Arbitration Award

Commissioner: Gerald Jacobs
Case Number: ELRC696-24/25WC
Date of Award: 08 June 2026

In the matter between:

Education Department of the Western Cape
(Applicant/Employer)

                                                                    And

R Isaacs
(Respondent/Employee)

Details of Hearing and Representation

1. This matter concerns an inquiry by arbitration between the Western Cape Education Department, hereinafter referred to as the WCED, and Mr Riejaad Isaacs, an educator and Head of Department at Voorbrug Secondary School. The inquiry was conducted in terms of section 188A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.
2. Ms Verna Phillips, Senior Labour Relations Officer, represented the WCED. She was assisted by Ms Leanne Bathgate, Deputy Director: Employee Relations. Mr Isaacs represented himself during the proceedings. He had initially intended to be represented by a legal practitioner; however, the legal practitioner failed to attend several scheduled sittings. Mr Isaacs thereafter elected to proceed with the inquiry in the absence of his legal representative.
3. Ms Karen van Niekerk, a registered social worker, attended the proceedings as an intermediary and was accompanied by Ms Stephanie Marks. Ms Bianca Mankay served as the interpreter during the proceedings.
4. The arbitration was heard over 12 sittings. It commenced on 28 November 2024 and proceeded on 26 February 2025, 11 April 2025, 15 May 2025, 24 and 25 July 2025, 15 August 2025, 2 October 2025, 16 February 2026, and 4 and 7 May 2026. The proceedings were finalised on 8 May 2026.
5. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties requested leave to submit written closing arguments instead of presenting oral argument. The request was granted, and the parties were afforded seven days within which to file their written submissions. It was directed that parties were to submit such submissions on or before 4 October 2023, and the 14 days within which to issue the award as required by section 138(7) will be calculated from this date. The respective parties submitted their detailed written arguments, which were duly considered. An extension was subsequently granted in respect of the 14 days for issuing the award.
6. The proceedings were digitally recorded.
   Issue/s to be determined
7. This inquiry concerns two primary charges of sexual assault, each with an alternative charge brought under the Employment of Educators Act, No. 76 of 1998. The charges against Mr R. Isaacs are as follows:
   CHARGE 1:
   “It is alleged that you are guilty of misconduct in terms of Section 17(1)(b) of the Employment of Educators Act, no 76 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in that on or about March 2024 and at or near a Hotel in Bellville, you committed an act of sexual assault on a grade 11 learner enrolled at Voorbrug Secondary School, by sucking his penis.”
   ALTERNATIVE TO CHARGE 1
   “It is alleged that you are guilty of misconduct in terms of section 18(1)(dd) of the Act, to be read with section 18(2)(b)(i) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offenses and Related Matters Amendment Act), Act 32 of 2007, in that on or about March 2024 and at or near a Hotel in Bellville, you committed an act of sexual assault on a grade 11 learner enrolled at Voorbrug Secondary School, by sucking his penis.”
   CHARGE 2:
8. “It is alleged that you are guilty of misconduct in terms of Section 17(1)(b) of the Act, in that on or about August 2024 and at or near Voorbrug Secondary School, Delft, you committed an act of sexual assault on grade 11 learners enrolled at Voorbrug Secondary School, by sucking their penises.”
   ALTERNATIVE TO CHARGE 2:
9. “It is alleged that you are guilty of misconduct in terms of section 18(1)(dd) of the Act, to be read with section 18(2)(b)(i) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters Amendment Act), Act 32 of 2007, in that on or about August
   Plea
10. Mr Isaacs pleaded not guilty to both charges. I am required to determine, on a balance of probabilities, whether he is guilty as charged and, if so, the appropriate sanction.
    Background facts
11. The following facts were common cause. Mr Isaacs had been employed as an educator at Voorbrug Secondary School for approximately three to four years at the time of these proceedings. He taught subjects within the commerce field across various grades. His duties included teaching Business Studies to Grade 11 and Grade 12 learners, EMS (Economic and Management Sciences) to Grade 9 learners, and Tourism to Grade 11 and Grade 12 learners.
12. In addition to his teaching responsibilities, he performed a number of leadership, administrative and learner-development functions within the school. These included overseeing and facilitating the Representative Council of Learners (RCL), coordinating the Blue Bus Ministry, serving on the school’s disciplinary team, acting as co-coordinator of the Transform to Perform (T2P) project, coordinating the school’s awards programme, and serving on both the matric and fundraising committees. The parties were further in agreement that these responsibilities brought him into regular contact with learners, parents, fellow educators and members of the broader school community.
13. The evidence presented during the inquiry revealed that Mr Isaacs was a prominent and highly visible figure within both the school and the wider Delft community served by Voorbrug Secondary School. Through his numerous portfolios and extra-curricular activities, he was actively involved in the lives of learners beyond the classroom and frequently engaged with parents and community members. Witnesses described him as approachable and willing to assist learners and their families when they experienced personal, social or financial difficulties. The evidence further established that, by virtue of his position as an educator, Head of Department and mentor to learners, Mr Isaacs occupied a position of trust and authority within the school. He was entrusted with significant responsibilities relating to learner development, discipline and leadership and, through those responsibilities, exercised considerable influence over the learners under his care.
14. The allegations of sexual misconduct emerged against the backdrop of an unrelated investigation into a break-in and vandalism incident at Voorbrug Secondary School during August 2024. It was common cause that school staff discovered that Mr Isaacs’ office and two classrooms had been vandalised over the weekend. Information subsequently came to the attention of the principal, Mr Randall Swartz, that the learners had been seen on the school premises during the relevant period. The learners subsequently provided written confessions.
15. Following the disclosure, the matter was escalated by the principal to the relevant departmental authorities in accordance with prescribed procedures. The disclosure of the allegations triggered a series of consequential events. Mr Isaacs was suspended from duty, a criminal case was opened, and the WCED instituted these disciplinary proceedings against Mr Isaacs. The matter further impacted the learners concerned, with evidence indicating that two of the learners were later transferred to another school, while one ultimately discontinued his schooling. It is against this factual backdrop that the evidence relating to the charges must be considered.
    Survey of evidence and arguments
    Documentary evidence:
16. The parties presented bundles of documents. Bundle A was submitted by the WCED and comprised the documents upon which the Department relied in support of the charges. Bundle B was submitted by Mr Isaacs and contained documents which he relied upon in support of his defence.
17. During the course of the proceedings, Mr Isaacs provided bank statements and documents which he contended demonstrated inconsistencies between statements allegedly made by the learners in criminal proceedings and the evidence presented during this inquiry. These included additional bank records and social media communications.
18. The WCED indicated that attempts were being made to obtain additional documentary material, including video footage and hotel-related records, through the prosecuting authorities. They further indicated that they intended to obtain additional electronic evidence from the Deputy Principal’s cellular phone, including a screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation and a voice recording allegedly involving one of the learners discussing responsibility for the school break-in. The Department subsequently advised that it had been unable to obtain either the voice recording or the WhatsApp communication, with the result that neither formed part of the evidentiary record before me.
    Summary of the evidence
19. In order to protect the identities and dignity of the learners involved, I shall not refer to them by name in this award. The learner who testified in relation to both the Easter weekend incident and the incident in Mr Isaacs’ office will be referred to as Learner A. The other two learners involved in the incident in Mr Isaacs’ office will be referred to as Learner B and Learner C, respectively.
20. The WCED called the following witnesses: Ms Desmolene Lucretia Weavers, a qualified social worker employed by the Western Cape Education Department; Learner A; Learner A’s mother, Mrs Bianca Jo-lene Du Plooy; Mr Randall Swartz, the principal of Voorbrug Secondary School; and Learner B. Ms Weavers testified that she had 17 years’ experience as a social worker, six of which were with the Department. At the relevant time, she was attached to the Metro North District Office and was responsible for Circuit One.
21. Mr Isaacs testified in his own defence. He also called the following witnesses: Mr Moegammad Matthews; Ms Valentina Motha, the school secretary and former assistant administrator; and Ms Anita Rudolph, a member of the School Governing Body for the past nine years.

