Latest news with #ProtectionfromHarassmentAct
Daily Maverick
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Employers and schools can no longer claim ignorance of cyberbullying
South Africa has a robust set of laws to tackle cyberbullying in schools and workplaces. However, in classrooms, offices and online chats, the updating and enforcement of these policies remain deficient. In 2021, a video of 15-year-old Limpopo schoolgirl Lufuno Mavhunga's violent assault at the hands of a fellow learner went viral. Following the assault, Mavhunga took her own life. An investigation by the South African Human Rights Commission found that the school had failed in its duty of care, ignoring pleas from her family and failing to act when alerted. 'We have very good laws,' said Dr Sershiv Reddy, senior lecturer in the department of mercantile law at the University of Johannesburg. 'But sometimes we are impeded by enforcement, maybe due to the lack of funding or other resources.' South Africa's legislative toolkit, including the Protection from Harassment Act (2011) and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Pepuda, 2000), offers remedies for victims of harassment and discrimination. These protections often vanish in the policy void between written laws and day-to-day practice. No adults in the room 'More than 95% of our children have access to the internet,' Reddy said 'The keyword is access. It doesn't mean that they may have a mobile device at home, but it means they have access via other means. That could be through a school computer, through the library, [or] an internet café.' Seventy percent of children access the internet without their parents knowing, and more than half of South African schoolchildren have been victims of cyberbullying, Reddy said. In 2018, the Ipsos Research Institute ranked South Africa fifth in a global survey of 28 countries measuring cyberbullying rates. And it's not just children. Anli Bezuidenhout, employment law director at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, pointed out that teachers and employees are also victims of online harassment. WhatsApp and HR While bullies have migrated to WhatsApp groups, Instagram direct messages (DMs) and Zoom calls, schools and workplaces seem stuck in a pre-digital era, failing to proactively update policies. 'Where in the past we may have had policies relating to sexual harassment, we now often see those policies haven't been broadened to also deal with issues such as cyberbullying,' Bezuidenhout said. This is despite the Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace, which came into effect four years ago. It states that employers (including schools) should have anti-harassment policies that also cover digital spaces. Bezuidenhout explained that the code introduces the requirement to review other policies, such as a company or school's social media policy. Off the clock, still on the hook Tim Fletcher, director and chair of dispute resolution at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, describes the Protection from Harassment Act as 'a fairly draconian remedy', but one that is easily obtainable. Victims can approach the magistrate's court, whether in their area, the perpetrator's, or where the incident happened, to secure an interim protection order, Fletcher said. This order becomes effective the moment it is served, and if unchallenged, it converts into a final order with an attached warrant of arrest. Pepuda, meanwhile, offers even broader powers through the Equality Court, allowing action on virtually any ground undermining dignity. And critically, cyberbullying outside of working hours is still grounds for disciplinary action. 'It's off-duty misconduct, you're against the school conduct, against the company's conduct, bringing the company into disrepute. I would still be able to discipline such an individual,' Aadil Patel, head of employment law at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, said. How does this affect you? The boundaries between public and private, workplace and home, have blurred. WhatsApp groups, private DMs and social media posts are not outside the law's reach. Cyberbullying at school or at work is not something you have to endure quietly. The legal system offers tools for protection. But those tools only work if victims and communities know they exist, and use them.
