IN THE SPOTLIGHT: BELA ACT IMPLEMENTATION NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS

IN THE SPOTLIGHT: BELA ACT IMPLEMENTATION NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS

• 30 November 2024
• In the Spotlight
• SA Legal Academy

Please note: On 1 December 2024, the Presidency issued a media statement among other things affirming that ‘the agreement between the Minister and Solidarity has no bearing – in law or practical effect – on the inclusive multiparty discussions ... under way on sections 4 and 5 of the Act’. According to the statement, ‘the agreement bears no influence on the President’s powers to ultimately take a decision regarding the commencement of the Act’.

On 29 November 2024, two MPs issued separate media statements on the status of negotiations intended to find consensus on the implementation of contentious sections of the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Act. One statement came from the Presidency; the other from the NCOP Committee on Education, the Sciences & Creative Industries.

Unfortunately, the statements sent conflicting messages.

Published before the NCOP committee press release, the Presidency statement attempted to give context to recent media reports on a National Economic Development & Labour Council (NEDLAC) process apparently involving Basic Education Minister Siviwe Gwarube. According to these reports, the NEDLAC process arrived at consensus on recommendations to be conveyed to President Cyril Ramaphosa by the Minister. The source of these reports appears to have been a statement from trade union Solidarity and AfriForum, which was published on 28 November 2024 in Polity.

Against that backdrop, the Presidency press release drew a clear distinction between an ongoing Government of National Unity (GNU) clearing house mechanism process focusing on a solution to the BELA Act implementation impasse, and the ‘parallel’ process to which these media reports referred. This was noting that not all GNU parties had participated in the ‘parallel’ process, which had not been ‘sanctioned’ by the GNU and had therefore taken place in circumstances contrary to the spirit of the GNU’s founding Statement of Intent.

By contrast, the NCOP committee press release ‘welcomed’ what it described as a joint ‘announcement’ from Solidarity and the Minister in which they allegedly referred to ‘finding each other with government’ on BELA Act sections ‘considered problematic’.

As SA Legal Academy has regularly reported, the Act’s most contentious sections are widely perceived to undermine the power of a state-run school’s governing body to determine that institution’s admission and language policies.

There are nevertheless myriad other issues addressed in the BELA Act, as SA Legal Academy has also reported. These include:

• making Grade R the new compulsory school-starting age
• penalising the parents or guardians of children not attending schoo
• strengthening existing provisions prohibiting corporal punishment by making it an offence
• strengthening existing provisions regarding liquor, drugs and dangerous objects on school premises, and
• strengthening existing provisions on conduct for which a learner may be suspended.

SA Legal Academy will report on any further official developments as soon as they are formally announced.

• Presidency media statement
• NCOP committee media statement
• Act
• Solidarity and AfriForum statement (Polity)

Published by SA Legal Academy Policy Watch

Follow us on X @SALegalAcademy (you can also join us on LinkedIn and Facebook)

0 COMMENTS

LEAVE A COMMENT