The applicant WCED evidence

22. Before setting out the evidence and arguments, it is necessary to identify the facts that are common cause and those that remain disputed. This is particularly important because many of the witnesses did not testify as direct witnesses to the central allegations, but their evidence bears on the surrounding circumstances, credibility, reliability, corroboration and probabilities.
23. As to charge 1, it is common cause that Mr Isaacs went to Learner A’s parental home during the Easter weekend of 2024. It is also common cause that the reason advanced for collecting Learner A was connected to a church-related event. Learner A left home after permission had been obtained from his parents. It is further common cause that Learner A, Mr Isaacs and Mr Moegamad Matthews, also known as Toufiq, eventually ended up at Ngena Sleep and Go, a hotel in Bellville and that Mr Isaacs paid for the room. It is also not disputed that Learner A returned home the following day.
24. What is disputed is how Learner A came to be at the hotel, whether the church event was a genuine explanation for collecting him from home, whether Learner A was ever dropped near his home after the event was allegedly cancelled, whether he later rejoined Mr Matthews and Mr Isaacs, and what occurred inside the hotel room.
25. As to charge 2, it is common cause that, during August 2024, there was a break-in and vandalism incident involving Mr Isaacs’ office and other classrooms at Voorbrug Secondary School. It is also common cause that Learner A, B and C became suspects because they had been seen at the school on the Saturday before the vandalism was discovered. It is further common cause that Mr Swartz asked Mr Isaacs to speak to the learners about the vandalism and that handwritten statements or admissions were later produced. However, the original statements were not produced at the inquiry.
26. It is also common cause that the allegations concerning the incident in Mr Isaacs’ office surfaced during the vandalism investigation or the disciplinary process connected to that investigation. What is disputed is whether the incident actually occurred and the learners were finally reporting what had happened, or whether they were attempting to avoid responsibility for the vandalism and possible expulsion.
    Ms Desmolene Lucretia Weavers testimony
27. Ms Weavers evidence was not first-hand evidence of either the Easter weekend incident or the incident in Mr Isaacs’ office. Its relevance lay in contextualising the learners’ delayed disclosure, the psychosocial impact of the allegations, the safety concerns reported by the learners and their families, and the support interventions that followed.
28. She testified that the learners and their families reported significant fear following the disclosure. According to her, they reported threats, stalking and community hostility. She described the fear as unsettling and stated that it affected the learners’ sense of safety, freedom of movement and ability to continue normally at school. The evidence was that the Delft community was largely supportive of Mr Isaacs, which, according to the reports made to her, increased the learners’ fear and isolation.
29. She also testified about the emotional impact of the allegations on the learners. She stated that the nature of the allegations caused embarrassment, confusion and distress. In her assessment, the learners experienced particular difficulty because the allegations involved male learners and conduct that caused them to question their identity and how they would be perceived by others. Learner A, in particular, reported that the public nature of the allegations intensified his embarrassment and distress. According to her, the learners, felt that the “bribery” involving money was linked to the educator asking for oral sex.
30. She further testified about the consequences for the learners’ schooling and personal circumstances. Learner A was moved for safety reasons, transferred to another school, struggled to adjust academically, missed assessments and ultimately left school. Learner B also experienced difficulties after the disclosure, including safety concerns and emotional distress. Learner C remained at Voorbrug because of financial constraints but, according to her, appeared to carry unresolved anger despite attempting to move forward. She also referred the learners to appropriate support services, including Thuthuzela Care Centres for medical assessments and counselling.
    Learner A’s testimony
31. Learner A testified that Mr Isaacs invited him to attend a religious youth camp or church-related event. According to him, Mr Isaacs arrived at his home at about 22h00 in an Uber with Mr Matthews and other learners wearing uniforms from other schools. Learner A testified that Mr Isaacs spoke to his mother and father, obtained permission for him to attend what he described as a youth camp event, and refused to allow Learner A’s cousin to accompany them. Learner A then left with Mr Isaacs in the Uber. His evidence was that the other learners were dropped off in Symphony Way Temporary Relocation Area in Delft, commonly known as Blikkiesdorp and that thereafter only he, Mr Isaacs and Mr Matthews remained. They then proceeded to a hotel in Bellville, where Mr Isaacs booked and paid for the room. He assumed that the other learners were being dropped off because their session at the youth camp ended, while his was only about to begin.
32. They travelled to the Ngena Sleep & Go Lodge in Bellville. Before entering the hotel, they stopped at a nearby shop to purchase cigarettes. This was when Mr Isaacs introduced Moegamad to him.
33. He testified that Mr Isaacs booked and paid for the hotel room. The room contained a single large bed, a television, a fan and a bathroom. Upon entering the room, Mr Isaacs sat on the bed while he and Moegammad went outside to smoke cigarettes. He was wondering why he was the only learner, but did not ask. He and Moegammad had a conversation outside, although he could not recall what they spoke about. When they returned to the room, Mr Isaacs was lying on the bed.
34. At approximately 23h00, Mr Isaacs said to Moegammad that he wanted to go to the pub to drink. Mr Isaacs asked both him and Moegammad to accompany him. Moegammad refused because he did not want to drink. He agreed because he was trying to find a way home. They left Moegammad behind and walked to a nearby pub or karaoke bar. At the pub, Mr Isaacs purchased four dumpies of Black Label beer. He drank two, and Mr Isaacs drank the other two. He stated that it was not the first time he had consumed alcohol and described himself as a casual drinker, usually drinking over the weekends.
35. He testified that after consuming the two beers, he felt “a bit drunk” and “fuzzy”. However, he maintained that he remained aware of his surroundings and could remember the people he was with and the events that occurred. He further testified that he did not observe any suspicious behaviour from Mr Isaacs and did not notice any significant change in Mr Isaacs’ personality or demeanour as a result of the alcohol consumption.
36. They returned to the hotel shortly before midnight. Upon their return, Moegamad was lying on the bed using his cellular phone, while he sat at the foot of the bed. Mr Isaacs sat next to him and began acting in what he described as a flirtatious and physical manner. Moegamad remarked to Mr Isaacs: “Can’t you see that He does not want to do it.”
37. He said to Mr Isaacs: “No sir, I don’t like what you’re doing.” Despite this, Mr Isaacs allegedly became forceful and aggressive. Mr Isaacs stood between his legs, pushed his legs apart, pulled down his jeans and underwear and proceeded to perform oral sex on him. Moegammed turned his back during the ordeal.
38. He testified that he froze and closed his eyes until the incident was over. He stated that he did not know how to react and remained passive during the incident. Following the incident, he took pillows from the bed and sat on the floor. He testified that he was unable to sleep that night because he felt uncomfortable and longed to be with his mother.
39. The following morning, Mr Isaacs took him and Moegamad to KFC to buy food. He testified that Mr Isaacs behaved as though nothing had happened. Thereafter, they travelled home by Uber. Moegamad was dropped off first near a block of flats. Mr Isaacs then exited the vehicle at a different location near his home. He testified that he knew where Mr Isaacs resides because he visited his house during grade 9 after a soccer match. He was eventually dropped off at his parental home.
40. As to Charge 2, he testified that during August 2024, on a Thursday during a school day, Mr Isaacs gave him, Learner B and Learner C handwritten notes requesting that they come to his office. He estimated that this occurred during the fourth or fifth period shortly before the second school break.
41. The three met and proceeded together to Mr Isaacs’ office. Mr Isaacs unlocked both the security gate and the office door and allowed them to enter. Inside the office, Learner B sat down while he and Learner C remained standing.
42. Mr Isaacs first approached Learner B, untied his trousers and performed oral sex on him. According to him, Learner A eventually pushed Mr Isaacs away. Mr Isaacs then turned his attention to him. Mr Isaacs knelt in front of him, untied his trousers and performed oral sex on him while he remained standing. He froze and allowed the incident to occur because he was afraid. Mr Isaacs thereafter approached Lerner C and attempted to perform a similar act. However, Learner C was not afraid and pushed him away.
43. The incident was allegedly interrupted when another learner looked through the office window and began shouting. The office window was not obscured, and it was possible to see inside. Following the interruption, Mr Isaacs unlocked the office door and security gate, and they left the office. By then, it was break time.
44. He was asked why the allegations were not reported earlier and why they surfaced only during the investigation into the vandalism of Mr Isaacs’ office. He admitted that they were at the school on the Saturday when the vandalism occurred and became suspects because they had been seen on the school premises over the weekend.
45. He gave several reasons why, on his version, they agreed to write statements accepting responsibility for the vandalism. First, he testified that Mr Isaacs told them they had been caught on camera. Secondly, he said Mr Isaacs told them that an inspector was waiting in the principal’s office. Thirdly, he testified that Mr Isaacs threatened to “take away their school careers” if they did not admit responsibility. Fourthly, he said Mr Isaacs instructed them what to write in the statements. Lastly, he testified that Mr Isaacs promised to pay them if they accepted responsibility.
46. He maintained that he was not involved in the vandalism and that he signed the statement because he felt intimidated and feared the consequences threatened by Mr Isaacs. After the statements were written, Mr Isaacs allegedly gave them R50 at or near the school gate to buy cool drinks. Learner A placed this payment in the broader context of the alleged pressure and promise of payment.
