Two recent arbitration awards issued under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) have sent a message to the education sector that sexual misconduct by teachers will be met with decisive consequences.
In a case of a teacher found guilty of raping a pupil at her home in Northern Cape and another of a Free State teacher who touched a pupil’s private parts, the commissioners dismissed the teachers after misconduct was proved in both cases.
The commissioners did not allow bare denials, speculative defences or tactical cross-examination to obscure the central question of whether misconduct occurred.
In the Northern Cape case, the allegation was that the teacher sexually assaulted a 14-year-old pupil at her home near Heuningvlei in Kuruman on September 5 2025.
The pupil testified she was 14 years old and in grade 8. The teacher taught her natural science.
Her mother had hosted a party at her home and the teacher had arrived with his friends.
While she was in the toilet, she overheard the teacher asking to use the toilet and her mother said males were not allowed to use the inside toilet.
But the mother allowed him to use the toilet and her colleague showed him where it was. When the pupil exited the toilet, the teacher approached and pushed her back inside towards the wall.
“He covered her mouth with his hand. He lifted her left leg, pulled down her underwear, and he penetrated her vagina with his penis. When he finished, he told her that he was a Sesotho man, if she talked about what happened, he would hurt her and her mother,” arbitrator Khuduga Tlale said in summary.
She went to her bedroom and locked herself inside. She was afraid to tell her mother what had happened but later said the teacher had harassed her.
The mother phoned the deputy principal to report the harassment. The matter was reported to the police. The child opened up about the incident at the hospital, revealing the teacher raped her.
In his evidence, the teacher testified that the pupil was outside when he went to the toilet and denied the allegation that he had raped her.
Tlale said the teacher’s version was not put to the witnesses of the department, particularly the pupil, during cross-examination.
“The learner was therefore not afforded an opportunity to respond to the educator’s denial or to his alternative explanation of events.”
As a result, the teacher’s version remained untested and could not be afforded significant evidentiary weight.
The arbitrator found the pupil’s version to be credible, consistent and corroborated by surrounding circumstances. He found the teacher’s denial, which was untested and unsupported, improbable.
In the Free State case, the teacher was charged with misconduct in that he “committed an act of sexual assault on a grade six learner when you touched her private part (vagina) in the maths lab”. The department called three witnesses, including the pupil, who was 14.
She testified that during the fourth term exams in November 2024, she was the last person remaining in the exam room with the teacher and handed in her exam script.
The teacher then told her to go to the lab adjacent to the classroom and make tea for him. She complied.
The teacher then followed her to the lab and told her to close the door.
“She stated that she did that, and upon turning around, the employee then touched her vagina through her school dress and kissed her,” arbitrator David Pietersen said in summarising her evidence.
The pupil asked the teacher why he was doing that to her and he replied that he was only attracted to her at school. The pupil stated that she then ran out of the lab.
She stated that the teacher never apologised to her but instead pleaded with her not to report the matter, for fear of losing his job.
The teacher testified as the only witness in his case.
Apart from denying having been with the pupil in the lab, he also denied there was a kettle there.
Unfortunately for the employee, his version is not corroborated by any person or by any real or documentary evidence. His version also did not add up, in the sense that what he said about the learner was rather odd.
— Arbitrator David Pietersen
He testified that the pupil once visited him in the lab on September 18 2024, where he decided that the pupil’s class should rewrite a failed mathematics paper the following day.
The pupil stated she was unable to sit for the paper the following day and pleaded with him to excuse her from re-writing the paper. The teacher stated that he became angry, which led to the pupil becoming emotional and crying.
“He stated that he felt sorry for her and tried to calm her down. The employee stated that the learner then turned around and gave him ‘a peck on the mouth’, and immediately ran out of the lab.”
Pietersen said the pupil appeared to be credible in that she maintained the same version throughout. The arbitrator could not pick up inconsistencies in the evidence of the deputy principal and the child’s grandfather.
“Unfortunately for the employee, his version is not corroborated by any person or by any real or documentary evidence. His version also did not add up, in the sense that what he said about the learner was rather odd.”
Pietersen said the cross-examination of the pupil focused on the timing of the reporting of the incident, rather than whether the incident actually occurred or not.
“The employee and his representative also did not challenge [the deputy principal] on the incident itself in the lab, or the touching of the vagina, but more about the learner’s grades in mathematics.”
The arbitrator said the teacher also stated in his examination-in-chief that he believed the pupil’s version was fabricated because she wanted him to teach her maths again.
“Now really? Would the learner or any learner go to such lengths just to keep an employee to continue teaching her? This is what makes me believe that the employee’s version is improbable.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.