Latest news with #EELC
IOL News
01-08-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Operation Dudula under fire for campaign to ban foreign children from public schools in 2026
Operation Dudula vows to block undocumented foreign children from public schools, prioritising South African children first, citing constitutional resource limits. Legal foreign children will only be admitted after all locals are enrolled. Image: Tumi Pakkies/Independent Newspapers Operation Dudula's organisational leader, Zandile Dabula, has announced that the organisation will launch a campaign at the end of December 2025, continuing into the first week of January 2026, aimed at preventing foreign children, particularly those without legal documentation, from enrolling in public schools in South Africa. But Equal Education (EE) and the Equal Education Law Centre (EELC) are pushing back calling the proposed campaign a violation of South Africa's Constitution and a precedent setting High Court ruling. The issue of foreign nationals in South Africa, particularly undocumented migrants, has been contentious and ongoing, sparking public debates, protests, and policy discussions for years. Concerns over access to limited resources such as housing, healthcare, and education have fueled tensions between local communities and foreign nationals. According to Dabula, members of Operation Dudula will be stationed at schools to enforce the policy. 'No foreign child will be attending school in a public school,' she said. 'They can rather take them to private schools, we don't care, but public schools are going to be reserved for South African children only.' When asked whether the campaign targets all foreign children or only those without legal documentation, Dabula said, 'I'm talking about illegal foreigners who will definitely not be accepted, but those who claim to be legal. We have Home Affairs, bogus Home Affairs, and we've seen a lot of them. You also know about these bogus Home Affairs.' She emphasised that all foreign nationals would need to be thoroughly vetted, including the legal status of their parents. 'They must be checked, thoroughly checked, because how did they come to this country? Are their parents documented?' Speaking to IOL News, Equal Education (EE) and the Equal Education Law Centre (EELC) sharply criticised Operation Dudula's campaign as unlawful, unconstitutional, and deeply harmful to children. 'South Africa has a long history of dispossession, unequal resources for our communities, and unequal laws. Thirty years since the dawn of democracy, we remember this history because many of those living in South Africa still look forward to service delivery that gives our families access to basic resources such as health, education, and adequate housing. The poor access to these resources can mostly be attributed to poor government planning, corruption, wasteful expenditure, and poor political will.' 'Children should never be collateral damage of the failures of those in power.' EE and EELC highlighted the protections guaranteed to all children, saying: 'The Constitution of South Africa, in Section 29(1)(a) and Section 9, gives everyone an equal right to basic education and prohibits discrimination against any child in accessing this right. No child may be excluded from attending a public school, regardless of their documentation status or nationality. This was confirmed in the Department of Basic Education Circular 1 of 2020, a response to the judgment of the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court in Centre for Child Law & Others v Minister of Basic Education and Others ,which restated the obligation of Provincial Education Departments and schools to admit all learners, and undocumented learners in particular.' EE and EELC said denying any learner access to school perpetuates inequality and undermines democratic values. Denying children access to their right to education can be very traumatising. 'Any interference with the enjoyment of the right to equal education will constitute a grave constitutional violation and is condemned by Equal Education and the Equal Education Law Centre in the strongest terms. ''All learners in South Africa are entitled to an education, and we must make sure that this right is protected and upheld to build the equitable society envisioned by our democracy.' Further condemning the campaign, Section27 said: 'Operation Dudula's campaign is unlawful and unconstitutional. Children must be protected, and all state departments and individuals have a constitutional obligation to act in the best interests of children.' Section27 referenced Centre for Child Law v Minister of Basic Education (Phakamisa judgment), in which the court confirmed that all children, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to education under Section 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. 'Our courts have held that all children, despite their immigration status, are entitled to basic education,' Section27 said. 'The court in the Phakamisa judgment interrogated the constitutionality of a circular by the Eastern Cape Department of Basic Education, which provided that undocumented learners would not be enrolled at schools. The High Court found that such a circular infringed learners' rights and was not in the best interests of the child.' The South African Schools Act (SASA), as amended by the Basic Education Law Amendment Act 32 of 2024, now codifies this legal protection. Section 5(1A) of SASA mandates that undocumented learners must be allowed admission into schools and may provide an affidavit containing the learner's details. In addition, Section 3(7) of SASA outlines legal consequences for those who interfere with schooling: 'If any person unlawfully or intentionally disrupts or hinders educational activities, they are guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to a fine or imprisonment for up to 12 months, or both.' 'Operation Dudula's campaign to prevent undocumented learners from being enrolled at schools or entering school grounds is intentional, and the disruption of school activities is an infringement of the right to basic education in terms of Section 29(1)(a) of the Constitution and the South African Schools Act,' said Section27. [email protected] Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel. IOL News
Daily Maverick
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Bela Act makes Grade R compulsory, but where is the money?
