21 November 2024 – ELRC413-24/25GP

IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD AT SOSHANGUVE
CASE NO.: ELRC 413-24/25GP
In the matter between :-

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION- GP EMPLOYER

AND

SADTU obo EDWARD MOGODU MANZINI EMPLOYEE
__________________________________________
ARBITRATOR: MMAMAHLOLA GLORIA RABYANYANA
Heard: 08 and 21 October 2024
Closing Arguments: 28 October 2024
Mitigating / Aggravating Factors: 28 October 2024
Date of Award: 19 November 2024
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 08 and 21 October 2024.
Mr A.Makola its Labour represented the employer. Mr M.M Masehela, a SADTU union official represented the employee, Mr E.M Manzini. 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 28 November 2024.

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 Manzini pleaded not guilty to a count of misconduct levelled against him in
  terms of Section18(1)(q) of the Employment of Educators Act, Act 76 of 1998
  (“Act”) :- Allegation 1: Conducting himself in an improper, disgraceful and unacceptable
  manner, in that while on duty, he sexually harassed TBS, a grade
  11 learner by touching her thighs and lifting her skirts. And Allegation 2 : On and around 16 May 2024 while on duty at Amogelang Senior Secondary School, he conducted himself in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner in uttering swear words towards Mr S Manabile,the school principal ;
  “otlo nkitsi pila, o nagana gore o selo mang? O kase nkubisi mmerekong wena” translated to “ you will know me better, who do you think you are? You cannot make me lose my job”.

EVALUATION AND SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

The following issues are common cause between the parties:

4.1 Mr Manzini was employed as an educator from January 2002. He is currently on post-level 1 at Amogelang Senior Secondary School. He does not teach the alleged victim.
4.2 On 16 May 2024, Mr Manzini entered the office of the acting principal Manabile and uttered the following words” o nyaka o njesa mmereko wena” in the presence of Dr Mohlala,Mr Mothokwa,Mr Khorommbi,Mr Morodi and Ms Mathe.

4.3 The sexual harassment incident was reported at the school on 14 May 2024 and at the district on 20 May 2024.

5.  The following issues are in dispute:
     5.1 the employee denies sexually harassing the learner;

5.2 the employee denies knowing the learner.
5.3 He denies uttering “You will know me well, who do you think you are” to the
acting principal.

