Zuma abused his powers in settlement agreement with former NPA head

ACDP MP and member of the Justice and Correctional Services Portfolio Committees welcomed today’s Constitutional Court finding that former President Jacob Zuma had abused his powers in entering a settlement agreement with former NPA head, Mr Mvolisi Nxasana, resulting in him vacating office, and Adv Shaun Abrahams being appointed in his place.

Swart said that “the ACDP welcomes today’s ruling by the Constitutional Court which declared the settlement agreement, the obligation to pay R17,3 million to former NPA head, Mr Mvolisi Nxasana, and his resultant vacation of office, constitutionally invalid for being inconsistent with the constitutionally required independence of the office of National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP). This resulted in the consequent appointment of Adv Shaun Abrahams as NDPP also being declared invalid.

This is an important judgement as it enhances the independence of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) by finding that the payment of golden handshakes to remove troublesome NDPPs (as was the case with Mr Nxasana) is unconstitutional and thus invalid.

Security of tenure for the NDPP and his deputies is crucial for the independence of the institution. The ACDP thus also welcomes the finding that section 12 of the NPA Act, relating to the indefinite suspension of the NDPP and deputies, is also unconstitutional: indefinite suspensions also affects security of tenure and thus the independence of the NPA.

The ACDP calls on President Ramaphosa to speedily appoint a new NDPP to resolve leadership issues at the NPA. The new NDPP must be fiercely independent and able to oversee the initiation of prosecutions arising from widespread fraud, corruption and state capture, much of which involves high level political involvement.”


ISSUED BY: STEVE SWART MP
13 August 2018

Land reform has been mismanaged

ACDP Member of Parliament Cheryllyn Dudley today said that “the ACDP remains concerned that land reform has been mismanaged and believes that stronger and more ethical leadership on this and other issues would place South Africa in a much healthier economic position in which to deal with land reform effectively and justly”.

Concerns about the 139 private farms to be used as test cases in ‘paying below market value in land claims’ Dudley said “are understandable but this will allow the constitutional court to make a pronouncement and to guide the country in this very important matter.”

According to reports the farms listed are owned by farmers who have previously rejected government’s offers for their land. Head of the Rural Development Ministry, Mashile Mokono has said “the farms were not arbitrarily selected and would not be snatched away from the owners”. Should the farmers and the department agree on a price, the farms will be purchased and offers of compensation would be prescribed by the office of the Valuer-General.

Dudley said “the intention of the ANC lekgotla appears to have been that expropriation would only apply once an offer of payment has been rejected.  Clearly pressure has been exerted in this regard and misguided policy like that of the EFF has ignited some people’s imagination that nationalisation of private property will in some way benefit them despite all evidence to the contrary.”

Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, author of ‘The Land Is Ours’, Dudley suggested “makes some useful observations and recommendations on land reform: land reform that is constitutional, respects the rule of law and puts the courts at the centre of the process to ensure it is equitable and does more than just benefit a new elite.

Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, for example, reminds us that during the drafting of the Constitution it was argued that the proposed clause to protect private property and expropriation subject to ‘just and equitable’ compensation conflicted with international norms. The Court however refused to endorse an unchecked right to private property and noted that no universal principle was discernible on compensation as each country had a different model, influenced by its unique history and context.  For South Africa, the Court was of the view that the power to expropriate in the public interest, including for land reform, subject to payment of just and equitable compensation, was appropriate.

Expropriation for purposes of land reform have not been tested in our courts and Ngcukaitobi admits that the case for an amendment to section 25 is thin as the failure of the state to implement the Constitution, cannot be grounds to amend the Constitution.”

Dudley also said “the ACDP agrees that the failure of the State to achieve land reform has deepened the structural inequality caused by apartheid-enforced land deprivation and that urban migration (local and regional) has significantly increased the burden on local government. However, greedy landowners, property speculators, farmers who unfairly eject labour tenants, corrupt bureaucrats and under resourced and badly managed departments, must all share in the blame for the failure to justly and equitably deliver on land reform.”

