering all the various submissions, I had no such reservations about the Bela bill, the constitution obliged me to assent to it.
“However, even as I signed the Bill, I noted that some of the parties in the GNU said they wanted to engage each other on parts of the bill dealing with issues of school admissions and language. To give the parties time to discuss these issues, I said we would delay implementation of the Act in order for parties to engage and come up with proposals, if any, on the relevant clauses,” he wrote.
He stated that by taking this approach, the government was seeking to establish a culture of openness and dialogue among the GNU parties.
“We are also drawing on a long history in South Africa of engagement among parties on matters on which they seem far apart,” he said.
The Star
kube.chetty@inl.co.za | mashudu.sadike@inl.co.a