The learner, TBS, testified that she is 17 years old. Mr Manzini teaches Physical Science at the school. Ms Motloung sent her to collect books at the Science Laboratory “Lab.” She found Manzini sitting alone in the Lab. He touched her thighs and lifted her skirt without her consent. He told her that they call him Daddy. She was uncomfortable and ran out of the lab after the incident. She asked another boy to help her collect the books.
The following he went to the Lab to fetch money from Mr Rex. He found Manzini sitting alone. He approached her, touched her thighs and lifted her skirt. As she moved away it was break time, She quickly left. The same thing happened the following two days.
She took a transfer from the school because Manzini threatened to kill her. She reported the incidents late because she was afraid and still processing events. Additionally, she did not have daughter and mother relationship with her mother.
She first reported the incident to her Grade 7 teacher and later to her mother. Her mother reported it to Mr Manabile, the school principal. They convened a meeting. In attendance were Manabile, Mr Sekwele, Ms Masete, her mother and herself. Manabile and Sekwele left her to discuss the incident with Ms Masete on woman to woman.
During cross-examination she said that Motloung sent her to fetch the LO books from the Lab after the athletics trip. She found Manzini. He gave him a funny look touched her thighs and lifted her skirt. The following day she went to the Lab looking for Mr Rex to collect the R30, he owed her from the athletics trip.
He found Manzini and asked for Rex. He told her that Rex had gone out and asked her to wait for him. About a few minutes later Manzini approached her, and touched her thighs, when she asked him what he was doing, he said “They call me Daddy”. He continued brushing her thighs. She asked him three times what he was doing. As she quickly left, it was break time.
The following break time, she went again to the Lab for Rex. Manzini told her that Rex had gone to buy lunch. He was alone and repeatedly touched her thighs. She immediately stood up and left the Lab.
The following day, on Friday she saw Rex at the centre and asked for her R30. He indicated by a gesture that he would return. During break time, she went to the Lab for Rex but found Manzini. He told her he was happy to see him. He lifted her skirt and brushed her thighs. She quickly left and stopped following Rex about the R30.
Ms Motloung would be lying if she testified that she only sent two learners, excluding her, to collect the books She told Masete that she wanted a transfer and that she did not want Manzini fired. Masete told her that if the incidents were true, she should stand firm fearlessly. She asked her to stay until the end of the term to get a transfer. She denied staying far away from her mother, which weakened the daughter-mother relationship. Masete would not be telling the truth if she said she (TBS) did not mention Manzini during the woman-to-woman talk.
Solomon Manabile, the Acting School Principal testified that he had a good relationship with Manzini. His relationship with other stakeholders is also good. When TBS`s mother reported the incident to the school, he invited Masete as SADTU Site steward and Sekwele to the meeting. The gentlemen later excused themselves to allow TBS and Masete to discuss the matter as women. They felt TBS was afraid to express herself in the presence of male educators and her mother.
The following day Mr Manzini badged in his meeting with SMT and Circuit Management Team without permission and uttered the following words: “You will not succeed in your tramp case that will make me lose my job”.The action made him feel threatened and unsafe at school. Manzini was confrontational and disrupted the meeting. If Manzini had a problem, he should have approached him after the meeting or during the briefing sessions.
During cross-examination he said he had an excellent relationship with Manzini and they belong to the same union. He has been a SADTU member since 1996. He reported the matter to Masete, a Site chairperson of the SADTU structure at the school. Masete consulted with TBS for about 15 minutes and gave them a report.
TBS informed him that she went to the Lab. Manzini proposed love to her but she rejected him. The second time she went to collect money, he touched her thighs and pulled her skirt. She told him she went to the Lab two times.
Allegation 2: He was in an SMT meeting with the circuit manager. Mr Manzini opened the door without knocking, he was furious and distressed. He looked surprised to find them in a meeting. He was confrontational and his utterances were a personal attack on him. He pointed a finger at him as on D 17. He refuted the accuracy of Mathe`s statement on R18.
Avhurengwi Keneth Morodi, the Deputy Principal testified he was in the meeting with Manabile, SMT and Circuit management when Manzini unceremoniously burst in the office without knocking. He conducted himself in an improper, disgraceful manner by pointing a figure at Manabile. He uttered words on R17 “ O nagana hore o selo mang, o ka se nkubise mmerekong wena.” His relationship with Manzini is good.
During cross-examination he confirmed that R17 is his statement. He has a normal teacher relationship with the staff. Manzini opened the door without knocking. He badged in and uttered the words. He banged the door as he walked out. R18 is Mathe`s observation but is not how he observed the situation.
Norman Mosimanegape Sekwele, the educator testified that he attended a meeting with TBS, her mother, Masete and Manabile . Her mother reported that Manzini sexually assaulted TBS. They left TBS and Masete in the meeting so that she was free to disclose what happened about sexual harassment. During cross-examination, he said Masete did not share the feedback of the meeting with TBS with him.