Ngcukaitobi puts it like this, “Although the history of colonial dispossession is responsible for constructing a state in which race mirrors private property, this can no longer be accepted as the sole explanation for the crises. Poverty, unemployment and the poor quality of education have also drastically curtailed the ability of black people to obtain property in the open market. Race remains the stubborn determinant of whether one has property or not. This is what colonialism and apartheid achieved. But the constitutional promise was to reverse this. Hence, it is plainly and undeniably urgent for a constitutional solution to be found…”

Ngcukaitobi proposes that “Certain principles must underpin the proposed amendment to maintain the balance with the remainder of the Constitution:

  • Expropriation subject to just and equitable compensation should remain the default position.
  • Expropriation without compensation should be available in clearly defined circumstances, such as absentee landlords, unused land, hopelessly indebted land, land held by speculators, land acquired by illegal means such as corruption or fraud, and unproductive land.
  • The determination whether it is just and equitable to expropriate without compensation should be made by the courts, not politicians.
  • To avoid elite capture, expropriation without compensation should be employed solely for the three purposes underpinning section 25: to facilitate restitution, to ensure security of tenure and to ensure access to land on an equitable basis.
  • The procedures for expropriation without compensation must be clearly laid out in legislation and be subject to judicial review.
  • National legislation setting out the procedures to be followed, the powers of the state, the rights of landowners and beneficiaries and procedures for judicial review is urgent.”

Tembeka Ngcukaitobi is a human rights lawyer. He is the author of The Land Is Ours: South Africa’s First Black Lawyers and the Birth of Constitutionalism (Penguin).


ISSUED BY: CHERYLLYN DUDLEY MP
13 August 2018

ACDP welcomes release of Zimbabwe’s Tendai Biti after blocked asylum request led to his arrest

Zambian authorities are reported to have defied a court order allowing MDC Alliance co-principal Tendai Biti to seek asylum, handing him over to Zimbabwean police.  He has since been released on bail by a court in Harare last night.

The ACDP is disappointed at Zambian police blocking asylum which lead to the arrest of Tendai Biti.

Biti was arrested on Wednesday morning at the Chirundu border post in Zimbabwe as he sought to leave the country and seek asylum in neighbouring Zambia. He is facing a charge of inciting public violence, that led to violent and bloody protests in the streets of Harare.

Biti (an internationally-respected finance minister in Zimbabwe’s troubled 2009-2013 power-sharing government, formed after disputed elections in 2008) was credited with helping stabilise the economy after years of hyperinflation.

“With the recent election being marred by accusations of a crackdown on opponents, arrests, deadly violence and rigging claims – the post election political arrests further threaten to dispel hopes of a new dawn for Zimbabwe.

The ACDP calls on President Ramaphosa and SADC leadership to urgently support and impress on President Mnangagwa the need to find a diplomatic solution which will help reassure people – locally, regionally and globally – that political and other freedoms will be respected and protected in this new Zimbabwe.

We take note that Biti was released following the intervention of President Mnungagwa who has the unenviable task of transforming the army and police after years of their cracking down on civilians and opposition.

The ACDP appeals to the President to stand strong in his resolve to ensure transitional justice achieves the necessary building of trust and achieves the unity and reconciliation that will ensure a shared and prosperous future.  All eyes are on you, Mr President, and we pray that you will have the strength and courage to lead Zimbabwe through this transitional period into a new and exciting era of development and growth.


ISSUED BY:  CHERYLLYN DUDLEY MP
10 August 2018

Give 10 days parental leave for staff in recognition of anticipated new law

On Wednesday, ACDP Member of Parliament Cheryllyn Dudley gave an update regarding the Labour Laws Amendment Bill, which provides for fathers and adoptive parents to take parental leave.

“The legislation stipulates that parental leave is applicable from the time the baby is born or from receipt of an adoption order or from when the child being adopted is placed in the parent(s) care (whichever is first).  This will be paid through UIF but the Minister still has to determine the amount of the UIF payment. Sadly the family responsibility leave now falls away.

The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) is scheduled to adopt the four Labour bills on 21 August 2018. President Cyril Ramaphosa is also expected to put signature to the bills by September, and the implementation target date is 1 October 2018. The Department of Labour is busy preparing, and the ACDP will be following up with questions regarding this preparation.

For those those fathers who are having babies in the next couple of months and are hoping for this relief, I would like to appeal to companies to consider showing their appreciation for their staff by providing fathers who are wanting to share the experience and responsibility of child birth with their partners with an extra 3 to 10 days parental leave at this time – on the company.

The ACDP’s Parliamentary Media Liaison Officer recently had his first child and in anticipation of the legislation coming in to law the ACDP covered the cost of 10 days leave for him to bond with his baby and to share the responsibility of the new baby with the baby’s mother.”