The Star
17-05-2025
- The Star
LPC tribunal finds ‘prima facie evidence' against attorney Kaamilah Paulse
In a significant ruling, the Appeals Tribunal of the Legal Practice Council (LPC) has upheld a misconduct complaint brought by Johannesburg-based father, Asif Casoojee, against attorney Kaamilah Paulse of Herold Gie Attorneys. Casoojee has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children. Paulse represents his spouse. Casoojee reported Paulse to the LPC, accusing her of dishonesty, unethical and dishonest conduct, including orchestrating parental alienation, misusing the Protection from Harassment Act, and unlawfully interfering in his private and professional affairs. The case not only raises serious questions about the conduct of legal professionals in family law matters but also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by fathers in the South African legal system when fighting for contact with their children. In its findings delivered on 13 March 2025, the Appeals Tribunal found that Casoojee had presented prima facie evidence of misconduct on both counts raised in his appeal. Casoojee 's first charge related to a final protection order obtained by Paulse against him in her capacity. According to the Tribunal's report, the order was granted in his absence, allegedly due to defective service of the interim order, which had neither been delivered by SAPS as required nor included a return date. The second charge was more serious: a conflict of interest and interference in the parental relationship between Casoojee and his children. The tribunal said it found prima facie proof of Paulse's involvement in restricting Casoogee's access to his children's school, records, and communication, stating that her actions amounted to 'parental alienation'. The tribunal also flagged her alleged use of unlawfully obtained financial records and her participation in a private WhatsApp group discussing confidential details of Casoojee's company. The Appeals Tribunal, chaired by Advocate Sonja Lötter, was critical of Paulse's failure to address key concerns. ''This is not an answer to the evidence that the complainant has presented,' the tribunal said, adding that the children's best interests were not prioritised in any of the extensive litigation between the parties since 2021. The LPC reaffirmed the duty of attorneys to uphold the constitutional principle of the best interests of the child, as enshrined in the Children's Act 38 of 2005. 'Attorneys should not approach each case as if it were a war between litigants,' the tribunal stated, citing Judge Peter Mabuse, who warned that court rules must not be used 'as weapons in a battle to annihilate the opposing party'. The case underscores broader systemic issues. Although South African law grants both parents equal rights and responsibilities, many fathers report feeling marginalised in the family law system. 'There is often an unspoken bias that assumes the mother is always the better caregiver,' says family law expert Adv Lesedi Mokoena. 'But that is not the law, and it's not always what's in the best interests of the child.' Casoojee , who is currently applying to the High Court to compel Paulse's removal from the case due to a conflict of interest, asserts that his fight is about more than personal justice. 'This case is about setting a precedent. Our children deserve better than to be used as pawns in legal warfare.' On Thursday, Herold Gie Attorneys wrote to The Star , demanding that the paper not publish the story. In the letter, the law firm said: 'We strongly disagree with the decision of the LPC Appeals Tribunal to refer the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee. ''While the decision has been made, it should be noted that no final finding has been made regarding Ms Paulse. 'Ms Paulse will, when the matter is heard by the Disciplinary Committee, be challenging the complaint,' the letter reads. The matter is now expected to head back to the High Court, where the future of his relationship with his children may finally be resolved.
The Star
17-05-2025
- The Star
LPC tribunal finds ‘prima facie evidence' against attorney Kamillah Paulse
Attorney Kamillah Paulse of Herold Gie Attorneys. Asif Casoogee, who has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children. In a significant ruling, the Appeals Tribunal of the Legal Practice Council (LPC) has upheld a misconduct complaint brought by Johannesburg-based father, Asif Casoojee, against attorney Kamillah Paulse of Herold Gie Attorneys. Casoojee has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children. Kamillah Paulse represents his spouse. Casoojee reported Paulse to the LPC, accusing her of dishonesty, unethical and dishonest conduct, including orchestrating parental alienation, misusing the Protection from Harassment Act, and unlawfully interfering in his private and professional affairs. The case not only raises serious questions about the conduct of legal professionals in family law matters but also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by fathers in the South African legal system when fighting for contact with their children. In its findings delivered on 13 March 2025, the Appeals Tribunal found that Casoogee had presented prima facie evidence of misconduct on both counts raised in his appeal. Casoogee's first charge related to a final protection order obtained by Paulse against him in her capacity. According to the Tribunal's report, the order was granted in his absence, allegedly due to defective service of the interim order, which had neither been delivered by SAPS as required nor included a return date. The second charge was more serious: a conflict of interest and interference in the parental relationship between Casoogee and his children. The tribunal said it found prima facie proof of Paulse's involvement in restricting Casoogee's access to his children's school, records, and communication, stating that her actions amounted to 'parental alienation'. The tribunal also flagged her alleged use of unlawfully obtained financial records and her participation in a private WhatsApp group discussing confidential details of Casoogee's company. The Appeals Tribunal, chaired by Advocate Sonja Lötter, was critical of Paulse's failure to address key concerns. ''This is not an answer to the evidence that the complainant has presented,' the tribunal said, adding that the children's best interests were not prioritised in any of the extensive litigation between the parties since 2021.