Edward Mogodu Manzini testified that he does not know TBS. Manabile informed him about the sexual harassment allegation on 15 May 2024. Manabile showed him notes from his diary, E3 on how TBS reported the incident to him. Manabile captured in his diary dated 14 May 2024 that “ Mr Manzini accused of sexual assault/harassment ( First ) Date February Athletics Second February”.
The following day he went to Manabile‘s office to ask him why the statements on E3 ( how Manabile reported the incident to him ) and D9 (how he reported it to the district) were contradictory. He was angry, frustrated and depressed. He knocked at the door and opened it.
He was not aware that the District officials were in a meeting. He requested Manabile to see him when the meeting was over. He uttered these words,”I want to see you after the meeting, o batla go njesa mmereko (I want to see you, you want me to lose my job”. He denied threatening Manabile.
He denied sexually harassing the learner. He denied having a good relationship with Manabile. He denied that he was staying in the Lab. He goes to the Lab only to collect and return the teaching apparatus. He revolves between the classroom and his car.
During breaks and free periods, he sits in his car. He adopted the attitude of not staying in the lab, following another educator,Nyathanda being falsely accused of sexual harassment. Another problem is that the lab is close to the toilets, were learners smoke dagga. This affects him because he suffers from sinuses.
During cross-examination he denied being on good terms with the principal. When asked why he failed to challenge Manabile’s version that he had a good relationship with him, he said it was his representative who failed to do so. The principal showed him a diary indicating that TBS alleged that he sexually assaulted her twice in February 2024.
He rebutted TBS ‘s allegation that he lifted his skirts and rubbed her thighs. When he was not attending classes, he stayed in his car. Rex, Madie and Motloung stayed in the lab. TBS was not telling the truth with her version that she found him in the lab when he went looking for Rex. Learners and educators were talking about this allegation. Learners said they saw the allegations on school Facebook.
Allegation 2: He told the principal that he wanted him to lose his job because of the contradictions in D9 and D3. There was nothing for the principal to report to the district. He denied storming in the meeting. He knocked and entered after someone allowed him in. He was not aware of the meeting and that district officials were at school. He was referring to the circuit manager Dr Mohlala and Mr Mothokwa, the IDSO that he wanted to see them when they finished the meeting.
Tsakane Margret Masete testified that she was called to a meeting with Manabile, Sekwele, TBS and her mother. TBS told her that Manzini sexually harassed her around February 2024. She did not believe TBS because the incident allegedly happened in February but failed to report it immediately. She submitted nothing tangible was presented to her.
TBS informed her that she went to the Lab during the break to collect her money from Rex. She found Manzini alone, Rex was not there. Manzini told her that Rex had gone for a break, and she left. The following day she returned during break to collect money from Rex and found Manzini. He told her that he wanted her for himself. At that moment he caressed her. She asked him what he was doing.
She questioned the learner, why she returned to the lab the following day and why she did not speak to Rex outside the school. TBS wanted to be transferred to another school because her relationship with her mom was no longer good. The mother said due to the age gap, communication was poor as she was much older than her daughter. She reported it back to Sekwele and Manabile.
During the cross examination she confirmed that she has been a SADTU Site steward since 2022. The discussion with TBS and the mother was about what happened in the lab and why she did not report in February but only in May.
Manzini goes to his car during breaks. Manzini, Mashifane,Madie stay in the Lab. People react differently to similar incidents. There is nothing wrong with TBS reporting the matter in May 2024, despite the incident occurring in February 2024.
Ramasela Kgaogelo Motloung submitted that she knows nothing about the allegation. There are only two leaners that she sends to fetch things for her, not TBS. It is only her, Rex and Madie who stay in the Lab. Since the sexual allegation of Nyantanda, Manzini had never stayed in the lab. He only comes to collect his stuff.
During cross-examination she conceded that she did not witness the incident. Manzini does not use the lab despite teaching physical science. He does the experiments in the classroom. He carries his apparatus to the class. He is in between classes and his car.
He eats lunch and breakfast in his car. He goes to the lab only to fetch the apparatus. She was not in the lab when the incident allegedly occurred. She denied that she sent TBS to collect books from the lab. Sometimes she sends only two other learners to the Lab to collect books.
Monyamane Mabel Phakwago-Madie testified that she stays in the Science Lab with three other educators. Manzini uses the parking or shelter and does not use the Science Lab. He uses classrooms for experiments.
During cross-examination, she said that only four of them were using the lab. Manzini does not stay in the lab. He only goes to check the timetable or take the apparatus. Since Nyathanda’s case, he stopped using the lab. She was not there when the incident occurred as she would go to classes. She does not see what is happening in the Lab when she is in the classroom.
Zandise Herbet Mbuthuma testified that when the incident occurred, he was not there at the Lab. Manzini does not use the lab. The relationship between Manzini and Manabile was sour. He is a union representative, but the union did not mend the relationship. He did not have evidence to support the fact that the relationship between Manabile and Manzini was not good.

