Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
18 March 2025 Photo Supplied
Dr Solomon Chibaya
Dr Solomon Chibaya is a lecturer in the Department of Education Management, Policy, and Comparative Education at the University of the Free State (UFS).

Opinion article by Dr Solomon Chibaya, Faculty of Education, University of the Free State.


One of the most humbling intellectual reckonings occurs when reality defies even the most well-reasoned predictions, compelling one to acknowledge misjudgement. Some may call it swallowing the humble pie, but in the realm of law and governance, it serves as a reminder of the unpredictable nature of socio-political dynamics. When the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill was signed into law, I anticipated a legal battleground - a flood of court challenges from those vehemently opposed to its provisions. I was wrong. I also foresaw fractures within the Government of National Unity (GNU), expecting tensions to manifest in visible discord. Wrong again. The fierce contestation promised by opponents of the Bill and the Act has, thus far, amounted to little more than rhetorical smoke without the anticipated fire. The impassioned declarations of legal warfare that once filled public discourse have not translated into the courtroom the battles as I had envisaged. This turn of events is not only fascinating but also challenges broader assumptions about resistance and contestation in contemporary policymaking.

Why have legal challenges not materialised?

To understand the absence of legal challenges against the BELA Act, one must retrace its origins - its conception, development, and the rigorous debates that shaped it. The BELA Bill was first drafted in 2013, following the African National Congress’s (ANC) 2012 elective conference, which mandated amendments to the South African Schools Act (SASA), 84 of 1996. At its core, the Bill was anchored in the transformative principles of the Constitution of South Africa, serving as a legislative instrument to advance equity, inclusivity, and equality in the education system. Given its constitutional foundation, one must ask: who could successfully litigate against a law built on such unassailable pillars of justice and democratic values? The very essence of the Act is woven into the broader framework of South Africa’s post-apartheid transformation, making any legal opposition not just a challenge to policy but a confrontation with the constitutional ideals that underpin the nation’s democracy.

Constitutional imperative for inclusivity

Any legal challenge against the BELA Act, particularly concerning language and admission policies, would ultimately be rendered unconstitutional. The Act is not merely a legislative adjustment; it is a transformative mechanism that promotes linguistic diversity, broadens access to education, and fosters inclusivity in school admissions and employment. These reforms align with the constitutional vision of democratic participation and equitable opportunity, ensuring that mother-tongue instruction evolves alongside a more integrated and representative education system. Who, then, could successfully contest a model that upholds these fundamental democratic values?

At the heart of the Act’s implementation lies a collaborative governance framework, where School Governing Bodies (SGBs) comprising parents, educators, and non-educator staff, work in tandem with the Department of Basic Education at both provincial and national levels to shape policies that best serve their schools. Rather than diminishing the role of SGBs, the Act strengthens their mandate within a broader, constitutionally guided educational ecosystem. Any resistance to this cooperative approach would not only be a defiance of participatory governance but also an attempt to obstruct the very principles upon which South Africa’s democratic and inclusive education system is built.

A masterstroke in legal foresight

A closer examination of the BELA Act reveals a legislative framework meticulously designed to pre-empt legal battles by embedding arbitration and mediation as the primary mechanisms for resolving disputes. In the event of conflicts between SGBs or their representatives, such as FEDSAS, and the Department of Basic Education, the Act prescribes alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, effectively curtailing costly and protracted litigation. Beyond its procedural elegance, the Act reflects a jurisprudential evolution, drawing heavily from precedents set by past court rulings and sealing the loopholes that once rendered the South African Schools Act (SASA) vulnerable to legal contestation. By doing so, the BELA Act assumes the character of case law, informed by judicial scrutiny and legislative refinement.

With such a robust legal foundation, the anticipated flood of litigation against the Act has failed to materialise. Could I have miscalculated again? Highly improbable. In a climate of economic volatility and geopolitical realignment, financial prudence is non-negotiable, and litigation remains an expensive and time-consuming endeavour. Even the most relentless legal advocates must recognise the futility of challenging a law so deeply embedded in the constitutional ethos of the Republic of South Africa (1996). The once-fiery calls for litigation have seemingly dissipated into a quiet acknowledgement of legal inevitability. 

