
School's decision to change name from ‘disgraced' DF Malan to DF Akademie ‘undeniably rational'
The Supreme Court of Appeal has upheld a Bellville school's decision to change its name from DF Malan High School to DF Akademie to distance itself from its apartheid past, despite objections from some parents.
A Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed a review application by four parents and found the school governing body (SGB) of DF Malan High School in Bellville, Western Cape, acted within its powers to rename the school in line with its values of inclusivity and academic excellence.
This means the Afrikaans-medium school's name can be changed to DF Akademie, as suggested in May 2021. The voting for a new name took place in October 2021. Of the 3,466 votes received, the overwhelming majority, namely 85%, proposed DF Akademie.
The litigation stems from Barend Rautenbach, Johan Smit, Francois Malan and Barend de Klerk taking umbrage against the SGB's decision after a consultative process in May 2021, to change the name of the school.
In essence, they requested that the SCA review and set aside the decision of Western Cape Division of the High Court Judge Robert Henney, who dismissed the appellants' application to maintain the name DF Malan, the prime minister from 1948 to 195, who is considered to be one of the architects of apartheid.
In his ruling, Henney said, 'The glorification of his name by an insistence that a school be named after him in post-apartheid South Africa where young people have to embrace a culture based on the values of our Constitution is an insult not only to them, but to the millions of South Africans who suffered at the hands of the apartheid regime.'
The SCA judgment, penned by acting Judge John Smith, found the SGB's consultation process was comprehensive, fair and rational.
'The name of Dr Malan harks back to the apartheid era, an association that is fundamentally at odds with the school's ethos of inclusivity and transformation. The governing body's decision to purge the school of this unfortunate association with a disgraced legacy is thus undeniably rational and in the best interest of the school and all its stakeholders,' he stated.
The ruling further stated that, while the school took pride in its academic success culture and inclusive policies, its controversial name had been an albatross around its neck.
Stigma of name and call for change
The school was established in 1954. Shortly after its establishment, the school obtained the permission of the then prime minister to name the school after him.
In 2018, an alumnus wrote to the governing body, describing the name as 'insensitive and inappropriate' and demanded that the school begin a process to change its name.
In September 2019, the school received similar letters from a parent of two learners. The pressure on the SGB to reconsider the school's name intensified during June 2020 when a group of alumni calling themselves 'DF Malan Must Fall' joined the fray.
Their stated objective was to agitate for a name change and to address the 'institutional racism' at the school.
In June 2020, the SGB began a process that would allow it to determine if the school's symbols, including its anthem and name, should be changed, as well as the cost implications thereof.
Since the Schools Act does not prescribe a procedure for the changing of a school's name, the governing body was at sea concerning the issue and had to do its best to devise a fair process to enable consultation with stakeholders.
All it had to rely on were circulars from the Department of Education and the Federation of Governing Bodies for South African Schools (Fedsas). Significantly, both circulars presumed that the governing body had the authority to change the school's name.
A departmental circular, while instructing governing bodies to submit names to the provincial education department to enable it to check whether other schools bore the same name, expressly stated that a governing body's authority to change a school's name was beyond question.
The Fedsas circular reminded governing bodies that changing a school's name was a sensitive matter and cautioned that wide consultation with all stakeholders, including parents, teachers, learners and the broader community, had to inform any decisions regarding a school's symbols, including its name, motto or emblem.
Varied responses
It was then suggested that the governing body create an ad hoc steering committee to oversee the consultation process and advise on potential new names or symbols. On 22 June 2020, the governing body wrote to all parents, students, alumni, and school staff on its database, informing them of its decision to begin a process to reconsider the school's name and symbols.
The letter elicited a variety of responses, with some expressing misgivings about a name change, others supporting it and some making suggestions about the process that should be followed.
The SGB then appointed an independent facilitator, Dr Jan Frederick Marais, a theologian of the Ecumenical Board of Stellenbosch University's Theology Faculty, and a renowned mediation expert, and thereafter a steering committee.
Chairperson of the governing body Andre Roux asserted that although the steering committee members were advised to focus discussions on the school's symbols and identity, they were not instructed to prohibit discussions on the school's name.