Closing Arguments

The employer’s representative argued that Manzini’s evidence should not be considered because it is a bare denial. He did not rebut the employer’s evidence. TBS submitted that Manzini touched her thighs and lifted her skirt, which he did not rebut. TBS’s unchallenged evidence is that she left school because Manzini threatened to kill her. Manzini’s contention that he does not use the lab is fabricated because Physical Science and experiments must be used in the Science Lab.
Manzini did not prove why TBS fabricated the story and how she benefitted by implicating him. Monyemane, Mbuthuma, Motloung were protecting Manzini. They all conceded that they did not see what happened in the lab. He failed to prove that he was not on good terms with Manabile. Manabile’s unchallenged evidence is that their relationship was good.
Motloung, Madie and Mbuthuma teach different subjects, and they do not monitor Manzini`s periods. Therefore, they cannot conclude that Manzini never stays in the Lab.
Manzini admitted that he uttered the swearing words towards Manabile by saying O batla go nkubisa mmerekong(You want me to lose my job) but denying the other parts of the charge. He is merely defending himself by denying. He also submitted that he was not aware that district officials were in the meeting. Hence, he did not knock on the door. All the employer’s witnesses were credible, reliable and probable. Therefore, the employer proved that Manzini is guilty.
Manzini’s representative argued that TBS’s evidence is full of inconsistencies. Initially, she said that Motloung sent her to collect books from the Lab, where Manzini touched her thighs and lifted her skirts. When cross-questioned, she said she left the lab without Manzini touching her thighs and lifting her skirts. Motloung denied sending her to the Lab to collect books.
According to her, the same event occurred more than two times. It is not possible that only Manzini occupied the lab as every time she went to the lab to collect books or look for Rex she would find Manzini alone.
TBS’s version is not true because during break time Motloung, Phakwago and Madie stay in the Lab. These educators corroborated Manzini’s evidence that he does not stay in the lab during break time but stays in his car or with the assistant teacher. He goes to the lab only to take teaching materials.
She wanted to leave the school because Manzini was threatening to kill her. When cross-examined she conceded not to have a relationship with her mother. The real reason she left the school was the travelling distance to school and the lack of a good relationship with her mother.
Manabile allowed Manzini to capture an extract from his diary when Manzini asked for an incident report. The extract proves that sexual harassment never occurred. It is a fabrication which Manabile and his friends helped the learner to rehearse over time to tarnish Manzini’s name and make him lose his job.
Morodi’s testimony is that Manzini entered the office without knocking and pointed fingers at Manabile. Manabile and Morodi’s subject of their letters is the same “Indecorous behavior by Manzini”. This shows that they wrote their statements under duress.
Mathe’s evidence is that Manzini knocked at the door and greeted members of the SMT and the district officials present. When Manzini realized they were in a meeting, he asked to see them when they finished. He was severely stressed, and angry and felt let down by a principal who was supposed to protect him.
He denied having a good relationship with Manabile. Mbuthuma corroborated with him that the relationship was sour. He pleads that he be found not guilty.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
It is common cause that Manzini teaches Physical Science at the school. TBS`s testimony is that the first time Manzini touched her thighs and lifted her skirts was when Motloung sent her to collect the books from the science lab. She found Manzini sitting alone in the lab. During the sexual harassment, he told her that they call him daddy. She felt uncomfortable and ran out of the incident. This version is consistent with what she reported to Manabile.
TBS’s testimony during the examination in chief and cross-examination is consistent in that Manzini repeatedly touched her thighs and lifted her skirt the following day when she went to fetch her money (R30.00) from Rex. It was just before the break. I find TBS to be a credible and reliable witness because her testimony was consistent.
Rex owed her this money from the athletic trip. Rex was not in the lab, Manzini told her that he had gone out and she should wait for him. As she was waiting he sexually harassed her. She asked him three times what she was doing.
The same incident of looking for Rex at the lab and not finding him but Manzini who sexually assaulted her repeated over three consecutive days. TBS ‘s version is that she felt uncomfortable during the first occurrence when she allegedly went to fetch the books. Manzini did not challenge TBS’s testimony on these aspects. He denies that Motloung ever sent TBS to the LAB or anywhere else.