47. He testified that the turning point came when the learners realised that they were being treated as criminals because of the written admissions. According to him, they decided to return to the principal’s office to explain that the statements had been obtained under pressure and that they were not responsible for the vandalism.
48. As to why the allegations were not reported earlier, he testified that this was mainly due to fear. He stated that he feared Mr Isaacs because of his position, influence and alleged threats. He also testified that he feared Mr Isaacs’ mother because he believed she was associated with a gang known as the “Terribles”. He understood the gang to be involved in violence and drug smuggling, and this caused him to fear that harm could come to him or the other learners if they reported Mr Isaacs.
49. He also testified about what he regarded as grooming by Mr Isaacs. His evidence was that his relationship with Mr Isaacs initially appeared supportive. He described Mr Isaacs as someone he had viewed as a “hero”, an “uncle” figure and a person he could approach with personal problems. According to Learner A, that relationship changed over time and became increasingly personal and uncomfortable.
50. Mr Isaacs began overstepping ordinary educator-learner boundaries. He alleged that Mr Isaacs spoke to him in a flirtatious manner and made him uncomfortable by rubbing his shoulder and arm when he approached Mr Isaacs’ desk in class. This caused him to distance himself emotionally from Mr Isaacs and eventually to view him negatively.
51. In relation to money, Learner A testified that Mr Isaacs gave him cash and electronic cash sends on several occasions, sometimes in amounts ranging from approximately R100 to R400. He alleged that some payments were made without his asking for assistance and that he came to regard the money as private gifts intended to influence him and keep him silent.
    Cross-examination
52. He was questioned about the financial assistance and was referred to Facebook communications contained in Bundle B, pages 67 to 70, which he accepted as genuine but disputed others. Those communications included ordinary exchanges relating to school matters, birthday wishes and financial assistance. Importantly, Bundle B, page 70 contained a request for financial assistance, including a request for R200 for a haircut on his birthday. When confronted with this, Learner A accepted that there were occasions on which he had asked Mr Isaacs for money. Learner A nevertheless maintained that the broader pattern of payments and cash sends formed part of what he regarded as an inappropriate relationship. His evidence was that, although he had asked for money on some occasions, there were also instances where Mr Isaacs gave him money without being asked. He maintained that the money was used by Mr Isaacs to gain his trust, influence him and secure his silence.
53. The disputed documents were communications between him and Mr Matthews. The communication shows that they were not strangers and that their relationship was more familiar than Learner A had admitted. He denied that he authored them and maintained that they may have been created after he had previously logged into his Facebook account on Mr Isaacs’ cellular phone.
54. Learner A further testified that Mr Isaacs knew about personal difficulties in his life, including the death of his sister. He relied on this evidence to explain why he initially trusted Mr Isaacs and why, on his version, the relationship developed beyond what he regarded as a normal educator-learner relationship. He also relied on Mr Isaacs’ knowledge of his personal circumstances to explain why he believed Mr Isaacs could have used that information, together with access to his Facebook account, to create or manipulate communications to portray him negatively during the proceedings.
55. He also testified that another learner, Craig Adams, broke Learner B’s cell phone. Learner A alleged that Craig acted on behalf of Mr Isaacs and that the purpose of breaking the cellphone was to destroy evidence that could implicate Mr Isaacs. He testified that this occurred after Mr Isaacs became aware that the learners were speaking to the principal, Mr Swartz, about the matter. According to Learner A, Learner B’s cellphone contained material relevant to the allegations, including voice notes and messages allegedly from Mr Isaacs. These included inappropriate requests from Mr Isaacs and suggestions about meeting in a private or quiet place. These evidence were also send to Mr Swartz phone during the disclosure meeting.
    Mrs Bianca Jo-lene Du Plooy
56. Mrs Du Plooy’s evidence corroborates Learner A on the material surrounding circumstances. She confirmed that Mr Isaacs came to their home during the Easter weekend, requested permission to take Learner A to a church event, and that the understanding was that Learner A would return the following morning. She testified that she accompanied them to the Uber and saw another adult male and several young persons in the vehicle. This supports Learner A’s evidence that the trip was presented to the family as a youth-related church event and that the presence of other young persons contributed to the appearance that the explanation was genuine.
    Mr Randall Swartz,
57. His evidence relates mainly to the disclosure process. He did not witness the incident in the office. However, he confirmed the vandalism investigation, that Learner A, Learner B and Learner C became suspects.
58. He summoned the learners and questioned them about the vandalism. They initially denied involvement. He stated that, because Mr Isaacs taught the learners Business Studies and had a supportive relationship with them, he asked Mr Isaacs to speak to them privately in order to “get to the bottom” of the matter.
59. According to Mr Swartz, Mr Isaacs later returned with three handwritten letters in which the learners admitted involvement in the break-in and vandalism. Mr Swartz testified that he read those letters and interpreted them as admissions of guilt. He thereafter initiated disciplinary proceedings which could result in the learners’ expulsion.
60. Mr Swartz confirmed that the original handwritten letters could no longer be found. He explained that school files had been moved to mobile units and that the letters may have been misplaced during that process. He further testified that, during later meetings concerning the possible expulsion of the learners, they retracted their admissions and alleged that Mr Isaacs had dictated what they should write. It was during this process that the allegations relating to Mr Isaacs’ office were disclosed
61. Mr Swartz candidly testified that he was initially apprehensive and doubtful about the allegations. He stated that he struggled to understand how boys whom he regarded as “hardened” and physically big would have allowed such conduct to occur. He also testified that, in the community served by the school, learners sometimes made-up stories against educators. Despite those doubts, he followed protocol by reporting the matter to the relevant departmental structures.
62. Mr Swartz further testified about digital communications received from the learners. He stated that the learners forwarded WhatsApp messages and voice notes to him as proof of their relationship with Mr Isaacs. Although he did not see explicit images or messages, he described the tone of the communication between an educator and a learner as “shocking”, “very strange” and “definitely inappropriate”. These messages related substantially to financial disputes and to an alleged arrangement connected to a robbery. The learners stated that they had been robbed of clothing and other valuables while walking in the street, possibly after travelling from Cape Town. Their version was that Mr Isaacs was responsible for what had happened because he was allegedly supposed to collect them at a particular location but failed to do so, which caused them to walk and exposed them to the robbery.
63. The learners said Mr Isaacs accepted that he was to blame for the incident and that he would reimburse them for the items they had lost. On this version, the learners believed that Mr Isaacs owed them money. He further testified that reference was made to what he understood as almost an “oath” or agreement between the learners and Mr Isaacs. The version conveyed to him was that the learners would accept responsibility for the vandalism of Mr Isaacs’ office in exchange for Mr Isaacs paying them the money they believed he owed them arising from the robbery.
    Learner B testimony
64. Learner B served as one of the two main complainants who testified regarding the incident in Mr. Isaacs’ office in August 2024. His testimony was significant because it provided critical corroboration for the central allegations of sexual misconduct at the school (Charge 2), while simultaneously introducing material contradictions that Mr Isaacs used to challenge the credibility and “logic” of the complainants’ versions. Learner B’s evidence corroborates Learner A on the central allegation that Mr. Isaacs called them to his office and performed oral sex on three learners one after the other. He testified that Isaacs told them he would give them money if they did “something for him” and instructed them to “just keep quiet” while he pulled down their pants.
65. One of the most significant moments in the inquiry was Learner B’s contradiction of Learner A regarding a key piece of evidence. Learner A testified that a learner, acting on behalf of Mr. Isaacs, broke his phone to destroy incriminating digital evidence, such as voice notes and requests for naked pictures. He admitted that his phone was not actually broken, he never had a phone.
66. Furthermore, Learner A evidence was that Mr Isaacs personally delivered handwritten notes to each learner’s classroom to summon them to the office. His version differs in that he testified that Learner C was asked to collect the letters personally. This difference does not necessarily disprove the office incident, but it is relevant to the reliability of the learners’ recollection of how they came to be in the office and to whether their versions are consistent on surrounding circumstances.
67. He also provided significant evidence regarding the learners’ motives by admitting that Learner A had encouraged retaliation against Mr. Isaacs.
68. A further discrepancy concerns Learner B’s reaction during the incident in Mr Isaacs’ office. Learner A initially testified that Learner B pushed Mr Isaacs away. However, the evidence later reflected that Learner B did not physically resist and remained passive. This discrepancy is relevant to the reliability of Learner A’s recollection of the precise sequence of events inside the office. It does not, by itself, determine whether the incident occurred, but it is a factor to be weighed together with the other discrepancies, the evidence of Learner B, and the probabilities as a whole.