News Archive

UFS policies want to help all students
2005-03-09

The death of Hannes van Rensburg, a first-year student from the JBM Hertzog residence, this past weekend, placed various aspects of student life in the spotlight.  Dr Natie Luyt, Dean:  Student Affairs at the University of the Free State (UFS), and the Student Representative Council (SRC) of the UFS explain which policies are in place to counter these practices.

At all tertiary institutions there are rules and policies to guide students and provide direction for certain behaviour and practices.  The same applies to the University of the Free State (UFS).

“At the beginning of the year the UFS provides every residence committee with a manual to establish a framework for meaningful and orderly relations within and among residences on the campus,” said Dr Natie Luyt.

However, it is one thing to set rules, but it is an impossible task to enforce all aspects thereof.  Policies currently in place include an alcohol policy, a policy on the induction of first years and a policy on banned practices in residence orientation. 

“The alcohol policy was compiled in cooperation with students and their input was constantly asked,” said Dr Luyt.  We also liaise on a continuous basis with residences and senior students to encourage the responsible use of alcohol, especially around activities like intervarsities and Rag. 

In the policy, recognition is given to the right and voluntary and informed choice of every individual to use alcohol on the UFS campus in a responsible way. 

Guidelines for the use of alcohol on campus include among others the following: 

Only authorised points of sale will be permitted on campus.  In this case it is the various league halls in most of the male residences on campus.

Alcohol will only be made available during fixed times and is not permitted in residence rooms.    

All alcohol-related functions are regulated and an application for a temporary alcohol license must be obtained from the Dean:  Student Affairs.     

The UFS obtained a liquor license in March 2004 which must be administered by senior leagues in various residences on campus.   Normal liquor license conditions and the county’s liquor laws apply.  Liquor can only be sold to members of the senior league (or special guests) and also to persons over the age of 18 years.  Liquor may not be used in public (outside the senior league) or on campus.    

The senior leagues may only be open three nights per week and within prescribed times.  No liquor could be used in any other place than the senior league halls.  Senior leagues could buy liquor from club monies generated by themselves. 

The right of senior leagues to serve liquor was suspended by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor the UFS, Prof Frederick Fourie, on Monday 7 March 2005 – pending an investigation of the recent events on campus. 

The policy on banned practices include among others that no swearing and shouting at first-years may take place, no first-year student may be targeted individually, no senior may enter the room of a first-year student without an invitation or permission from that first-year student and no senior under the influence of alcohol may have contact with first-year students. 

The induction of first-year students takes place by means of three functions, namely an information function (the introduction to the various facets and possibilities of the university system), an induction function (the first-year student becomes involved in various campus and residence activities) and a development function (the first-year student is motivated to take charge of his development potential). 

No first-year induction activity may commence before the residence committee’s contracting with the senior students is not completed.  This meeting is attended by the residence head and all senior students.  The induction policy, residence induction policy of first-year students and first-year rules are discussed.

The senior students sign an attendance list to show that he/she was informed about the policies.  A senior who does not sign, may not be involved with any induction session with first-year students.  

No physical contact is allowed during the conclusion of the first-year students’ official induction period.  The induction of first-year students as full members of the residence is a prestige event, presented by the residence committee.  No physical or degrading activities may take place. 

The Dean:  Student Affairs also has a daily meeting with the primarii of all the residences during the induction period.  This helps to monitor the situation and counter any problem behaviour or tendencies.

“Enforced behaviour – where a senior student forces a first-year student to do something against his/her own free wil – is not allowed.  Where there is any sign of this, it is met wortel en tak uitgeroei,” said Dr Luyt.

“In any group of people – whether it is a group of students or people at a workplace – there will always be those who will break the rules or those who would like to see how far they could push it.

The SRC, the UFS management and myself are and will stay committed to make each student’s life on this campus a school of learning and an experience which would be remembered for ever,” said Dr Luyt.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept