The question whether associating someone with “Verwoerd” - an apartheid era prime minister - amounted to a racial slur was one of the issues which came under the judicial spotlight in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The issue came to the fore when the father of a now former pupil at a Modimolle school got kicked out of the school’s governing body. It is alleged that the aggrieved father then told the white members of the governing body “I will deal with Verwoerd’s kids.”
A host of electronic messages were also sent by the man to members of the governing body, which resulted in the principal of the school, Gerda Pringle, obtaining a harassment order against the man, Joseph Mailula.
The Limpopo Division of the High Court, Polokwane, set aside the protection from harassment order granted by the lower court. Pringle subsequently turned to the SCA to appeal against the high court order.
Pringle was the principal of a primary school in Modimolle while Mailula’s child was a pupil at the school. Both were members of the school’s governing body (Mailula as an elected parent). Soon after he became a member of the SGB, Mailula sent email correspondence to Pringle, asking for information regarding the operations of the SGB.
She answered some of the emails and referred others to the chairperson of the SGB. Mailula, who felt the answers were not sufficient, sent another email in which he accused the governing body of giving him “the runaround.”
He told Pringle that he would be launching a formal complaint with her employer regarding her “unprofessional conduct as the principal of the school.”
Matters came to a head at the SGB meeting in June 2021 where the majority of the members resolved to suspend him. He did not take kindly to his suspension and went into a rage, pointing his finger at the chairperson, a Mr Chisi, calling him a joke.
It was said that he then referred to three white SGB members, including Pringle, and still with finger pointing, said: “I will deal with Verwoerd’s kids” while also pointing at the remainder of the SGB members.
Pringle regarded this remark as defamatory, racist, and a threat. She removed Mailula from the SGB’s WhatsApp group and blocked his phone number on her personal phone. Undeterred, Mailula used an alternate cellphone number to contact Pringle.
She eventually turned to the magistrate’s court to obtain an order against Mailula that he may not harass her. Pringle told the lower court at the time that despite a request from the SGB, he continued to contact her. Pringle also mentioned the Verwoerd remark and she said she felt threatened by the repetitive electronic communications and threats.
The lower court issued an interim order against Mailula and during the subsequent proceedings to either confirm or discharge the order, Mailula denied any wrongdoing.
He denied that his communications with Pringle and the governing body were unreasonable and he said it related to questions he had to enable him to perform his duties as an elected member of the governing body.
Pringle and the chairperson of the SGB gave evidence before the lower court of how they were bombarded by messages from Mailula and about what had transpired during the meeting when he was subsequently barred from the body. The harassment order was confirmed after Mailula elected not to give evidence.
He then turned to the high court, where the order was overturned on preliminary points and it was found that Mailula did not have a fair hearing.
Acting Judge of Appeal, Elizabeth Baartman, in the SCA judgment, said in looking at all the emails Mailula had sent to the school, it’s clear that his zeal went far beyond what could reasonably be expected of Pringle to tolerate from a concerned parent and SGB member.
“His personal attacks on the appellant are a cause for concern,” she said.
Judge Baartman added that the respondent has downplayed his behaviour at the meeting following his suspension and denied that he referred to the appellant and two other white members of the SGB as “Verwoerd’s kids,” although the evidence in this regard is overwhelming.
Mailula submitted that, in any event, referring to three white SGB members as “Verwoerd’s kids” could not be construed negatively as there are streets and a town bearing the name.
“In the South African context, reference to Verwoerd’s kids carries a racial connotation associated with the late former South African Prime Minister Dr Hendrik Verwoerd and what he stood for. The streets and town named after Verwoerd are merely an incident of our past and, if anything, should serve as a warning from history against what he stood for,” the judge said.
In upholding Pringle’s appeal, the SCA said: “The manner, tone and times, together with requests to desist from the correspondence leave no doubt that the respondent ought to have known that his conduct was harmful to the appellant…”
Pretoria News