The salient features of the amendment Bill are as follows:

  1. Clause 25A(2) sets out when an employee may claim parental leave.
  2. Clause 25A(5) authorises the Minister to make regulations to determine the payment parental benefits subject to the UIF Act.
  3. Clause 25B(1) provides that an employee may only claim adoption leave for a child below the age of 2.
  4. Clause 25B(2) sets out when an employee may claim adoption leave.
  5. Clause 25B(5) authorises the Minister to determine the payment of adoption leave subject to the UIF Act.
  6. Clause 25C(1) sets out the duration of commissioning parental leave.
  7. Clause 25C(2) determines when commissioning parental leave may commence.
  8. Clause 25C(5) authorises the Minister to determine the payment of commissioning parental leave subject to the UIF Act.

 

 


READ: Labour Laws Amendment Bill


ISSUED BY: CHERYLLYN DUDLEY MP
8 August 2018

Opinion: Why South Africa should not decriminalise prostitution

“I have listened carefully to the many arguments for the decriminalisation of prostitution and am acutely aware of the difficult and even desperate situations people face – often on a daily basis – but nothing I have heard convinces me that women will be safer or have greater options if prostitution was decriminalised.

There is a view that prostitution is mostly harmless, and that if you make it legal and/or regulate it, it will become safer for women and clean up the sex industry. This, of course, is wishful thinking on the part of some and deviously misleading on the part of others.  

First of all, health and other services are available to all that live in South Africa and will not be more available when prostitution is decriminalised. Secondly, countries that have experimented with decriminalising the practice of prostitution have found that trafficking in women increases to meet the demand created by a legalised sex industry. It also makes it difficult to hold traffickers and pimps accountable as they evade prosecution by using the legality as a cover – claiming that women knew what they were getting into. Organised crime is heavily invested in a burgeoning sex industry and flourishes where prostitution is decriminalised.

The devastating impact of prostitution on women in developing countries and on marginalised groups in developed countries speaks for itself.  Individuals, families and communities should not be encouraged to give up on themselves and embrace such dehumanising practices that have a destructive impact on all concerned. It is unthinkable for any government to protect and facilitate this abuse. Where sex work is recognised, those who are out of work and depend on UIF, will be told there is work available:  sex work. This is not a solution to people’s problems. It is exploitation of the vulnerable.

The ACDP is firmly convinced that decriminalising prostitution has less to do with the human rights of women and more to do with the multibillion-dollar prostitution and human trafficking industry globally.

The ACDP supports the view that the entire sex industry must remain criminalised and the relatively new laws in South Africa, which target the user, including clients, pimps, procurers and traffickers must be enforced. In addition, a mechanism is needed whereby prostitutes can be diverted into an exit programme to help victims of prostitution to rebuild their lives. Provision for the criminal offence to be expunged on completion of the programme should be an incentive.

An overwhelming body of international evidence shows that the terrible abuse and exploitation of women and children trapped in prostitution do not decline where there is decriminalisation; in fact, the opposite is true.  Public sentiment in South Africa is opposed to legalising prostitution, but well organised lobby groups place constant pressure on government and society. Many well-meaning compassionate people, organisations and legal minds are used to put a human face on this inhumane enterprise. The concerns they raise are real, but the solutions called for will not help women, men and children trapped in prostitution who pay the price for it physically, emotionally and spiritually.

In a study done in nine countries, including South Africa, 89% of prostituted people said they wanted to leave it, but had no other options for survival. Prostitution can have no legitimate role in enhancing women’s economic empowerment. Women must have choices through skills development and sustainable job creation.”


ISSUED BY: CHERYLLYN DUDLEY MP
8 August 2018

Labour Laws Amendment Bill heads for Ramaphosa’s desk to be signed into law

The Select Committee on Economic and Business Development deliberated and finalised the Labour Laws Amendment Bill on Tuesday, the private member’s bill that was tabled by ACDP MP, Cheryllyn Dudley.

The Bill was passed by both the National Assembly (NA) and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and will now go to the office of President Cyril Ramaphosa to be signed into law.

ACDP Member of Parliament Cheryllyn Dudley this morning thanked everyone who contributed to the successful passage of this bill.

“I would just like to thank members of Parliament, especially the chairperson and members of both the Select Committee on Economic and Business Development and the Portfolio Committee on Labour for the work done in interrogating the relevance and suitability of this bill, and for ensuring its passage through Parliament into law.