IOL News
15-05-2025
- IOL News
LPC tribunal finds ‘prima facie evidence' against attorney Kamillah Paulse
Asif Casoogee, who has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children. Asif Casoogee, who has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children. In a significant ruling, the Appeals Tribunal of the Legal Practice Council (LPC) has upheld a misconduct complaint brought by Johannesburg-based father, Asif Casoogee, against attorney Kamillah Paulse of Herold Gie Attorneys. The case not only raises serious questions about the conduct of legal professionals in family law matters but also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by fathers in the South African legal system when fighting for contact with their children. Asif Casoogee, who has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children, accused Paulse of unethical and dishonest conduct, including orchestrating parental alienation, misusing the Protection from Harassment Act, and unlawfully interfering in his private and professional affairs. In its findings delivered on 13 March 2025, the Appeals Tribunal found that Casoogee had presented prima facie evidence of misconduct on both counts raised in his appeal. Casoogee's first charge related to a final protection order obtained by Paulse against him in her capacity. According to the Tribunal's report, the order was granted in his absence, allegedly due to defective service of the interim order, which had neither been delivered by SAPS as required nor included a return date. The second charge was more serious: a conflict of interest and interference in the parental relationship between Casoogee and his children. The Tribunal found prima facie proof of Paulse's involvement in restricting Casoogee's access to his children's school, records, and communication, stating that her actions amounted to 'parental alienation'. The Tribunal also flagged her alleged use of unlawfully obtained financial records and her participation in a private WhatsApp group discussing confidential details of Casoogee's company. The Appeals Tribunal, chaired by Advocate Sonja Lötter, was critical of Paulse's failure to address key concerns. 'This is not an answer to the evidence that the Complainant has presented,' the Tribunal said, adding that the children's best interests were not prioritised in any of the extensive litigation between the parties since 2021. The LPC reaffirmed the duty of attorneys to uphold the constitutional principle of the best interests of the child, as enshrined in the Children's Act 38 of 2005. 'Attorneys should not approach each case as if it were a war between litigants,' the Tribunal stated, citing Judge Peter Mabuse, who warned that court rules must not be used 'as weapons in a battle to annihilate the opposing party.'The case underscores broader systemic issues. Although South African law grants both parents equal rights and responsibilities, many fathers report feeling marginalised in the family law system. 'There is often an unspoken bias that assumes the mother is always the better caregiver,' says family law expert Adv. Lesedi Mokoena. 'But that is not the law, and it's not always what's in the best interests of the child.'Casoogee, who is now applying to the High Court to compel Paulse's removal from the case due to a conflict of interest, says his fight is about more than personal justice. 'This case is about setting a precedent. Our children deserve better than to be used as pawns in legal warfare.'The matter is now expected to head back to the High Court, where the future of his relationship with his children may finally be resolved.
Independent Singapore
23-04-2025
- Independent Singapore
Man says his ‘crazy GF' won't stop stalking him after he tried to break up
SINGAPORE: A man recently took to social media to share that his 'crazy girlfriend' is stalking him, even though he had already told her that he wanted to break up. In a post shared on the r/SingaporeRaw subreddit on Monday (April 21), the man explained that his girlfriend—or rather, his 'soon-to-be ex'—has been persistently showing up at his workplace. She allegedly loiters around the vicinity, watches him from a distance, and follows him every day during his lunch break. The man, who works in bank security, added that he feels helpless because she remains in public spaces where he has no authority to ask her to leave. Moreover, despite blocking her on Instagram and WhatsApp and clearly telling her that he wants to end the relationship, she continues to stalk him. He also mentioned that there were instances when he had to temporarily unblock her just to communicate and ask her to stop loitering outside during lunch hours. Growing increasingly alarmed by the situation, the man turned to the Reddit community for advice on how to manage the uncomfortable situation. 'You need to get the authorities involved.' In the comments, one Singaporean Redditor responded, 'She is stalking you because you allow it and maybe even like it. If I were you, I would call her, her parents, and her relatives for a meeting and tell them the smart and fun thing for her to do now is move on, or she will be sitting behind bars.' Another suggested, 'Do you have her family member's contact? Perhaps you can try to enlist their help to stop her from harassing you before you file an official police report. although you owe her nothing, I think this could be a decent thing to do for her.' Meanwhile, a third Redditor shared a personal experience to warn the man how dangerous these situations can become if ignored. He wrote, 'A similar case happened to my friend where he broke up with a girl. It escalated to the point where this girl showed up at his house and even called her guy friends to loiter around his house, wanting to beat him up. She created many accounts just to repeatedly check on his social media activities. She also showed up at his workplace, threatening to get him fired. 'Please call the police. You need to get the authorities involved because these people are the most dangerous if they are left unchecked. You'll never know what they might do to you. For all you know, they might physically attack you. I am not scaring you but I just want to give you precautions.' In Singapore, stalking is a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). Anyone found guilty of unlawful stalking may be fined up to $5,000, jailed for up to 12 months, or both. Acts that may constitute stalking include following the victim, attempting to initiate or maintain communication, loitering near the victim's residence, workplace, or other frequented locations, interfering with the victim's property, sending or delivering unsolicited items or messages, and placing the victim under surveillance. Read also: My coworkers appear 'cold and dismissive' — Man struggles to adjust in first full-time job Featured image by freepik (for illustration purposes only)
