The Grahamstown high court has set aside the expulsion of a Grade 11 St Andrews College pupil who “lashed” a fellow pupil with a broken golf putter so harshly on his buttocks that it caused blood blisters.
While judge Thembekile Malusi set aside the expulsion on a procedural technicality, he was sharply critical of the boy’s father’s threatening and illicit behaviour during and after his son’s disciplinary hearing at the school.
He said his behaviour had been so deplorable he should pay his own legal costs despite succeeding in his court case.
The boy’s father had resorted to court on an urgent basis to have his son’s October 2020 expulsion set aside.
Malus said in his judgment that the boy, represented by his father at his initial hearing, had pleaded guilty to contravening the school’s rule against bullying in any form, whether cyber, mental, verbal, or physical.
The school’s headmaster, Alan Thompson, chaired the hearing.
After hearing evidence in mitigation and aggravation, the disciplinary panel expelled the boy from the school. The boy’s father submitted an appeal against the sanction to St Andrew’s College’s (SAC) council chair, John Maree, raising constitutional protection issues.
Maree ruled the constitution had no application in the matter and dismissed the appeal.
Malusi found the disciplinary hearing had been contrary to the school’s own disciplinary code, which stated the headmaster was the “sole role player and arbiter of guilt or innocence and sanction”.
Instead, a disciplinary panel had been convened and was involved in each of the steps.
Malusi also warned the school that it was not beyond the reach of the country’s constitution, as had been contended in the appeal decision. He set aside the expulsion and ordered the college to hold a new disciplinary hearing.
But due to what Malusi referred to as the “reprehensible conduct” of the father during the disciplinary process, he should foot his own legal bill for the successful court application. Usually, it is the unsuccessful litigant who has to pay all the legal costs.
The father’s attitude had been threatening during the disciplinary hearing and, after sanction, he had warned he would “bring down” the entire school. He had also threatened Thompson directly.
To make matters worse, said the judge, the father had “systematically and illicitly” recorded private conversations with employees of the college, his son’s housemates, and parents of some college pupils in a bid to get “evidence” for the high court application.
“Illicit recording of private conversations without the consent of parties engaged in such a conversation or an order by the appointed judge is unlawful. The conduct is manifestly deplorable.”
He said any tendency by litigants to engage in personal attacks and vitriol against officials who had taken decisions unfavourable to them was to be deprecated.
“The headmaster, though wrong in his decision, acted bona fide without any apparent ulterior motive. The conduct of the [father] could not be justified on any basis.”
Contacted for comment, Thompson told DispatchLIVE that the referral of the matter back to the school was procedural in nature.
“The school will now proceed with the disciplinary.”
He said the school had a “zero tolerance approach” to any type of bullying and would continue to do everything necessary to ensure a safe environment for pupils to flourish.
“We have a proactive mentorship programme that builds positive relationships between senior and junior boys, and hold regular interventions to keep driving home the message that these behaviours have no place in our school.”
DispatchLIVE
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.