Evidence of the respondent Mr Isaaac

Mr Riejaad Isaacs

69. Mr Isaacs denied both charges and described the allegations as an “orchestration of lies”. His case was that the allegations arose because the learners were attempting to avoid the consequences of the vandalism investigation and possible expulsion after written admissions had been obtained from them.
70. In relation to the incident in his office, Mr Isaacs testified that it originated from the break-in and vandalism at his office and two other classrooms during the first weekend of August 2024. He stated that he was informed of the break-in through a video from school security. He testified that he had been at school that Saturday for Grade 12 intervention but left after approximately two hours and had no knowledge of the break-in.
71. Mr Isaacs testified that, on Monday 5 August 2024, Mr Swartz instructed him to “get to the bottom” of the matter with the three learners. According to Mr Isaacs, he acted on the principal’s instruction and did not misuse his position. His version was that he was asked to obtain written explanations from the learners about why they had broken into the office. He stated that he took the learners to his Grade 11 Business Studies class, gave them paper and instructed them to write their accounts while he continued teaching. Once the letters were completed, he handed them to the relevant school officials.
72. Mr Isaacs also explained the R50 given to the learners after the vandalism discussion. His evidence was that the learners approached him saying they were hungry and needed to go home. He borrowed R50 from the school secretary and gave it to them to ensure that they left the premises.
73. Mr Isaacs relied on the school timetable and monitor books to challenge the allegation that the incident in his office occurred as described. He testified that the timetable in Bundle B showed that, during the periods identified by the learners, he was scheduled to teach Grade 9 classes, which he described as difficult classes requiring constant supervision. He argued that it would have been impossible for him to leave those learners unattended and go to his office as alleged. He further testified that, if he had removed learners from their classes, school protocol required this to be recorded in the monitor books or period registers. According to him, there was no such record.
74. In relation to Charge 1, Mr Isaacs testified that the hotel stay was not planned. He stated that he initially travelled in an Uber to Learner A’s home with his friend Mr Matthews to take Learner to a church youth event. He testified that, while they were travelling, he received a message that the event had been cancelled. According to him, he informed Learner A of this and dropped him off near a mall close to his home. He then went with Mr Matthews to a house party.
75. He later left the house party alone and went to a karaoke bar because he wanted to sing. He stated that Mr Matthews preferred to remain at the party. According to Mr Isaacs, Mr Mathews later contacted him and came to join him at the karaoke bar, unexpectedly bringing Learner A with him. He was surprised to see Learner A but did not immediately send him home. They later checked into a hotel because it was late and the area was busy. Mr Isaacs denied that anything improper occurred at the hotel and stated that he fell asleep while Mr Mathews and Learner A went outside to smoke.
76. Mr Isaacs disputed Mrs Du Plooy’s evidence that there were three to four other young persons in the Uber when he collected Learner A. He also disputed her evidence that she accompanied them to the vehicle, contending that she did not leave the house after he spoke with Learner A’s father.
77. Mr Isaacs relied on the digital communications contained in Bundle B to challenge Learner A’s evidence that he and Mr Matthews were strangers, and to dispute Learner A’s denial of the communications reflected in the disputed screenshots. He referred to the informal language, abbreviations and tone of the messages, and contended that these were consistent with Learner A’s manner of communication. According to Mr Isaacs, the communications demonstrated that Learner A and Mr Matthews had a more familiar relationship than Learner A was prepared to admit.
78. In relation to the financial evidence, Mr Isaacs admitted sending cash transfers, including to learners. However, he denied that these were grooming payments, hush money or bribes. He testified that his bank statements reflected a long-standing practice of assisting learners, former learners, university students, colleagues and community members with food, transport, funeral-related expenses, school-related costs and other needs. He explained this as part of his personal background and a practice of “paying forward” assistance he had received when he was younger.
79. He also disputed the learners’ version that he owed them money arising from a robbery or that he used such money to induce them to take blame for the vandalism. He argued that the R300 cash send to the learner’s phone on 1 August 2024 was merely another instance of assisting a learner in need.
    Cross-examination
80. Under cross-examination, Mr Isaacs made concessions relevant to his duty as an educator. He admitted that Learner A and Mr Mathews consumed alcohol at the pub and that he paid for it with his card. He conceded that he “looked the other way” and failed to deal with the fact that a learner was drinking in his presence. He stated that, at the hotel and pub, he did not have his “teacher hat” on and was trying to enjoy himself. These concessions do not prove the alleged misconduct, but they are relevant to whether Mr Isaacs maintained appropriate professional boundaries and discharged his duty of care towards a learner.
81. When it was put to Mr Isaacs that he ought to have returned Learner A home and should not have allowed him to accompany him to a pub, he responded that he had not considered the situation in that way at the time.
    Mr Moegammad Matthews
82. His evidence was significant because he was present during the Easter weekend incident at the hotel and was called to corroborate Mr Isaacs’ version.
83. Mr Matthews testified that he and Mr Isaacs went to Learner A’s home in an Uber to collect him for a church function. He denied that there were other young persons in the Uber when Learner A was collected.
84. According to Mr Matthews, the church event was cancelled shortly after Learner A had been collected. He testified that Learner A refused to return home and was therefore dropped near Delft Mall, close to his house. Mr Matthews and Mr Isaacs then went to H-Block, Blikkiesdorp, where they attended a yard party. Mr Isaacs later left for a karaoke bar in Bellville. Mr Matthews testified that Learner A then contacted him urgently and asked to come to him. He arranged for Learner A to be brought to Blikkiesdorp, and thereafter he and Learner A went to meet Mr Isaacs at the karaoke bar. According to Mr Matthews, Mr Isaacs appeared shocked when he saw Learner A.
85. Mr Matthews further testified that the three of them went to the Sleep and Go Hotel, stopped at a shop to buy cigarettes, and later returned to the karaoke bar. At the pub, Mr Isaacs sang karaoke while Mr Matthews and Learner A sat at the bar. Mr Matthews accepted that he and Learner A consumed alcohol, and that Mr Isaacs paid for the drinks. Mr Matthews also accepted that, as an adult, he acted impulsively by being involved in circumstances where a learner ended up at a pub and hotel instead of being returned to his parents.
86. He testified further that, after they returned to the hotel, he and Learner A went outside to smoke for approximately two to three hours. According to him, during that period Learner A spoke openly about personal difficulties, including the death of his sister, difficulties with his father, hunger at home and his reliance on Mr Isaacs for assistance.
87. Mr Matthews also testified that he had known Learner A before the Easter weekend incident and that they communicated regularly through Facebook and WhatsApp. He stated that he had seen Learner A at school when delivering food to Mr Isaacs and described their interactions as familiar. He confirmed that the Facebook and WhatsApp messages were authentic.
88. Mr Matthews testified that the room contained a bed, a television and a couch. He stated that, when he and Learner A returned from smoking, Mr Isaacs was already asleep and snoring; that he slept on the bed next to Mr Isaacs; and that Learner A slept or cried himself to sleep on the couch.
    Mrs Valentina Motha
89. Mrs Valentina Motha testified as a witness for Mr Isaacs. She was employed as a secretary at Voorbrug Secondary School and was both a colleague and friend of Mr Isaacs. She was also acquainted with Mr Moegamad Matthews. Mrs Motha’s evidence is important because it partly supports and partly undermines Mr Isaacs’ version. She confirmed that there was a church-related event and that Mr Isaacs had been invited. She also confirmed that there was a later communication that he should no longer attend. However, her evidence was that the event was a Youth Gathering, Praise and Worship session scheduled from approximately 19h00 to 22h00, after which attendees were expected to go home. Her evidence does not support the existence of an overnight camp or an event that required Learner A to be away from home until the following morning. This is significant because Mrs Du Plooy understood that Learner A would return the following morning, and Mr Isaacs accepted that the parents were told he would return the next day.
    Ms Anita Rudolph
90. She served as a member of the School Governing Body at Voorbrug Secondary School. Her evidence related to the statements made by the learners in connection with the vandalism investigation. Ms Rudolph’s evidence adds uncertainty regarding the alleged confession statements. She testified that the learners wrote statements in the boardroom in the presence of SGB members and that the principal later collected those statements. She did not know about statements allegedly written in Mr Isaacs’ class. This differs from Mr Isaacs’ evidence that he caused the learners to write statements in his class and handed them to Ms Rudolph, and it also differs from Mr Swartz’s evidence that Mr Isaacs placed the statements on his table.