A draft report was eventually compiled and while everybody agreed with the school's core values as formulated by Dr Marais, three steering committee members disagreed with the decision to change the school's name. They were Veronica van Zyl, Mette Warnich – who also filed affidavits in support of the appeal application – and Gert Visser.
On Marais's advice, a new task team was thereafter formed to advise the governing body on the formulation of a consultative process with stakeholders; criteria against which proposed new names could be evaluated; and the financial implications of a name change.
The task team decided that invitations should be sent to all persons on the school's database to propose new names. After the invitations to comment were sent in April 2021, 626 of the recipients responded – 301 proposing that the name DF Malan be retained and 325 suggesting new names.
However, the SGB decided that only two of the four names submitted by the task team were acceptable, namely Protea Akademie and DF Akademie. In a vote, DF Akademie won 85%.
The appellants in the case took issue with several points. They claimed SGBs did not have the authority to change a school's name, that the SGB departed from the procedure it originally shared with the school community, stifled debate and failed to properly consult on the name change.
The SCA judgment dismissed the complaints.
'I find that in changing the school's name, the governing body was acting within the ambit of its implied powers in terms of the Schools Act; that the procedure it adopted to consult interested parties was comprehensive, fair and rational; and that the decision to change the school's name was taken with due regard to, and rationally connected to the information before it. The appeal must therefore fail,' it read. DM
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

TimesLIVE
an hour ago
- TimesLIVE
SCA sends home affairs minister packing in ZEP appeal
The Supreme Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by the minister of home affairs against the Johannesburg high court order on Zimbabwe Exemption Permits (ZEPs), which give about 180,000 Zimbabweans a special dispensation to lawfully remain in South Africa. The judgment also clears the path for the Zimbabwean Immigration Federation to return to court and argue that it is only parliament, and not the home affairs minister, which can decide whether to extend the ZEP regime. In 2023, the Johannesburg high court set aside a decision by former minister Aaron Motsoaledi to terminate the ZEP regime and to reconsider his decision, following a fair process. The SCA's judgment on Friday said that counsel for the minister told the court that 'the order is being implemented, and ... the minister is following a fair process'. But the federation wants to go back to court to argue that ZEP-holders and their children enjoy constitutional rights in South Africa. If these are to be limited, only parliament may do so — 'by enacting a law of general application,' says the SCA's judgment. The SCA did not give a view on whether that argument was correct, but it rejected an appeal by the minister that would have prevented the federation from ever making it. When the high court gave its order, the federation was one of the parties in the litigation, along with the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF). Theirs were two separate cases, which were heard together. While the federation and the HSF both wanted similar orders, at that time, from the high court, their grounds were different. And while the HSF asked the court for a final order, the federation only sought an interim interdict — it wanted to argue its main case at a later date. The court gave a final order, as sought by the HSF, and also the interim interdict sought by the federation. The minister had already tried, and failed, to appeal against the HSF order. In this case, the minister approached the SCA on appeal, saying the interim interdict was 'redundant' since the court had already granted a final order to the HSF. In Friday's judgment, the SCA disagreed. Judge of Appeal David Unterhalter said the federation's case 'raised distinctive grounds of review', which laid the basis for an argument that was not raised or argued earlier — about the powers of the minister when there were constitutional rights at stake. If the federation's argument was to be accepted, it 'would not permit the minister to terminate the ZEP regime'. 'That is a remedial outcome of a considerably more far-reaching kind because it reaches into the future and is not based on a reconsideration,' said Unterhalter. The redundancy argument could therefore not hold, he said.


The South African
2 hours ago
- The South African
What happens if Afrikaner 'refugees' want to come home?