If Treasury can quietly decide which democratically enacted laws deserve funding resources, we no longer live under a constitutional democracy, but under rule by executive discretion. South Africa's budget season has been dominated by political party grandstanding, masquerading as genuine engagement with the Budget. Amid these theatrics, one glaring issue has inexplicably fallen by the wayside: the complete absence of funding for compulsory Grade R implementation, despite Parliament rightfully passing a law in 2024 that makes it mandatory. Meanwhile, an estimated 200,000 six-year-olds are waiting outside the classroom because National Treasury has decided which laws warrant implementation and which can be quietly smothered through budgetary neglect. The Basic Education Laws Amendment (Bela) Act makes Grade R compulsory and part of the definition of basic education, a constitutionally protected and immediately realisable right. The Department of Basic Education's costing estimated that inclusion of universal Grade R in the basic education sector would require R17-billion – R5.26-billion for educators and R12-billion for infrastructure. For context, this additional money that is needed amounts to only 0.7% of the previously proposed 2025 national Budget. To be clear, this costing is known to Parliament and Treasury, neither of which has contested these figures. Yet, three consecutive Budget proposals have allocated nothing to Grade R implementation – the 2024 Medium Term Expenditure Framework outlining spending plans for the next three years; the Budget that never was, and the 2025 Budget that was never passed. When Equal Education Law Centre (EELC) and other civil society organisations directly questioned Treasury on this matter, officials first dodged the issue before suggesting provinces should 'use what they currently have' – expecting them to somehow absorb a R17-billion obligation within budgets already cut to the bone, despite provinces deriving 97% of their income from national government. The EELC's walk-in law clinic has heard from clients around the country of their inability to obtain placement for their learners in Grade R. The Western Cape Education Department (WCED) reported 4,365 unplaced Grade R learners earlier this year, acknowledging insufficient capacity to fulfil its obligations. In response, the provincial education department said that it was redirecting children from no-fee public schools to fee-paying independent institutions, shifting the state's responsibility to families who inevitably cannot afford it. Meanwhile, parents have sought our advice, fearing potential criminal sanctions for failing to enrol their children in Grade R, creating an absurd situation where caregivers are legally bound to access services the government refuses to provide. The DBE tacitly acknowledges its own inability to meet its obligations in the draft implementation guidelines for Bela, which state: 'Any parent whose child must be enrolled in Grade R at a school in terms of section 2(a) of the Bela Act and who can demonstrate that there are no Grade R places available to that child at registered early childhood development centres, public schools and independent schools within 5km of their place of residence or place of work would justifiably not be able to comply with the compulsory school attendance requirements.' Not only is the burden shifted to already disadvantaged families, these guidelines introduce onerous administrative hurdles. It is now the responsibility of parents to 'demonstrate' unavailability of places within an arbitrary 5km radius — regardless of transportation costs, fees, safety concerns or other access barriers. The problem with unfunded mandates An unfunded mandate – when legislation or policy establishes a legal obligation for a sphere of government to deliver specific services without Treasury allocating the requisite financial resources to fulfil this obligation – is a breach of the principle 'finance follows function'. Unfunded mandates are not inherently unlawful, but Grade R is not just any unfunded mandate. When Grade R was included in the definition of basic education, it created not just an obligation for parents to send their children to school, but a corresponding right that children have now — not whenever Treasury decides it is convenient. It is noteworthy that not a single political party has taken up Grade R funding as an issue in their engagement with the budgets, despite almost all having vigorously campaigned on early learning and literacy. This funding gap reveals three serious governance failures. First, it fundamentally disrupts the separation of powers. When Parliament passes a Bill, it exercises its law-making authority. When Treasury subsequently refuses to fund these mandates, it overrides Parliament's legislative authority without any democratic process. Parliament becomes a hollow chamber if its laws can be rendered meaningless through budgetary decisions made behind closed doors. Second, it fractures our system of cooperative governance. The Constitution envisions a harmonious relationship between national and provincial governments, where responsibilities are matched with resources. This is not to suggest that provinces bear no responsibility — many have failed to efficiently utilise existing education resources and could reprioritise certain expenditures. However, an unfunded mandate of such gravity goes far beyond ordinary budgetary tensions, creating an environment where even the most efficiently run provinces are set up to fail. Third, unfunded mandates fundamentally weaken the rule of law while breeding cynicism among a public already excluded from Treasury's inner workings. When government enacts laws promising educational rights it has no intention of honouring, it teaches the public that law creates binding obligations only for them — not for the state itself. Each unfunded mandate not only chips away at public trust, but also introduces the dangerous idea that laws are merely optional guidelines for government while remaining strict mandates for the public. If Treasury can quietly decide which democratically enacted laws deserve resources — while parents simultaneously face potential criminal sanctions for non-compliance with those same laws — we no longer live under a constitutional democracy, but under rule by executive discretion. Government processes then become merely theatrical performances rather than substantive governance, with Parliament reduced to a stage for political grandstanding while real decisions happen behind Treasury's closed doors. Way forward The path ahead is painfully clear. Almost every political party represented in Parliament promised during the election to prioritise early learning, literacy and numeracy. Now, those promises have to translate into concrete budgetary commitments. Having made Grade R both compulsory and part of basic education, there is no grey area, no room for budget gymnastics or administrative workarounds. The only solution is to fund Grade R implementation. Not next year. Not when fiscal conditions improve. Now. Because the right to basic education is not conditional, and laws are not suggestions. DM Katherine Sutherland and Daniel Peter Al-Naddaf are with Equal Education Law Centre's research department and are members of the Budget Justice Coalition.
