13 March 2025 -ELRC833-24/25GP

IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD AT SOSHANGUVE
CASE NO.: ELRC833-24/25 GP
In the matter between:-

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION- GP EMPLOYER

AND

JOHN MORAKE MATSIMBI EMPLOYEE
__________________________________________
ARBITRATOR: MMAMAHLOLA GLORIA RABYANYANA
Heard: 21;30 January and 18 February 2025
Closing Arguments: 25 February 2025
Mitigating / Aggravating Factors: 25 February 2025
Date of Award: 08 March 2025
SUMMARY: Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 –Section 188A : Enquiry by Arbitrator.

                                                           AWARD

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

The enquiry was held physically at Soshanguve Teachers Centre on 21;30 January and 18 February 2025.
Mr A.Makola its labour relations official represented the employer. Mr E. Mphela, an attorney represented the employee, Mr J.Matsimbi. This followed a successful legal representation application. The proceedings were recorded digitally. The Employer’s bundle of documents is marked “D” and the applicant’s is “E”. The parties submitted closing arguments, mitigating and aggravating factors by 25 February 2025.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

I am required to determine if the Employee had sexually harassed a learner as proffered by the Employer. If I find the Employee guilty of the offences, I will determine the appropriate sanction. ALLEGATIONS PROFFERED AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE
1. Mr Matsimbi pleaded not guilty to a count of misconduct levelled against him in
  terms of Section17(1) (b) of the Employment of Educators Act, Act 76 of 1998
  (“Act”) :- Allegation 1: It is alleged that on 16 September 2024 while on duty at Mmamotse Primary School, Mr Matsimbi sexually assaulted a Grade 7A learner, BM by touching her breast in his office and her waist in the classroom.

EVALUATION AND SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

The following issues are common cause between the parties:

5.1 Mr Matsimbi was employed as an educator from February 1984. He is HOD of Maths and Science at Mmamotse Primary School. He has been working at the school for 9 years. He taught the learner Maths in grade 7. The learner is 15 years old.
5.2 Mr. Matsimbi was at school on 16 September 2024.

The following issues are in dispute:

6.1 The employee denies sexually harassing the learner;
6.2 The employer contends that the employee harassed the learner in his office
and her classroom in full view of other learners. The learner went to the employee’s office alone and found him with another learner. The employee denies that the learner went to his office on the day. He contends that he spent the whole day at a parking lot attending a class project.
6.3 He denies going to his office and entering the learner’s classroom, Grade 7 on the day.