A second batch of Afrikaner 'refugees' have settled into the US, and thousands more are expected to arrive. However, with South African-born Elon Musk's ongoing feud with President Donald Trump, concern is mounting among those who now call America home. More importantly, will they be allowed to return to South Africa? It's no secret that President Donald Trump's view of South Africa was influenced by his former right-hand man, Elon Musk. Born in Pretoria, and having left at just 17, the world's richest man has actively accused his country of birth of promoting 'white genocide', 'farm confiscation,' and 'racist laws'. With Trump now threatening to cut all government contracts to Musk, and possibly distance himself from him altogether, what does this mean for the Afrikaner 'refugees' already in the US? What does Elon Musk's rant mean for Afrikaner 'refugees'? Images via X The group of white South Africans was offered asylum based on proving their fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Under US and international immigration laws, refugees who have received asylum cannot simply be deported to their country of persecution. Legislation also vigorously protects their rights to stay in their new adoptive country. However, their status can be terminated should they be found guilty of serious crimes or if they fraudulently sought asylum. According to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), there is a strict vetting process for those who seek refugee status in the country. Once resettled in the US, refugees are permitted to work immediately. They will be eligible for a green card a year later. However, there are also stringent travel restrictions in place. The USCIS states that all refugees must obtain permission via a travel document before they depart the US. Failure to do so could result in asylees being denied re-entry into the US. These actions could also strip asylees of their refugee status, resulting in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. In the case of Afrikaners, returning to South Africa – considered the country of 'persecution' – could come at a cost. Here is how… Refugees who visit SA without prior permission shall be presumed to have abandoned their asylum unless they can establish compelling reasons for their return. Refugees are expected to explain the reason for their return in the process of obtaining permission. Returning to one's country of claimed persecution could result in termination of asylum if there are fundamental changes in circumstances back home. Termination could also occur due to fraud in the asylum application. This happens if an applicant is not eligible for refugee status. Returning to SA for business or pleasure can be considered evidence that the refugee's alleged fear of persecution is not genuine. For Afrikaner 'refugees' hoping to return home willingly for good, voluntary repatriation is always an option. Organisations like the UNHCR help those who wish to travel back to their countries by providing financial assistance. According to the South African Department of International Relations, 'refugees' would be welcomed back as citizens. However, they would have to revoke their status in order for this to happen. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X , and Bluesky for the latest news.

IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Elon Musk's influence on Trump: A closer look at the Afrikaner genocide debate
US president Donald Trump shakes hands with billionaire businessman Elon Musk on May 30 before their public feud. Image: Allison Robbert / AFP The public fallout between US President Donald Trump and South African-born billionaire Elon Musk is not bothering one of the political parties in the Government of National Unity (GNU). Trump and Musk took to their social media platforms this week over differences in his administration's spending. Musk stated that Trump would not have won the 2024 presidential elections without his campaign spending hundreds of US dollars. Freedom Front Plus leader Dr Corné Mulder said he did not believe the approach by Trump or his administration would be changed due to the bitter feud and affect its response to allegations of 'genocide' against white Afrikaner farmers in South Africa. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Mulder was responding to questions about whether the fallout could see Trump dramatically changing his views on the white Afrikaner genocide in South Africa. Musk is widely regarded as a person who wielded immense influence on Trump. 'It is incorrect to assume that US foreign policy is based on the influence of specific individuals. Unhappiness with SA is not something new. Even during the (Joe) Biden administration, a bipartisan bill was introduced in the US Congress to relook the US-SA relationship,' he said. Political analyst Professor Dirk Kotzé said Musk has in the past been influential in these issues, but there are many other South Africans who are also influential and close to Trump. 'So it will not necessarily change this matter, I don't think Musk was the one who dealt with or promoted the issue of genocide necessarily, he was more there in terms of black economic empowerment and employment equity and those government policies that he criticised, so he will continue with that until there is an agreement about Starlink,' Kotzé explained. He added: 'When it comes to the Afrikaner issues and what is called genocide, I don't think he was ever a key person in that, I think that is more where the conservatives – AfriForum, Solidarity, (South African-born American conservative political commentator and radio host) Joe Pollak and others – came in to promote that idea.' Kotzé said his understanding is that there has been a smaller, second group that went to the US after the earlier AfriForum-Solidarity delegation, but without any public attention because it created much more disturbances within US politics in general. 'So I think it has become a controversial issue in the US, and Trump wants to avoid that. I can see that this is not going to be a public project in the future, it is not something they will announce in the media, welcome them, and have public events,' he predicted. Kotzé also anticipates that this initiative or project will, over time, actually slow down. 'I don't see it developing strong momentum that it will be something very prominent in the future. I think it is going to disappear over time,' he said.