The legal services at Parliament and in particular, Desiree Swartz, the mastermind who worked on the drafting, and Michael Prince, who has so competently advised the NCOP on legal issues through this last phase, have my gratitude and admiration. Thank you for the excellent work done!

I also want to thank COSATU, workers around the country, mothers and fathers to be, as well as the media who highlighted the need and recognised the benefit for families when fathers and adoptive parents are able to bond with the new additions to their families. This victory is another step toward realising a truly shared future. Our hope and expectation is that it will strengthen families and help build a strong and healthy nation.

I am most grateful, of course, to my Father God for the privilege of working with you all on this awesome project and the promise it holds for so many”, she said.

The Labour Laws Amendment Bill provides that:

  • An employee who is a parent and who is not entitled to maternity leave, is entitled to ten consecutive days parental leave when that employee’s child is born or when an adoption order is granted.
  • An employee who is an adoptive parent of a child who is less than two years is entitled to adoption leave of two months and two weeks consecutively. If there are two adoptive parents, one of the employees is entitled to adoption leave and the other employee is entitled to parental leave. The same provision is made for commissioning parents in a surrogate motherhood agreement.

The bill also sets out the requirements for the right to parental, adoption and commissioning parental benefits as well as when the entitlements commence and provides for the application for benefits and the payment thereof.


ISSUED BY: CHERYLLYN DUDLEY MP
7 August 2018

ACDP congratulates ZANU-PF on overall election victory

The ACDP congratulated Zanu-PF on an overall election victory. Zimbabwe’s ruling Zanu-PF party won the majority of seats in Parliament after sweeping rural constituencies by huge margins.

ACDP MP and member of the Parliamentary International Relations Committee Cheryllyn Dudley today said that “the violence following the election results is very disappointing. Opposition election participation and results were impressive considering the constraints they have faced.”

Whilst the result of the presidential election has yet to be declared, the MDC opposition alliance insists its candidate, Nelson Chamisa, beat the incumbent President Emmerson Mnangagwa.

“Violent protests do not help Zimbabwe and only frustrates the progress they are making. Democracy requires a large degree of patience and maturity. It was our hope that Zimbabweans would rise above personal agendas for the sake of peace and nation building,” Dudley said.

A government crackdown in Zimbabwe after Monday’s elections has prompted international calls for restraint.

“The ACDP calls on our neighbours to have cool heads and continue to be the example they have been.  Your patience and hard work in getting to this point has been inspirational. Please don’t miss this opportunity to reap the benefits for all Zimbabweans.”

Amnesty International has called on the Zimbabwe government to investigate the army’s response to the violence, saying “militarisation” of the election aftermath was “muzzling freedom of expression, association and assembly.” “People must be guaranteed their right to protest,” he said.

“The ACDP joins those who are urging government to respond to protests with caution and resist the temptation of overreacting and inadvertently continuing a pattern of taking away people’s freedom to express themselves honestly.”

After the vote, the country’s electoral commission said that Zanu-PF had won a two-thirds majority in Parliament, prompting protests in the capital, Harare. Home Affairs Minister, Obert Mpofu, said the government would not tolerate the protests. “This was most unfortunate,” Dudley said.

The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) has so far announced victory in 140 seats for Zanu-PF, with 58 for the MDC Alliance, ZBC state media reported. There are 210 seats in the National Assembly’s lower house. More than five million people were registered to vote and there was a turnout of approximately 70%.

A presidential candidate needs more than 50% of the vote to win outright. Otherwise, a run-off election will be held on 8 September.

Election observers say they observed several problems, including media bias, voter intimidation and mistrust in the electoral commission, adding that there was an “improved political climate, but un-level playing field and lack of trust”. This is the first time in 16 years that the government has allowed EU and US election monitors into the country.

The African Union (AU) mission has said that the elections “took place in a very peaceful environment” and “were highly competitive.” A preliminary report by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) observers said the elections were largely peaceful and conducted in accordance with the law.


ISSUED BY: CHERYLLYN DUDLEY MP
2 August 2018

Is De Lille corrupt or not, DA?

News emerged this week that the DA has now offered Patricia De Lille a seat in the Western Cape Provincial Parliament if she vacates her seat as Mayor of Cape Town.

This is part of their ongoing campaign to remove her as Mayor at all costs.