The learner, BM, testified that she was 13 years old when the incident occurred on 16 September 2024. Mr Matsimbi taught her Technology in Grade 7 in 2024. On that day Ms Phoku, their technology teacher sent her to Matsimbi`s office to call him and come with him.
She found him with two learners who immediately left after he finished attending them. As she was informing him that Phoku was calling him, he touched her breast. At first, she thought it was a mistake. However, he repeated the touching. The two learners were left when the touching incident occurred. She went back to the class.
In the classroom, Matsimbi came walking from her behind and touched her waist. Her friend OH saw him. She asked he why he touched her waist. She went to Ms Marumo crying and reported the incident.
Matsimbi called her mother pleading with her that he did not touch her (BM). She demonstrated that he intentionally put his hands on her breast whilst facing her. During the demonstration in the classroom, he came close to her from behind and covered her waist with his hands. He did this twice tickling her. She was not comfortable with the touching. She felt sexually assaulted and reported it to Ms Marumo.
During cross-examination she said two learners were about the leave when she got in Matsimbi `s Office. They left after he attended them. She left with Matsimbi to the class. She went with Matsimbi to class who was walking behind her. She told her friend A about the touch who advised her to report it to Marumo.
Matsimbi was in the office and went to the class. She got to the class with Matsimbi, he assisted Phoku in connecting the projectors and left. When he returned to the class he touched her waist. There were other learners in the class.
Phoku and Matsimbi were doing a project with Grade 7 A and B that day. After the incident, she avoided his classes and stayed in the toilet until he was suspended. He would pass nasty remarks to her. The educators told her mother. She was not comfortable doing so herself.
Mamolwele Dorothy Marumo testified that she is an educator. She has a good working relationship with Matsimbi. She has 5 years of experience as an educator. On 16 September 2024, learners were doing a technology project. She was assisting Phoku and Matsimbi. Phoku sent BM to fetch some material for the project from Matsimbi`s office. She left for her class immediately after.
Towards after school BM approached her crying and reported that Matsimbi touched her inappropriately. She reported the incident to the class teacher, Rafapa.
The SGB came to school the following day. According to the SGB members, Matsimbi had collected them from their homes and took them to BM`s home Principal indicated that the SGB members were not supposed to go to learners’ homes on weekends, for which they apologized. They stated that they did not know the protocol and that Matsimbi informed them of the allegations principal informed them that the case was escalated to labour.
During cross-examinations she said Phoku sent BM to fetch material from Matsimbi. BM might have forgotten that Phoku did not send her to call Matsimbi but to fetch material. She did not see Matsimbi touching BM. She believed BM because she was emotional and crying when she approached her.
Girlie Nthabiseng Phoku testified that she started in 2020 as an educator at the school. Matsimbi is her senior and had a very good relationship with him. On 16 September she was doing a technology project with him assisting learners. She asked BM to fetch material from Matsimbi’s office.
When she sent BM to Matsimbi’s office, he was not in the classroom. She returned with the material that she asked her to collect. Later around after school. Rafapa informed him that BM complained about Matsimbi touching her inappropriately.
During cross-examination he said that Matsimbi worked in the classroom and outside. He was in between the two places because the learners and the project were inside the classroom. She left the classroom towards break time (11 am). It was not true that Matsimbi was working outside the entire time. He worked outside after she sent BM to his office. She did not see Matsimbi touching BM.
Later when he worked outside, he was compiling learners’ marks because the school was closing that day. He was not doing the project outside but marks. After the breaktime, they all went to the classroom and did the project.
NCM testified that she is BM’s maternal aunt. BM brought the form from school and asked that it be filled in. She was crying and told them that Matsimbi touched her breast and waist. BM’s mother received a call from Matsimbi late that night. Matsimbi asked her sister to come to school the following day.
She accompanied her sister to school the following day. He informed them that the Principal was busy and took them to his office. He denied touching BM and said he never went to his office and classroom as he worked outside doing the project. If he touched her, he might not have realized.
During cross-examination, she said that it was strange that Matsimbi contacted MB’s mother about the incident. Furthermore, the arrival of the SGB and the school to address the allegations was also strange.
NM testified that she is BM’s mother. She does not know Matsimbi and has no relationship whatsoever, with him. BM told her that Matsimbi touched her breasts and waist. She was crying. Matsimbi called her at night denying that he touched BM. He asked them to come to school the following. She does not know where he got her number.
The following day, she went to school with her sister and husband. He took them to his office. He told them that the principal would join them later which never happened. He told them that he called them to discuss BM’s allegations. He denied touching BM’s breasts and waist. He indicated that perhaps he touched them by mistake.
They were surprised that the SGB visited their home, after the meeting at the school. They indicated that they were concerned about rumours circulating that Matsimbi touched BM inappropriately. They further stated that they were surprised that the principal escalated the matter to labour without consulting them. Their children would suffer because they would not have a maths teacher. They did not believe the allegations. They said Matsimbi gave them her number and told them that he denied the allegations. The SGB members comprised three women.