    Closing arguments
91. Due to the length of the parties’ written arguments, I do not intend to repeat them in full. I have considered the submissions made by both parties and will refer to the material aspects of those arguments, where necessary, in my analysis.
    Analysis of evidence and arguments
92. Before turning to the disputed facts, it is necessary to set out the approach I have adopted in assessing the evidence. This matter concerns serious allegations against an educator of sexual misconduct involving learners. Such allegations frequently arise in circumstances where there are few direct witnesses and where much of the surrounding evidence is circumstantial, supportive or relevant to probabilities rather than directly proving the alleged conduct.
93. The fact that some of the evidence comes from learners does not justify an automatic acceptance of their evidence because they were learners, nor does it justify an automatic rejection because the allegations were delayed or arose in a context where there may have been a motive to implicate the accused educator. The facts of a case call for a cautionary approach. In this context means a practical and common-sense evaluation of whether the evidence is credible, reliable and probable when measured against the evidence as a whole.
94. The proper enquiry is therefore not whether each witness was perfect in every detail. It is whether the material aspects of the evidence are sufficiently credible and reliable, and whether the version relied upon by the WCED is more probable than the version advanced by Mr Isaacs. In making that assessment, I am required to have regard to the principles applicable to resolving disputes of fact, as described in Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Group Ltd & another v Martell et Cie & others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA), by making findings on the credibility of the various factual witnesses, their reliability, and the probabilities.
95. I am also mindful that a tension may arise between the best interests of the child, as contemplated in section 28(2) of the Constitution, and the educator’s right to a fair hearing. That tension must not be resolved by favouring one side automatically. The learners are entitled to have their evidence assessed in a manner that recognises their age, vulnerability, dignity and protection. Mr Isaacs, on the other hand, is entitled to have the allegations against him tested fairly and decided on the evidence. The evidence of the learners and the evidence of the adult witnesses must therefore be assessed with substantive fairness, having regard to the unique circumstances of this matter.
96. I also bear in mind that Mr Isaacs is not required to prove his innocence. The onus rests on the WCED to prove the misconduct on a balance of probabilities. Mr Isaacs’ denial must be considered together with any explanation he gave, any contradictions exposed in the WCED’s case, and any probabilities arising from the objective evidence. If the WCED’s evidence is more probable and acceptable, the charge may be proved. If the WCED’s version is not sufficiently reliable, Mr Isaacs is entitled to the benefit of that evidentiary failure.
97. That said, I turn to analyse the evidence on each charge by considering the credibility and reliability of the direct witnesses, the corroborative or contradictory value of the supporting witnesses, the documentary and electronic evidence, and the inherent probabilities of the competing versions.
    Charge 1
98. In relation to Charge 1, the direct witnesses were Learner A, Mr Isaacs and Mr Matthews. The following are important facts which are common cause or substantially not in dispute. In relation to the Easter weekend incident at the hotel, it is common cause that Mr Isaacs went to Learner A’s parental home during the Easter weekend of 2024 and that Learner A left the home with him. It is also common cause that the reason advanced for Learner A leaving home was connected to a church-related event or function. Permission was obtained from Learner A’s parents for him to accompany Mr Isaacs, and that permission was granted in circumstances where Mr Isaacs was known to the family as Learner A’s educator and was therefore trusted.
99. The evidence concerning other young persons allegedly being in the Uber must be treated with caution. Learner A and his mother testified that there were other young persons in the vehicle. However, no evidence was provided about the size or type of vehicle, and common sense requires caution before attaching decisive weight to that detail. Mrs Du Plooy’s evidence nevertheless remains relevant to the surrounding circumstances. She confirmed that Mr Isaacs came to the family home, that Learner A left with him for a church-related purpose, that permission was granted because Mr Isaacs was trusted as an educator, that Learner A was away overnight, and that he returned the following morning, appearing tired and not himself. Her evidence does not prove what occurred inside the hotel room, but it supports the context in which Learner A came to be in Mr Isaacs’ care.
100. Mrs Motha’s evidence also requires careful treatment. Her evidence assists Mr Isaacs to the limited extent that it confirms the existence of a church-related event and that the plans changed. However, it does not assist him in explaining why Learner A was not returned home. On the contrary, her evidence makes Mr Isaacs’ explanation less probable because she described the event as an evening youth gathering, not an overnight camp, and indicated that attendees were expected to go home after the event.
101. The unchallenged version is that the church-related event did not proceed as initially expected. Mr Isaacs’ version, supported by Mr Matthews and Mrs Motha, was that the event was cancelled or that Mr Isaacs was told not to attend. Although there is a dispute about whether the event was described as an overnight event, camp, fundraiser or church function, there is no real dispute that the original purpose for which Learner A left home did not materialise.
102. It’s only common sense that once that happened, the obvious and expected response from a responsible educator was to return Learner A to his parents or, at the very least, contact them and make proper arrangements. This did not happen.
103. There are two conflicting versions about how Learner A later came to be with Mr Isaacs and Mr Matthews. Learner A’s version was that he remained with them after he was collected. Mr Isaacs and Mr Matthews’ version was that Learner A was dropped near Delft Mall after the cancellation of the event, and later contacted or rejoined Mr Matthews before meeting Mr Isaacs again at the karaoke venue. These conflicting versions are relevant, but they do not remove the central common cause difficulty for Mr Isaacs. On either version, Learner A ultimately ended up back in the company of Mr Isaacs, the educator who had originally collected him from home.
104. Mr Isaacs’ evidence was that he was shocked when Learner A appeared again. That evidence does not assist him. If anything, it makes his subsequent conduct more difficult to understand. If Mr Isaacs was genuinely surprised to see Learner A again, the probable response of an educator acting in accordance with his duty of care would have been to ask why the learner was there, return him home, or contact his parents immediately. Instead, Learner A remained with Mr Isaacs and Mr Matthews, went to a pub or karaoke venue, consumed alcohol, and later ended up at a hotel.
105. Mr Isaacs’ explanation that he did not consider the matter in that way is improbable. He was not an ordinary adult in Learner A’s company. He was Learner A’s educator. He had collected the learner from his parental home after obtaining permission for a church-related purpose. He knew that Learner A’s parents had entrusted the learner to him because of his position as an educator. He also presented himself as a person who cared for learners, assisted them with money, food and other essentials, and acted in their best interests. That makes it even less probable that he would not appreciate his responsibility to return Learner A safely home.
106. The duty resting on Mr Isaacs is reinforced by the ethical and statutory framework governing educators. An educator must act in a proper and becoming manner, take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of learners, maintain appropriate professional boundaries, and avoid conduct that brings the teaching profession into disrepute. The best interests of the learner are also relevant in assessing the conduct expected of an educator in circumstances involving a learner away from home, at night, and under the educator’s influence or supervision.
107. These facts are not neutral. They form the factual foundation from which the probabilities and reasonable inferences must be assessed on what happened in the hotel room.
108. I next consider the condition of Learner A and Mr Matthews when they returned from the pub to the hotel room. This evidence is relevant because both gave evidence about what occurred in the room, including the sleeping arrangements and whether there was a couch. Their respective conditions affect the reliability of their recollection.
109. Mr Matthews accepted that he had consumed alcohol that evening. On his own version, he had consumed several beers and was under the influence of alcohol. This affects the weight that can safely be attached to his evidence about the precise layout of the room, whether there was a couch, where Learner A slept, and what occurred after they returned to the room. His evidence on those details must therefore be treated with caution.