“If De Lille is as corrupt as the DA says she is, then why this offer? If the DA has lost confidence in her as they claim, then why this offer?” asks Ferlon Christians, ACDP Provincial Leader and MPP.

This is the same DA that has been trying unsuccessfully to remove her as Mayor since Feb 2018 and to expel her as a DA member since April 2018 based mainly on their own internal allegations of corruption and maladministration against her that first started emerging almost a year ago.

“Since the first DA motion to remove her as Mayor failed in February, still no court process, no DA hearing and no City of Cape Town hearing has been concluded, and she has still not been found guilty of anything.

This latest offer of moving her to the WC Provincial Parliament, clearly confirms that the DA have no compelling evidence against her that could stand up to scrutiny, but they still want to remove her as Mayor – why?

If that’s the case, then this whole debacle is nothing more than a witch-hunt against her,” Mr. Christians concludes.

The DA’s mission is to remove De Lille as Mayor at all costs because she is not their problem, she’s in the way.

IS THE CITY THEIR CASH COW?

Since the DA’s mission to remove her at all costs is clearly not about corruption, maladministration or confidence, then what is driving the DA?

The ACDP understands from internal DA sources that the DA wants to remove her as Mayor so that they can milk the City as a cash cow for their 2019 election campaign.

Mr. Christians asserts: “She is the only one standing in their way. We are told that the real decision makers in the DA, known as the ‘backroom boys’, want to replace her with a Mayor they can control like Madikizela or Plato – someone who will just follow instructions and not question anything the DA instructs them to do.”

SO FAR THIS YEAR:

In January DA leadership confirmed their mission against her is no longer about right or wrong but about confidence (or their lack of confidence in her). “Our inclination is not whether the mayor has done any right or wrong, that’s not the issue. The issue that the federal executive has to decide is whether the DA has confidence in her and her ability to run the city and to manage the caucus. That’s a different judgment,” said the DA’s James Selfe.

Later that month she also turned down their offer of a move to Member of Parliament.

In February the DA failed in its attempt to remove her as Mayor via their first motion of no confidence in her. The motion failed by one vote after the ACDP used its three votes to abstain because the motion was premature and prejudiced against her in that the allegations were still being investigated.

Also in February, a new allegation conveniently emerged that five years ago she had sought a R5 million bribe from a Gauteng businessman.

In April the DA added a new, so-called “recall clause” to its Constitution and then immediately used it a few weeks later to rescind her membership – a move that was overturned in the Cape High Court a month later.

In the same month, the DA tabled and then retracted a second motion of no confidence against her, clearly realising it would lose again.

In May this year, the DA even forged and distributed a fake news post supposedly from the Auditor-General of South Africa with the title “De Lille exposed”, falsely claiming the AG had made adverse findings against the Mayor personally. In the same month the DA in the City stripped her of her Executive powers as Mayor of Cape Town.

In July the DA in the City retracted a third motion of no confidence against her and has offered her a move to Provincial Parliament.


ISSUED BY: FERLON CHRISTIANS MPP (WESTERN CAPE)
1 August 2018

Ramaphosa’s land expropriation announcement irresponsible and premature

The ACDP is shocked at last night’s announcement by President Cyril Ramaphosa that the ANC intends to amend the Constitution to allow for land expropriation without compensation under certain conditions.

We believe that this decision is irresponsible and premature given that the parliamentary public hearings have not been concluded, and the more than 500 000 written submissions have not yet been considered by parliament.

We are further disappointed that the president decided to ignore warnings from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) who have also confirmed that land expropriation without compensation will impact the economy negatively.

President Ramaphosa must also provide details as to how the ANC’s conditions that such an amendment should not affect food production, agricultural development and the economy will be ensured. It is highly likely that such an amendment will negatively impact these areas, with the currency already having weakened since this announcement was made.

The ACDP supports orderly land reform based on restitution and ‘just and equitable’ compensation being paid in accordance with section 25 of the Constitution. Section 25, in our view, should not be amended. Instead, the existing parameters of section 25 should be applied, with the Constitutional Court giving guidance as to what ‘just and equitable’ compensation means within the context of section 25. Many commentators believe that section 25 as it is presently worded allows for reduced compensation.

One of the main reasons why there are still outstanding claims in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994 is due to incapacity and allegations of corruption within the department of rural development and land reform (as highlighted in the Motlanthe High Level Panel Report). How will this same department be trusted to implement expropriation of land without compensation?