Motloung denies ever sending TBS. According to her version, she only sends two learners who sit in front. Motloung as I will demonstrate below, she appeared to have couched to cover up for Manzini. I reject her testimony because she is not a credible witness. In any event, her testimony even if it were to stand, neither rebut nor negate the other three days that the incidents occurred when she went to collect money from Rex.
I am not persuaded by Manzini’s argument that it is improbable that the incident could occur in the same way, during break time and same place for three days. Manzini did not challenge TBS that the incidents did not take place. He failed to put any version to TBS for testing suggesting that he was denying her version. Furthermore, her unchallenged testimony is that it happened two days during break time. The other day it was during LO class and the following day just before break.
I accept the lab is not a private space like an office, other educators who occupy the lab and learners could appear at any time. However, it is trite that sexual offence predators take risks that an average person would find perplexing.
Manzini’s argument that, I should reject TBS’s testimony because the is no explanation for not going directly to Rex but opting to make a routine of going to the lab. She explained that on Friday, she met Rex at the Centre, who gestured to her that he would return. Furthermore, his witnesses testified that Rex was a physical science educator and one of the educators who stayed in the Lab. This explains why she looked for him in the Lab.
It is immaterial on the period TBS took to report the sexual harassment case in general. It all depends on the emotional strength of an individual and other factors. Her plausible explanation was that she was afraid and was processing the situation. This was exacerbated by the lack of a daughter-mother relationship on her side.
I find Manzini’s alibi defence to be improbable. His version and that of his witnesses that as a physical science educator, he only went to the lab to collect the apparatus to conduct experiments is a fallacy. I reject his version that he used his car as a station during break time and in between classes. The version was not put to the employers’ witnesses for testing, and it is not probable. The other version that Nyathanda’s accusation of sexual harassment made him avoid the lab is unbelievable.
His witnesses tried hard to protect him by fabricating an improbable story. These educators were not always in the lab and could not know what occurred in their absence. If the incident was for a specified time and date their version could have been treated differently. The alibi is fabricated.
I reject his other reason for allegedly not using the lab, that he was avoiding the dagga smoked by boys from the adjacent toilets as he has sinuses not only because it is improbable but additionally that, it was not put to the employer’s witnesses for testing.
The alleged extract from Manabile`s diary was not put to him for testing. However, it confirms his testimony that TBS reported to him, that the incident occurred twice in February 2024. The fact that TBS reported to Manabile about the two incidents instead of four is not material to discredit her, because Manzini failed to challenge her. This notion does not assist Manzini’s case in any way.
Manzini did not challenge TBS’s version that he threatened to kill her by a gesture. To another school. This according to her prompted her transfer She denied that she requested a transfer because of the distance or her poor relationship with her mother.
The court in NUM and another CCMA and others [2018] 3 BLLR 267 ( LAC) set aside the award, where the Commissioner found for the employee on facts that were not put to the Employers’ witnesses.
Manzini failed to establish a motive, why TBS would fabricate a story against him. This, considered collectively with the totality of the presented testimony strengthens the employer’s case on the balance of probabilities.
Manzini’s representative put a version on TBS that Masete would deny that TBS has mentioned Manzini’s name during the woman-to woman talk. This was strange because Manzini was already at the center of the complaint. Masete indeed confirmed that TBS told him that Manzini had sexually assaulted her. This illustrates that his defence was misdirected to challenge what is common cause.
There is no evidence suggesting and proving that Manabile was behind TBSs untruthful story. Manabiles unchallenged evidence was that he had a good relationship with Manzini. The version that the relationship was sour was not put to Manabile, the deputy principal, Morodi and Sekwele for testing.
I find that Manzini and his witnesses are not credible and that their version is not probable. Their version is far-fetched and was created to cover up his actions.I am satisfied that the employer has proved on the balance of probabilities that Manzini committed sexual harassment on TBS. Therefore, I find him guilty for count 1.