110. Learner A also accepted that he had consumed alcohol that evening. He attempted to minimise the effect of the alcohol on him, but he also accepted that he had consumed alcohol before and described himself as a casual or weekend drinker. In addition, he testified that he felt somewhat drunk or “fuzzy” which was not materially challenged. That evidence is relevant to reliability.
111. In those circumstances, his evidence concerning his condition and his recollection of the precise sleeping arrangements must also be approached cautiously. I therefore do not regard either Learner A or Mr Matthews as wholly reliable on the narrow issue of whether there was a couch in the room or whether Learner A sat on the floor with pillows.
112. The difficulty with Mr Matthews’ evidence is that Mr Isaacs did not clearly corroborate him on the existence of a couch. Mr Isaacs also did not materially challenge the evidence that the room had one bed. In the absence of reliable evidence establishing the existence of a couch, and given that the room was described as having one bed, the probabilities point to Learner A, Mr Isaacs, and Mr Matthews being in close physical proximity in the room. The couch version is therefore rejected as unreliable.
113. This finding does not, by itself, prove the incident in the hotel room. However, it is a material surrounding circumstance. The rejection of the couch version removes an important part of Mr Matthews’ attempt to create physical separation between Learner A and Mr Isaacs. It also means that the events inside the room must be assessed against the probability of close physical proximity, after alcohol has been consumed.
114. The next issue is whether the evidence shows that the professional boundaries between Mr Isaacs and Learner A had already been crossed before the incident at the hotel. This is relevant because the events at the pub and hotel did not occur in a vacuum. They must be assessed against the nature of the relationship that had developed between Mr Isaacs and Learner A.
115. Mr Swartz’s evidence is important in this regard. He testified that the learners forwarded WhatsApp messages and voice notes to him as proof of their relationship with Mr Isaacs. Although he did not see explicit images or messages proving the charged incident, he described the tone of the communication between an educator and a learner as “shocking”, “very strange” and “definitely inappropriate”. That evidence supports the conclusion that the relationship between Mr Isaacs and the learners, including Learner A, was not confined to an ordinary educator-learner relationship.
116. Mr Isaacs challenged the weight of this evidence in his closing argument. He submitted that Mr Swartz did not see explicit material and that the communications did not prove the incident at the hotel. I accept that Mr Swartz’s evidence does not directly prove what occurred inside the hotel room. However, that is not the only relevance of his evidence. Its importance lies in the fact that an independent adult and principal viewed the communication and considered its tone to be inappropriate for an educator and learner. That evidence supports the broader probability that professional boundaries had been crossed.
117. The Facebook and WhatsApp communications in Bundle B, including the communications from page 60 onwards, must also be considered. Learner A accepted some communications but disputed others, particularly those allegedly between himself and Mr Matthews. His explanation was that Mr Isaacs may have created or manipulated those messages because Learner A had previously logged into his Facebook account on Mr Isaacs’ phone. I find that explanation improbable. It was not supported by independent evidence. It also required an inference that Mr Isaacs had both access to the account and a motive to create communications before the allegations surfaced. On the probabilities, it is more likely that the communications reflected an existing familiarity between Learner A and Mr Matthews.
118. This finding is material for two reasons. First, it weakens Learner A’s denial that he and Mr Matthews were familiar with each other. Secondly, it supports the broader conclusion that the boundaries between adults connected to Mr Isaacs and Learner A were already blurred. The communications, money, private contact and personal familiarity form part of the context in which the events at the hotel must be assessed.
119. Once the professional and personal boundaries are viewed in this way, Mr Isaacs’ conduct at the pub and hotel becomes less surprising but more concerning. If the relationship had remained properly professional, it would have been highly unusual for Mr Isaacs to allow Learner A to remain with him at night, attend a pub, consume alcohol, and then sleep over in a hotel room. The fact that Mr Isaacs did not appear to treat those circumstances as extraordinary supports the inference that, by then, ordinary educator-learner boundaries had already been eroded.
120. The boundary-crossing evidence does not prove the incident at the hotel by itself. However, it makes Learner A’s version more probable when assessed together with the proven facts: Mr Isaacs collected Learner A from home, did not return him after the church event was cancelled, allowed him to attend a pub, allowed alcohol to be consumed, paid for the hotel room, and remained with him overnight in circumstances where the couch version is unreliable and close physical proximity is the more probable inference.
121. Accordingly, the evidence of inappropriate communication, private familiarity and blurred boundaries provides an important bridge between the surrounding facts and the central incident. The cumulative probability is that the relationship had already moved beyond proper educator-learner boundaries.
122. Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find that the probabilities favour Learner A’s version of the incident at the hotel. This conclusion is not based on any single fact viewed in isolation. It rests on the cumulative effect of Mr Isaacs’ failure to return Learner A home after the church event was cancelled, the erosion of professional boundaries, the consumption of alcohol, the overnight hotel accommodation, the evidence that the room had one bed, the rejection of the couch version, and the absence of credible evidence establishing physical separation between Learner A and Mr Isaacs.
123. When these facts are assessed together with the evidence of inappropriate communication, private familiarity, and Mr Isaacs’ duty of care as an educator, Learner A’s version is more probable than Mr Isaacs’ denial. Mr Isaacs’ version requires the acceptance that, despite these surrounding circumstances, nothing improper occurred in the hotel room. I find that explanation less probable.
124. In the circumstances, I find that the WCED has proved Charge 1 on a balance of probabilities. Mr Isaacs is accordingly found guilty of Charge 1.
     Charge 2: The incident in Mr Isaacs’ office
125. In relation to Charge 2, the direct evidence was given by Learner A, Learner B and Mr Isaacs. Learner A and Learner B testified that the incident occurred in Mr Isaacs’ office during school hours. Mr Isaacs denied that the incident occurred and relied, among other things, on the timetable, monitor books, school records, contradictions between the learners, missing electronic evidence, the in loco inspection, and the vandalism investigation as the alleged motive for fabrication.I am faced with a dispute of fact on the issue of whether the incident occurred as claimed by the Learners.
126. The central question is whether the evidence of Learner A and Learner B is sufficiently credible, reliable and probable to prove the incident in Mr Isaacs’ office on a balance of probabilities. In this exercise, I must not assess credibility, reliability and probabilities as separate, piecemeal enquiries. They form part of one enquiry into whether the WCED’s version is more probable and acceptable than Mr Isaacs’ denial.
127. Learner A and Learner B corroborated each other on the broad allegation that the incident occurred in Mr Isaacs’ office and that Learner C was also present. However, their corroboration on the core allegation must be assessed against the material contradictions in their evidence concerning the surrounding events.
128. There were material discrepancies concerning how the learners were allegedly summoned to Mr Isaacs’ office, the role of the alleged written notes, and the circumstances relating to Learner B’s cell phone. Learner A’s evidence was that Mr Isaacs personally delivered written notes to the learners in their respective classes, calling them to his office. This version was important because it was relied upon to explain how the learners were removed from their classes during school hours and how they came to be in Mr Isaacs’ office. Learner B did not materially corroborate this version. His evidence did not support Learner A’s account of the notes and the manner in which the learners were allegedly called out of class. The contradiction is significant because it concerns the very mechanism by which the incident was said to have become possible.
129. The improbability of the learners’ version on this aspect is strengthened by the timetables and monitor books contained in Bundle B, pages 13 to 42. Mr Isaacs relied on these records to show where the learners were expected to be during the relevant periods. His evidence was that the monitor books and period registers provided a record of learner movement and attendance. He argued that the records placed the learners in their scheduled classes during the period when they alleged they were in his office. He further argued that, if a learner had been removed or fetched from class, the relevant teacher would have been required to record that fact. No such record appeared in the monitor books.