The ACDP will also oppose any move to allow the state to be custodian of all land. We are concerned that the ANC is not giving title deeds to emerging farmers and urban residents. The millions of hectares of land owned at national, provincial and local level, as well as by state-owned companies should first be redistributed following a full and comprehensive land audit, given the uncertainties with the present government land audits.

It is very clear that this very emotive and sensitive issue is being used by the ANC as a campaigning tool in the run-up to the 2019 general elections, given the party’s strong stance in opposing expropriation without compensation when the matter was debated in Parliament last year.

While the ACDP appreciates the need for land reform and restitution, we also understand the need for nation-building, peace and reconciliation. We will thus oppose the ANC’s proposal to amend the Constitution.


ISSUED BY: REV KRJ MESHOE MP
1 August 2018

Home Education policy is unworkable in practice

The ACDP has come out in support of the home education community and shares many of their concerns which include among other things, that home education under the current act is treated as a form of independent education and that aspects of the draft policy are measures appropriate to public education.

ACDP Member of Parliament Cheryllyn Dudley today said that “the ACDP is of the opinion that the Home Education policy is unworkable in practice. Under-resourced provincial education departments will not be able to cope with the administrative burden of the policy, and significant additional costs will be placed on home educating families.”

A fully constituted meeting of the Council of Education Ministers (CEM) has approved the Home Education policy for promulgation by the Minister of Basic Education, Mrs Angie Motshekga.

As far back as October 2014, the first consultation meeting with the home education community and other key stakeholders was held. The meeting was attended by representatives from home education associations, Pestalozzi Trust (the legal arm for some parents), independent curriculum providers, ISASA, Umalusi, the South African Comprehensive Assessment Institute (SACAI), the South African Institute for Distance Education (SAIDE), the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), and the Department of Basic Education (DBE). In this meeting home education stakeholders presented national and international research to the DBE.

Dudley said “in their media release the department, somewhat disingenuously, quoted the home education community who did express appreciation for the opportunity as it was the first time ever that the state had engaged them on the practice, whether pre- and/or post 1994. However, the home education community, after participating fully, were very disappointed that the department did not take on board any of their proposals. This is a community that have been successfully schooling their children and have vast experience in this field.”

It was during the second consultation meeting with stakeholders in July of the following year where a discussion document was presented that most home education stakeholders resigned from this process. “They took issue with the  document, and were concerned that they would be seen to be part of the DBE team to review the 1999 policy while their proposals were in fact ignored.”

The Working Group continued its work and the draft policy was gazetted in November 2017 for the public to make submissions within 21 days. The department received numerous requests from the public to extend the submission date to which it obliged and the new closing date for submissions, 31 January 2018, was communicated to the public.

A total of 740 submissions were received and DBE reported that between February and July 2018, the Working Group captured submissions received, analysed them and reviewed the policy after having considered “progressive” inputs.

“The problem with this statement is that it implies that any submission they decided was “not progressive” was not considered as part of the policy review.  This is exactly what the community most affected by this policy are saying – their input has been disregarded.” Dudley said.

The policy was presented to DBE management structures, and approved by the Heads of Education Department Committee (HEDCOM) for tabling at a CEM meeting for promulgation. The CEM of 19 July 2018 approved the policy. The department is currently preparing a gazette for promulgation.

Dudley said, “the department’s admission that they regard the serious efforts of this community to get their attention – as spam – is not acceptable.  Parliament is always encouraging people to get involved with the legislative process and it is unacceptable that departments treat these very same people with such disdain when they do participate.  What they refer to as a ‘small group’ is in fact made up of those most affected by this policy: those who have the most experience in this field and those who are actually successfully homeschooling their children.”

The department says they consider the consultation process to have been extensive and all-encompassing and that “the Department of Basic Education is confident that all comments on the policy have been adequately ventilated.” Their decisions, they say, are all in the best interest of ensuring that every child has a right to basic education as enshrined in the Constitution and the approved policy will get promulgated as approved by CEM.

“The ACDP calls on the Basic Education Portfolio Committee to seriously investigate and consider the department’s handling of such a critical section of society during this review process. South Africa prides itself on protecting human rights yet, on this issue, people’s beliefs and rights are being summarily judged as irrelevant and disregarded.”


ISSUED BY: CHERYLLYN DUDLEY MP
1 August 2018