Count 2

Manzini conceded that he was stressed, angry and frustrated about the allegations as he believed Manabile connived with TBS to fabricate sexual harassment against him. I have that there was no such link. Hence he conceded that he uttered the words you want me to lose my job. He denies that he burst into the meeting without knocking and uttered other words.
Manabile s version which Morodi corroborated is that he burst into the meeting without knocking. He was angry and threatened Manabile. Both Manabile and Morodi attended the meeting and their version is consistent, which Manzini partly conceded. Mathe did not testify. His statement could not be tested. Manzinis defence is that Morodi and Manabile conspired against him. The foul play which Manzini accuses his superiors of is baseless and lacks merit.
It is common cause that he was not in a harmonious emotional state when he went to the office. Having considered, his furious mode and part of the utterances he conceded, I am persuaded that threatened his principal in the presence of the SMT and the District Management. Therefore, the employer has proved on the balance of probabilities that Manzini committed the offence. FINDING
The Employee, Edward Mogodu Manzini is found guilty of
a sexual misconduct involving a minor learner in terms of Section 18
(1) (q) of the Act.
The Employee, Manzini is found not guilty of sexual misconduct involving a minor learner in terms of Section 18 (1) (q) of the Act. He is found guilty of count 2.

MITIGATING FACTORS

The employee submitted he worked for the department from August 2002 until December 2015, when he resigned. In most cases, he offers spiritual help to learners, teachers and the community of Block F Soshanguve. He is the first offender.
In 2016 he reapplied and was appointed. He continued his passion for teaching and encouraging learners to strive for the best in their education. He pleads that his mitigating factors be considered. AGGRAVATING FACTORS:
Count 1 : Sexual harassment is prohibited in all Department institutions. Manzini failed to act as loco parentis. He violated the rights of the learner by touching her thighs and lifting her skirts. The Department spends money to train educators on sexual harassment and code of conduct. Manzini cannot be trusted.
The Department has zero tolerance for employees who contravened serious acts. If the Department failed to act decisively, there would be lawlessness and chaos in the schools. He is an irresponsible educator because learners at the school must not be seen as potential girlfriends and prospective wives.
For count : Manzini does not respect authority. He shouted at the school principal and disrupted the meeting attended by the District Officials. He did not show any remorse during the entire process. He did not plead guilty even after realizing that the employer had overwhelming evidence to prove his case. Dismissal is an appropriate sanction to send a strong message to perpetrators of his calibre.
CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FACTORS
Misconduct in terms of Section 18(1) (q) of the Employment of
Educators, Act 76 of 1998 does not carry a mandatory dismissal sanction. However, sexual misconduct against school children and adolescents is a serious offence. Manzini abused his position as an educator and loco parentis. The parents had entrusted him as the educator to care for and protect learners. In contrast, he destroyed such a trusting relationship. He became TBS’s predator instead of providing the care and protection to he as she expected from him.
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.
He was not remorseful of his appalling conduct. He was persistent in concealing this disgraceful conduct. The respondent failed to address me on the educator ‘s disciplinary record. I am inclined to reject Manzini’s submission that he is the first offender. The offence is serious and outweighs his clean record. I find that dismissal is an appropriate sanction.
Manzini threatened the principal for executing crucial statutory duties of reporting sexual harassment allegations against a minor learner. Manzini’s actions induced fear on the Principal which has the consequences of deterring him from reporting such heinous offences to the District offices. The principal must execute his duties without fear and favour. Hindering the principal aggravates the offence. Manzini committed the offence in the presence of SMT and District Management which exacerbates the severity of the offence. He was not remorseful.
There is a link between counts 1 and 2 offences. I cannot isolate count 2 from count 1 for sanction. Therefore, I find that dismissal is an appropriate sanction for count 2 taking into consideration that he is dismissed for count 1.
SANCTION
Edward Mogodu Manzini is dismissed for a sexual harassment offence.
I find, Mr Manzini 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
Manzini is unsuitable to work 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 Edward Mogodu Manzini
had sexually abused an adolescent learner.
The ELRC is directed to forward a copy of this award to SACE.