130. I accept that timetables, monitor books, and class registers are not automatically conclusive. They show what was scheduled or recorded, not necessarily every movement that may have occurred. However, when assessed together with the contradictions between Learner A and Learner B on how they were summoned, the absence of any supporting entry in the school records becomes significant. The WCED’s version required a finding that three learners were removed from different classes and taken to Mr Isaacs’ office during school hours. In those circumstances, the absence of any notation or corroborating school record weakens the probability of the learners’ version.
131. The evidence concerning Learner B’s cell phone presents a further material difficulty. Learner A testified that Learner B’s cell phone contained important electronic evidence and that another learner broke the phone, allegedly acting on behalf of Mr Isaacs, in order to destroy incriminating material. This evidence was relied upon to explain why potentially corroborative electronic evidence was not produced. However, Learner B did not confirm Learner A’s version. On the evidence before me, he rejected it. This contradiction is not minor. If the cell phone was Learner B’s phone and allegedly contained material evidence, Learner B would have been expected to confirm its existence, its contents, and the circumstances of its destruction. His failure to do so undermines Learner A’s explanation for the absence of that evidence.
132. These contradictions and the objective school records affect both credibility and reliability. They do not concern insignificant details. They concern facts central to the probability of the incident. I therefore reject the evidence concerning the alleged written notes, the manner in which the learners were summoned to Mr Isaacs’ office, and the alleged destruction of Learner B’s cell phone. These aspects cannot safely be relied upon as corroboration of the learners’ version. Their rejection does not, by itself, dispose of Charge 2, but it materially weakens the WCED’s case because it removes important parts of the factual sequence relied upon to explain how the incident occurred and why independent electronic evidence was not available.
133. Mr Isaacs relied on the timing of the disclosure to argue that the allegations were not genuine reports, but a retaliatory conspiracy or orchestration of lies designed to avoid the consequences of the vandalism investigation. Mr Isaacs emphasised that the allegations surfaced only after the learners had been implicated in the vandalism of his office and when they faced possible disciplinary action, including expulsion. He also relied on Learner A’s anger during cross-examination, Learner B’s alleged evidence about retaliation, and the learners’ use of terminology such as “grooming” to suggest that they had been influenced or coached. That argument cannot be ignored.
134. The timing of the disclosure must be assessed in context. I do not accept that a delayed disclosure, by itself, means that the allegations were fabricated. Reporting an incident of this nature is not an exact science. The meaning of “timeous” reporting depends on the circumstances, including fear, embarrassment, dependency, the age of the learners, the power imbalance between educator and learner, and the emotional consequences of the alleged conduct.
135. The vandalism investigation was plainly the practical trigger for the disclosure. The learners were under pressure, they faced serious consequences, and the allegations surfaced in that context. However, that does not end the enquiry. The same timing may also be consistent with the learners’ explanation that the vandalism process became the point at which they could no longer remain silent, particularly if they felt that Mr Isaacs had betrayed them, placed them under pressure, or caused them to be treated as criminals.
136. Learner A’s evidence was that he had initially regarded Mr Isaacs as a trusted educator, a “hero” and an “uncle” figure. His later anger, including his statement that Mr Isaacs had “destroyed” his life, must be understood against that evidence. It may point to hostility and possible bias, as Mr Isaacs argued. But it may also be consistent with a learner who felt betrayed by an adult educator whom he had trusted.
137. The more probable conclusion is that the disclosure was caused by a combination of factors. The immediate trigger was the vandalism investigation and the possibility of serious disciplinary consequences. The underlying emotional context included Learner A’s sense of betrayal, anger, fear and the cumulative effect of the earlier events he described, including the incident at the hotel and the alleged boundary-crossing in the relationship with Mr Isaacs.
138. I therefore do not treat the timing of the disclosure as proof of fabrication. Nor do I treat it as proof that the allegations were true. The remaining question is whether, after excluding the rejected aspects of the learners’ evidence, their evidence on the core incident remains sufficiently credible, reliable and probable to discharge the WCED’s onus.
139. In this regard, the evidence concerning the photograph in Bundle A and the subsequent ‘in loco’ inspection. This evidence was directed at the visibility into Mr Isaacs’ office from the corridor. The ‘in loco’ inspection was conducted to assess the physical layout of Mr Isaacs’ office, the height of the window, the corridor area and the probability that a person outside the office could see into the office. It was relevant because Learner A testified that another learner looked through the office window, saw what was happening inside, and reacted in a manner that interrupted the incident. The WCED relied on the photograph in Bundle A, page 38, which depicted a learner looking through the window into Mr Isaacs’ office. Mr Isaacs disputed the evidential value of the photograph, questioned when and by whom it was taken, and contended that it was a staged demonstration rather than a photograph taken at the time of the alleged incident.
140. The inspection showed that the window was positioned high enough to make ordinary visibility from the corridor difficult. It was not probable that a passer-by walking past the office would be able to see clearly into the office without elevating himself, jumping, or standing on something. This supports Mr Isaacs’ challenge to the photograph and weakens the suggestion that the incident could simply have been observed naturally by a passer-by through the window. The WCED did not call the learner who allegedly looked through the window to testify.
141. This evidence does not, by itself, prove or disprove the incident in Mr Isaacs’ office. Its significance lies in testing the reliability and probability of the evidence concerning the alleged observation through the window. The ‘in loco’ inspection supports the conclusion that such observation was improbable unless the person looking through the window was elevated in some way. It therefore weakens the reliability of the evidence if it is presented as though the learner merely passed by and saw the incident naturally through the window.
142. The evidence of Mr Swartz, Ms Weavers and Ms Rudolph does not cure these difficulties. Mr Swartz’s evidence assists with the background to the vandalism investigation, the disclosure process, the missing statements, the digital communications and the money issue. Ms Weavers’ evidence assists with the post-disclosure impact and support provided to the learners. Ms Rudolph’s evidence concerns the statements allegedly written in the vandalism process. None of these witnesses witnessed the incident in Mr Isaacs’ office. Their evidence provides context, but it does not prove the central allegation on the probabilities.
143. Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find that the contradictions in the evidence of Learner A and Learner B, the rejection of material surrounding aspects of their version, the documentary evidence relied upon by Mr Isaacs, and the difficulty created by the ‘in loco’ inspection mean that the probabilities favour Mr Isaacs’ denial. The WCED has not discharged the onus, and I, therefore, find that Charge 2 is not proved.
     Conclusion
144. For the reasons set out in my analysis, I find Mr Isaacs guilty of Charge 1 and not guilty of Charge 2.
145. In the circumstances, I make the following award.
     Award
146. Having found Mr Isaacs guilty of Charge 1, I am required to determine the appropriate sanction. The charge found proved concerns of misconduct by an educator against a learner. In terms of section 17 of the Employment of Educators Act, where an educator is found guilty of serious misconduct of this nature, dismissal is mandatory. The arbitrator has no discretion to impose a lesser sanction, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
147. In this case, the misconduct is of such a serious nature that dismissal would remain the appropriate sanction. Educators occupy a position of trust, authority and care in relation to learners. Parents and society entrust learners to educators on the understanding that educators will protect their dignity, safety and well-being. Mr Isaacs breached that trust. The misconduct occurred in circumstances where Learner A had been placed in his care because he was trusted as an educator. The proven facts show a serious abuse of that position of trust.
148. The Code of Professional Ethics requires educators to act in a proper and becoming manner, to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of learners, to use appropriate conduct in their interaction with learners, to refrain from improper physical contact, and to avoid conduct that brings the teaching profession into disrepute. Mr Isaacs’ conduct was incompatible with those obligations. It undermined the trust relationship not only between himself and the learner, but also between himself, the Department of Education as his employer, the school community and the teaching profession.
149. The continued employment of Mr Isaacs would be inconsistent with the protection of learners and the standards expected of educators.
150. Accordingly, Mr Isaacs is dismissed.