During cross-examination, she conceded that she did not know if Matsimbi sent the SGB members because she did not ask. However, she believed Matsimbi sent them because their statement that Matsimbi denied the allegations was the same as Matsimbi told her. They said they wanted the issue to resolve at school because learners would suffer.
She believed BM because she did not have a motive for lying. At the time of the incident, she was working till late, hence she could not report on the same day. Her math marks dropped after the incident. She was also disturbed. BM did not fabricate the story. The principal told her that Matsimbi was not supposed to have a meeting with her.
Matsimbi did not influence her to drop the case but indicated that he wanted to clear his name. She denied that he called her because the school failed to inform her of the incident. He told them that he saw BM crying on the day.
Salome Rafapa testified that she has been an educator since 1993. She has been with the school since 2011. On 16 September 2024, Marumo reported to her that BM complained about Matsimbi touching her inappropriately. She reported the incident to the principal.
During cross-examination she said she saw Matsimbi at school. He was doing a project with learners outside the classroom. She sat with him during break time and ate lunch with him. Thereafter she left. She does not know if Matsimbi went to his office because she was not with him the entire time.
John Morake Matsimbi testified that on 16 September 2024, he was working on a project with Phoku. He arrived at school at 8 am. Phoku`s task was to demonstrate to learners how the project was going to run. His task was to cut planks to make bases.
He requested the school`s maintenance workers, Lekalakala and Mohlabe to assist him. He was stationed outside grade 7B. He never went to the office or the classroom that day. He denied touching BM in any way. His relationship with BM before the allegations was very good. He started working from 8 am and knocked off at around 13:30. All the time he was outside the classroom.
He had lunch with Rafapa, Mohlabe and Lekalakala outside the classroom. Their lunch was from 11:00 to 11:30. They knocked off at around 13:30 and left the lesson around 2pm.
He denied that Phoku sent BM to his office to collect some material. BM never came close to him on the day. It was the closure of schools. He became aware of the allegations on 02 October 2024. After the allegations came to his attention, he called BM’s mother to understand what was happening.
He invited BM’s mother to school the following day. He was in the presence of the principal when he called inviting her. BM’s mother, aunt and father came to school the following day. The father went to the Principal’s office. The Principal chased him and indicated that she is not allowed contact with them because the case was with the labour. He did not call them to hide or cover up anything. He did not intend to influence them as he informed the Principal that he wanted the law to take its course.
During cross-examination he said he had a wonderful relationship with BM even after the incident. As HOD they are allocated offices to manage and regulate subjects, check learners’ books and attend to issues from learners and educators.
On the day he never went to the office. He was busy cutting planks to be assembled with other parts. He spent the entire day with Mohlaba and Lekalakala. They did not perform their maintenance duties as they were assisting him. After cutting he would inform Phoku how the project should be completed. He brought the tools from home.
He got the contact numbers of BM’s Mother from Rafapa. He called her to find out what was happening with the consent form which the Principal gave BM to give parents. He denied that he was interfering with the investigation. They contact parents when there is a problem at school.
He informed the Principal that he wanted the law to take its course. He did not want the problem to expand and wanted to resolve it. This was allowing the law to take its course. He was not aware that he was interfering because he was used to resolving issues at school. The Principal was aware that he called the parents to school to discuss the issue because he was present when he made the call. However, the Principal chased BM’s father when he went to her office. She told the father that she could not see them because the issue had escalated to the district level.
As the HOD, he was not aware that he was prohibited from contacting the alleged victim and her family. The Principal did not warn him about calling BM’s parent as he called in her presence. She did not tell him that the issue had been escalated.
He said that he rebutted the testimony of BM’s aunt when she said he told them that maybe he touched him by mistake. He did not know why BM would lie about him when they had a good relationship.
On 16 September 2024, he brought the material from home. He had taken them home because the school opened late. He wanted to start the project early. If he left them in the office, he would not have access to them. The school opens at 07:00 am. He arrived at the school at 08:00 am. The tools are kept in the science kit in his office.
Freddy Lekalakala testified that he has been with the school for 5 years. He has a good relationship with Matsimbi. On 16 September 2024, Matsimbi called them to assist him in the project. They started at 08:00 am. They were cutting the planks, and Matsimbi was assembling. They finished around 1 pm. Matsimbi never went to the class and office, Rafapa was also with them. They took the tools from the storeroom. They found other tools already with Matsimbi.
During cross-examination, he said he never went to Matsimbi’s office and classroom. He spent the whole day with Matsimbi. He did not perform his duties that day as he was assisting Matsimbi. Mohlabe was the one taking the planks which were cut to the class when needed to complete the project. The learners and teachers were in the classroom. After school, they packed everything and separated. He was with Matsimbi the entire time outside the classroom. Matsimbi never left. Matsimbi never went to his office and the classroom.

