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 breakthrough on SRC
2005-06-10

The Council of the University of the Free State (UFS) today unanimously approved the establishment of a Central Student Representative Council (CSRC)  to ensure the democratic participation of students at its three campuses in the governance of the university.

In a major breakthrough and transformation step for student governance, the Central SRC will include representatives of the main campus in Bloemfontein, the Vista campus and the Qwaqwa campus of the UFS.

The establishment of the Central SRC follows the incorporation of the Qwaqwa campus into the UFS in January 2003 and the incorporation of the Vista campus in Bloemfontein into the UFS in January 2004.

According to Dr Ezekiel Moraka, Vice-Rector: Student Affairs, today’s decision of Council is the result of a lengthy, negotiated agreement between the three campuses. Independent experts facilitated part of the process.

With the establishment of a Central SRC, the UFS has adopted a federal student governance model whereby the CSRC is the highest representative student body on matters of common concern for all students.

However, the three campuses of the UFS will retain autonomous SRC structures for each campus with powers and responsibilities for matters affecting the particular campus.

This arrangement will be reviewed after a year to make allowance for the phasing out of students at the Vista campus, as was agreed in the negotiations preceding the incorporation of that campus into the UFS.

The central SRC will have a maximum of 12 members made up of members of the campus SRCs, including the presidents of these three SRCs. In total, the main campus will have 5 representatives, the Qwaqwa campus will have 4 representatives and the Vista campus will have 3 representatives.

From these 12 members a central SRC president will be chosen on a quarterly basis to represent the general student body at Executive Management, Senate and Council.

In another key decision and significant step forward affecting student governance, the Council also approved amendments the constitution of the Student Representative Council (SRC) of the main campus.  These amendments were the results of deliberations of student organizations, the SRC and the Student Parliament of the UFS main campus.

The amendments to the constitution of the main campus SRC determines that nine of the 18 SRC members must be elected by means of proportional representation and nine on the basis of an individual, first-past-the-post election.

This decision comes in the wake of calls by certain student organizations on main campus for proportional representation to be included as a means of electing student representatives.

The following portfolios of the main campus SRC will be contested by individual candidates on the basis of first past the post:

  • president
  • secretary
  • academic affairs
  • legal and constitutional affairs
  • student development
  • arts and culture
  • men’s internal liaison
  • ladies internal liaison
  • media, marketing and liaison

The following nine portfolios will be contested by affiliated organizations on a proportional representation basis.

  • two vice-presidents
  • treasurerdialogue and associations
  • transformation
  • campus affairs and recreation
  • sport
  • international affairs
  • community service

It also is a breakthrough to have all constitutional changes processed and approved at the June meeting of the Council, with all relevant student organizations having been part of the process and accepting the outcome of the process.

According to the chairperson of the UFS Council, Judge Faan Hancke, today’s unanimous decisions on student governance are an indication of how all UFS stakeholders represented in Council are committed to finding win-win solutions in the interest of the university.

“Once again the UFS has reached another milestone in its transformation and has shown the rest of the country that we are pioneers in the field of reaching intelligent solutions to complex situations,” Judge Hancke said.

According to Dr Moraka, the central SRC constitution will come into effect from the start of the second semester this year.

 MEDIA RELEASE

Issued by: Lacea Loader
    Media Representative
    Tel:  (051) 401-2584
    Cell:  083 645 2454
     E-mail:  loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za

10 June 2005
 

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