Finding in terms of section 120 of the Children’s Act

1. I have found Mr Riejaad Isaacs guilty of Charge 1 and have imposed the sanction of dismissal. The remaining issue is whether Mr Isaacs should also be found unsuitable to work with children in terms of section 120 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.
2. The parties were made aware at the onset of the hearing of the possible consequences of a finding of guilt in respect of misconduct of this nature. The issue of Mr Isaacs’ suitability to continue working with children was also addressed, at least in substance, in the parties’ written arguments.
3. The WCED submitted that, as an educator in daily contact with learners, Mr Isaacs could not be permitted to continue with conduct of this nature. The WCED further relied on its obligation to safeguard learners and the education environment and submitted that the trust relationship had been irretrievably broken.
4. Mr Isaacs did not expressly make submissions under section 120 of the Children’s Act. However, he addressed the issue in substance by denying the allegations, disputing the credibility and reliability of the WCED’s case, relying on his professional standing and commitment to learners, and seeking dismissal of the charges. His case was, therefore, in effect, that he remained suitable to continue working as an educator.
5. Section 120(1)(c) of the Children’s Act provides that a finding that a person is unsuitable to work with children may be made by any forum established or recognised by law in disciplinary proceedings concerning the conduct of that person relating to a child. Section 120(2) provides that such a finding may be made by the forum on its own accord, or on application by an organ of state or any other person with sufficient interest in the protection of children. It further records that the representative acting for the Department of Education may make such an application, but that the arbitrator may also make the finding on his or her own accord.
6. The fact that Mr Isaacs did not expressly frame his submissions with reference to section 120 does not preclude me from considering whether such a finding should be made. The essential requirement is that the parties must have been afforded a fair opportunity to address the issue. I am satisfied that the parties were alerted to the possible consequences of a guilty finding, that the WCED addressed Mr Isaacs’ suitability directly, and that Mr Isaacs, by denying the misconduct and relying on his professional standing, in substance contended that he remained suitable to continue working as an educator.
7. Fairness in matters of this nature is multidimensional. It includes fairness to the educator, the employer and the child, as well as the public interest and the needs of society. The best interests of the child are of paramount importance in matters concerning children, and learners generally have the right to be protected from misconduct of this nature by educators.
8. In determining whether Mr Isaacs is unsuitable to work with children, I have considered the nature of the misconduct, the fact that it concerned a learner, the position of trust occupied by Mr Isaacs, the duty of care owed by him as an educator, the impact of such conduct on the dignity and safety of learners, and the broader obligation to protect children in the education environment. I have also considered Mr Isaacs’ denial of the misconduct, his reliance on his professional standing, and his asserted commitment to learners.
9. Those submissions cannot prevail in circumstances where I have found Charge 1 proved on a balance of probabilities. Educators occupy positions of trust, care and authority. Learners and parents are entitled to expect that educators will protect learners, maintain proper professional boundaries, and act in a manner consistent with the dignity, safety and best interests of children. Mr Isaacs breached that trust. The misconduct found proved is incompatible with the responsibilities of an educator and with continued access to children in an educational setting.
10. I am satisfied that dismissal alone is insufficient to address the child-protection implications arising from the misconduct found proved. The purpose of section 120 of the Children’s Act is protective. It is directed at preventing persons found unsuitable from being employed in positions where they work with or have access to children. Having regard to the finding on Charge 1, the nature of the misconduct, and the interests and protection of children, I find that Mr Isaacs is unsuitable to work with children.
11. I accordingly make the following finding:
    Finding
12. Mr Riejaad Isaacs is found unsuitable to work with children in terms of section 120 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.
13. The General Secretary of the ELRC must, in terms of section 122(1) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, notify the Director-General: Department of Social Development in writing of this finding, namely that Mr Riejaad Isaacs is unsuitable to work with children, for purposes of entering his name in Part B of the National Child Protection Register.

Gerald Jacobs
ELRC COMMISSIONER