Closing Arguments

The employer’s representative argued that the onus is on the employer to prove on the balance of probabilities that the employee committed the offence. In Early Bird Farms (Pty) Ltd v Mlambo [1997] 5 BLLR 541(LAC) The court held that the test for balance of probabilities is whether the version of the party bearing onus, is more probable.
The employer’s witnesses were credible and consistent with no contradictions. Matsimbi’s evidence should be disregarded as it is a bare denial. It is unbelievable that despite being allocated office as HOD he did not use it the whole day on 16 September 2024. Furthermore, he denied that he went to Grade 7 class despite the Technology Project. This is a bare denial. A reasonable teacher would do the project without the learners.
Ms Phoku’s version that she sent Busisiwe to Matsimbi’s office, is corroborated by BM , wherein he touched her breast. Matsimbi’s defence that he did not go to his office should be disregarded because he is HOD at the school. He submitted that he used the office to control his work. His reasons for not using the office are not convincing.
The version that he spent the whole day at the shelter with Mr Lekalakala and Mr Mohlabe without checking the progress on the project with Phoku is not possible. It is also not possible for them to spend the whole day together without being separated, a normal person would take a rest break.
Matsimbi could not prove why BM fabricated the story and what she gained for implicating him. This is despite his submission that the relationship between himself and BM was good. He said that BM’s maths performance was good. Therefore, there is no logic for BM to make false allegations against him. Phoku, Rafapa, Marumo and Makhubela all submitted that their relationship with Matsimbi is good. He failed to prove their ulterior motive.
Matsimbi interfered with investigations by contacting BM’s parents. He was trying to sweep the matter under the carpet. By his admission, he phoned BM’s mother to clear his name. This is an admission of guilt. He told the principal that he wanted to let the law take its course. If he was innocent, he would not have phoned the victim’s mother.
Lekalakala’s evidence was a coverup and should be disregarded. He is not a relevant and credible witness because he knows nothing about this case. The employer`s witnesses were all credible, reliable and probable, and they did not contradict each other. They proved that Matsimbi committed the offence. Therefore, they that he be found guilty of sexually assaulting BM by touching her breast, and waist.
Matsimbi’s representative argued that the charges against Matsimbi should be dismissed as they are false. The employer’s evidence lacks evidential value as it is based on hearsay from BM. They only rely on that BM was crying when she told them the story.
BM alleges that there were other learners inside the classroom when Matsimbi touched her on the waist NL and OH. The employer failed to call them to corroborate BM’s version. Instead, he called multiple witnesses to present irrelevant evidence to cloud and persuade the commissioner to find Matsimbi guilty.
BM testified that two leaners saw her entering Matsimbi’s office and she knows the identity of those leaners. They were not called to corroborate her testimony. There is no substantial reason why these learners were not called. The only assumption is that they were going to refute BM’s evidence.
BM’s version that Phoku sent her to Matsimbi’s office to call him and come to the classroom with him is not probable. She alleges that. Matsimbi touched her breasts but she continued to wait for him to go with her to the classroom. If Matsimbi had sexually assaulted her, she could have left the office immediately and reported the matter..
Phoku’s version is that she had sent her to Matsimpi’s office to fetch material for the school project, which materially contradicts BM’s. If the victim can mislead the commissioner about such details, it is possible that she can fabricate the sexual assault offence.
BM excels in emotional manipulation to perpetuate false allegations. It cannot be that her version is true simply because she was crying and she had no motive to lie. Had her tears resulted from sexual harassment, she would have gone outside the office immediately and informed her teachers and parents. She could not be pressured by the consent form to inform her parents.
The argument that Matsimbi interfered with witnesses is not true. If it was, he would have influenced them to drop the case and concealed the meeting from the school. To show that he had no malicious intentions he invited them to school to be seen by everyone. When he met the BM’s parents on 03 October 2024, he was not formally charged or suspended from the school. It cannot be that he interfered with the investigation before he was formally charged.
No witness testified that they saw Matsimbi in his office or inside the classroom. This incident happened on the school premises, full of staff members and learners surely if it is true that he was inside the classroom and the office, it could have not been difficult to call witnesses. In the absence of such evidence, it is clear that Matsimbi did not go inside the classroom or his office nor did he sexually assault BM..
Rafapa corroborates Matsimbi’s version that he was working outside the classroom and she had lunch with him outside the classroom. Phoku was inside the classroom until the end of the school day. Surely if Mr Matsimbi had sexually harassed BM she would have been aware and other learners would have noticed. It is further improbable that a teacher would sexually assault a learner in full view of the whole class ..
Matsimbi ‘s version is probable and not contradictory. It is corroborated by Rafapa and Lekalakala that he was working outside the classroom and not inside the classroom and his office. The employer failed to prove its case. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
In determining whether Mr Matsimbi is guilty of the offence proffered against him I will consider if the following elements are present:-
• if his conduct was sexual;
• if his actions resulted in the victim’s sexual integrity being impaired or inspiring the belief that it will be impaired.
• If his actions were intentional
• If there are no justifiable grounds for the actions.
It is in dispute that Matsimbi was at any stage on 16 September 2024 in his office and the classroom. The onus to prove that Matsimbi went to his office and Grade 7 class, which is the alleged crime scene lies with the employer. I will determine his alibi.
BM’s testimony that she was sent to Matsimbi’s office is corroborated by Phoku the technical educator who was attending to the project and Marumo who was assisting in the project.
The contradiction is about the purpose BM was sent to Matsimbi’s office. Phoku and Marumo’s consistent version is that she was sent to collect project material, whereas BM’s version is that she was sent to call Matsimbi. The contradiction is not material to reject their testimony as unreliable and incredible without weighing the testimony presented to me in its totality.
