The views expressed do not reflect those of any POLICY WATCH SA clients
‘Gwarube will now implement contentious Bela Act’ – or so IOL and MSN South Africa newsreaders were led to believe on 6 November in an article penned by Mayibongwe Maqhina and also published in Pretoria News as well as the Cape Times (PressReader). Maqhina referred to his source as a ‘statement’ made by Basic Education Minister Siviwe Gwarube and Democratic Alliance (DA) MP ‘when she was responding to parliamentary questions’. In fact, he based his report on a written reply to a written question – both having been included in a parliamentary document with a date and reference number revealing far more than first meets the eye.
The document was published on 27 August 2024, tending to suggest that the Minister’s response had already been received. The reference number identifies July as the month in which the written question was submitted. Since when much has happened on the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act front – including a 10-thousand-strong march (Polity) to Pretoria’s Voortrekker Monument, protesting against the Act’s implementation.
Maqhina’s article, with its misleading headline, was published two days after the march. And possibly deliberately so, perhaps with the intention of attracting readers by fueling the fires of discontent among protesters and their supporters. Because according to the report, the Minister’s response ‘came as the debate continue(d) over the new legislation, after protesters mobilised on Monday against the Bela Act.’
Nonsense! The Minister’s written reply to written questions from DA MP Delmaine Christians preceded the protest by 70 days! Which gives context to the question inaccurately quoted by Maqhina: whether the Minister had “made any representations to President Cyril Ramaphosa to request that he returns the new law to the National Assembly for further consideration”.
In fact, the question referred expressly to the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill – not ‘the new law’. Because at the time (July), the President had yet to sign the Bill. He eventually did so on 13 September, during a ceremony held to mark the occasion.
And it gets worse, because the Minister’s written reply (published on 27 August) refers to a decision only announced by the President himself in a speech delivered during the 13 September ceremony. According to Maqhina, the Minister said in her August response that the President had ‘elected to set a pathway for addressing some of the concerns within the Act by delaying the commencement of the provisions relating to language and admission policies of public schools for three months’. But as the document itself clearly shows, in the opening sentence to her response the Minister referred to ‘the BELA Bill [now the Act]’ – which Maqhina must surely have noticed but then chose to ignore.
Was the Minister already aware of the President’s intentions 17 days before he made them public? And if so, would she have disclosed them? Probably not: she’s an astute, seasoned politician who served as the DA’s chief whip in the National Assembly before being appointed to a Cabinet post in the government of national unity.
On 1 November, the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG) published (on the ‘questions and replies’ page of its website) a transcribed version of the downloadable parliamentary document Maqhina used as his source. Begging some rather worrying questions – especially given PMG’s reputation as a reliable source of information on Parliament.
Was the document (published on 27 August) deliberately withheld from PMG until 1 November? There’s no sign of it either on the Department of Basic Education site (which has a page dedicated to questions and answers in Parliament) or on the ‘questions and replies’ page of Parliament’s website.
Was it doctored to include information only made public on 13 September?
An affirmative answer to either question would open a can of worms – which doesn’t mean nobody should ask.
Meanwhile, a Daily Maverick article published on 6 November is the most accurate and informative we could find on the Minister’s most recent pronouncements about the Act. The headline says it all: ‘Basic Education Minister confirms Bela Act “essentially” ready for implementation – except clauses 4 & 5’ (dealing with the controversial issues of school admission and language policies).
And despite referring to ‘a parliamentary Q&A session this week’ of which no record exists, as far as we can tell, a TimesLIVE report published the same day provides useful insights apparently communicated in ‘a response from Gwarube's office’. “The minister will work with her department to ensure that it takes the necessary steps to introduce appropriate regulations, norms, standards and national policies that will strengthen the ability of our basic education system to implement our country's basic education laws and ultimately serve the best interests of learners,” it confirmed. This noting that “it is the minister's constitutional duty to ensure that the laws passed by parliament and signed into law by the president are implemented. Given that the Bela Act is now law, the minister must ensure it is properly implemented in the best interests of learners”.
Comentarios