I agree with Matsimbi that there is no witness other than the BM who testified that she/he saw her entering or exiting Matsimbi’s office. Further, no witness testified that they saw BM and Matsimbi in his office. Matsimbi conceded during the cross-examination that the tools and materials for the project were in the science kit kept in his office. Phoku’s unchallenged testimony is that BM came with the material that she had sent her to collect from the office. This persuaded me that it is probable that BM went to Matsimbi’s office.
Similarly, she could not have entered Matsimbi’s office and collected the material without his permission. According to Matsimbi and his witness Lekalakala, they started the project from 8 am until 1:30 pm without moving away and he never lost sight of Matsimbi. I find this version to be farfetched and improbable that they were fixed to the same place for more than 5hrs without movement. Their version translates to that none of them visited the restroom.
Rafapa testified during cross-examination that she spent the break time with Matsimbi and ate together. She left Matsimbi when the break was over. She did not mention that Lekalakala was part of the people whom she spent the break time with. Matsimbi did not put this version that Lekalakala was also there for the test. This discounts Lekalakala’s version that he was with Matsimbi all the time.
Contrary to Matsimbi’s argument, Rafapa’s testimony covers Matsimbi’s alibi for only the 30-minute break time that she spent with him. The employer does not dispute that he spent break time with Rafapa. Rafapa could not account for Matsimbi’s entire movement and whereabouts before and after the break. Therefore, it is not true that Rafapa corroborated Matsimbi’s alibi.
Matsimbi’s alibi has cracks which he failed to fill. According to his testimony, he took the project material and tools home because the school opens late in the morning and he wanted to start the project early. This version is fabricated to cover the fact that he never went to the office that day.
According to him, from his car, he went straight outside the grade 7 classroom. His version is that the school opens at 7 am. He arrived at the school at 8 am and started the project shortly after. ‘Starting the project early’ meant 8. am. His reason for allegedly taking the tools home is unbelievable and disingenuous. He is untruthful that he took the tools home and brought them in the morning.
I find it probable that to school at 8 a.m and went to collect the tools and materials from his office. It is not true that he brought some from home. His version is that the tools are kept in the science box in his office. Therefore, he collected them from the office on 16 September 2024 before he started the project with Phoku.
It is not in dispute that the school was closing on that day. This prompted the educators to submit learners’ marks on the day. Phoku’s plausible version is that he was also busy with the marks is unchallenged.
I agree with the employer that it is improbable that as HOD on that demanding day of consolidating the marks and other related school closure responsibilities, he would be fixated outside the classroom and not go to the office work.
Furthermore, it is unbelievable that with the project executed inside the class which involves the learners and Phoku who were in the classroom, he was not required to enter the classroom. Phoku’s version is that Matsimbi was in between the classroom and outside. This version is probable considering the events and the responsibilities of the day.
The version that Lekalakala was assisting Matsimbi was not put to BM, Phoku and Marumo for test. I find Lekalakala’s testimony that purports to support Matsimbi’s alibi to be fabricated and truthful. It is not probable that Lekalakala as a maintenance personnel would spend the whole day attending to projects that he was employed. He might have assisted but not the entire day to account for Matsimbi ‘s alibi. I do not find Matsimbi and Lekalakala to be reliable and credible witnesses for their version is improbable. Therefore, his alibi defence falls away.
BM’s testimony is that he touched her breast twice in the office and waist twice inside the classroom. There is no witness corroborating BM. She testified that her friend saw Matsimbi touching her waist in the classroom. The employer did not provide explanation why it did not call OH to corroborate BM. OB’s testimony could have assisted the proceedings in relation to the office incident. However, I am inclined to weigh the entire evidence collectively to arrive at a decision. Failure to call this OH cannot on its own discredit the employer’s case.
Matsimbi is an HOD, part of the school management with more than 40 years teaching experience. For him to contends that he was not aware that contacting the alleged victim`s parents does not constitute interference with the evidence and investigation is a fallacy.
His version is that he called BMparents and invited them in the present of the principal to see him the following day. This contradicts his version that the principal chased the parents away from their office citing the same reason that contacting them constituted interference since the matter was escalated to labour. Matsimbis version that the Principal was aware of his interference is not probable.
His version is that he wanted to resolve the issue with the parents like he does with other problems. He knows that he was the alleged perpetrator in a serious sexual harassment case which cannot only be escalated to labour.it is the prerogative of labour to ensure the law takes its course not him. He was aware that this case is different from other problems that he used to solve with the parents. His staged naiveness exposes how incredible a witness he is.
He denies that he sent the SGB members to BMs family. However, the link between was the SGB members presented to the parents and what Matsimbi told BMs mother on the phone and in the meeting at school is overwhelming for me to agree with the employer that he was involved with the SGB members. His inference with the BM`s parents persuade me that it is probable that he intended to soften them so they do not pursue the matter. I accept that he did not request them to withdraw the matter but his conduct did. Calling a parent at night to discuss serious allegations against himself is the basis for my findings.
I considered the employer’s consistent evidence against the fabricated Matsimbi’s alibi and his interference with the investigation and witnesses which persuade me to find that the employers version is more probable than Matsimbis.
The employer’s evidence proves that Mr Matsimbi’s conduct was sexual; his actions resulted in BM’s sexual integrity being impaired or inspiring the belief that it will be impaired, his actions were intentional to satisfy his lust. Therefore, the employer had discharged its onus in proving on the balance of probability that he had committed the offence that Mr Matsimbi had committed the offence.

FINDING

The Employee, John Morake Matsimbi is found guilty of sexual misconduct involving a minor learner in terms of Section 17
(1) (b) of the Act. MITIGATING FACTORS
Matsimbi submitted that he is the first offender. He has three children of which one is unemployed the other doing grade 6. The middle child is employed as nurse. He prays that a dismissal sanction should be imposed on him as such would leave the children with no one to provide for their financial needs. AGGRAVATING FACTORS:
The employer submitted that Matsimbi has committed a serious offence with a mandatory dismissal sanction. He contravened provision of Sections 17(1)(b) of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 (as amended) which states that: “An educator must be dismissed if he or she is found guilty of committing an act of sexual assault on a learner, student or other employee”.
He failed to act as Loco Parentis. He is not fit to teach learners as he has broken the trust relationship with his employer. He is not remorseful. The employer prays he be given a statutory dismissal sanction.

CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FACTORS

Misconduct in terms of Section 17(b) of the Employment of
Educators, Act 76 of 1998 carries a mandatory dismissal sanction. The section provides thus:-
“An educator must be dismissed if he or she is found guilty of committing an act of sexual assault on a learner, student or other employee”.

The mitigation cannot override this statutory provision. In Le Roux v S (A & R 25/2018) [2021] ZAECGHC 57 (13 May 2021) the court held that “The interests of the community cannot be ignored in determining an appropriate sentence. Some of the components of the offences occurred on the premises of a primary school. It is also necessary to continue to impress upon people in positions of responsibility that they cannot leverage their power and the esteem with which they may be regarded, to satisfy their sexual lust. SANCTION

John Morake Matsimbi is dismissed for a sexual harassment offence.

I find John Morake Matsimbi unsuitable to work with children. I invoke Section
120(4) of the Children’s Act No 38 of 2005 to declare him on my own
accord, unsuitable to work with children.

The General Secretary of the ELRC must, in terms of Section 122(1) of
the Children’s Act No 38 of 2005, notify the Director General: Department
of Social Development in writing of the findings of this forum made in
terms of Section 120 (4) of the Children’s Act No 38 of 2005, that Mr
Matsimbi is unsuitable for working with children, for the director General to
enter his name in Part B of the National Child Protection Register.

The attention of SACE is drawn to the fact that Mr John Morake Matsimbi had
sexually abused an adolescent learner.

The ELRC is directed to forward a copy of this award to SACE.
Signed and dated at Pretoria on 08 March 2025.

MG Rabyanyana
ELRC Panellist