MACANJANA IN TROUBLE?

MANZINI - Seemingly, Schools Manager Macanjana Motsa has got some explaining to do!

This is because after advising the Swaziland National Association  of Teachers (SNAT) President, Mbongwa Dlamini, not to attend an open day for his child at Mhubhe High School since he was suspended from the school, the matter was reported to the Human Rights Commission.

The commission, which is also known as the Commission on Human Rights and Public Administration, is a constitutional body which was established under Section 163 of the Constitution. It is mandated to promote and protect fundamental rights of all people in the country. It has a mandate to investigate complaints of alleged injustice and poor public administration by public authorities.

Complaints

After getting the complaints from the SNAT president, the commission has since written a letter to the schools manager, where it expressed its concerns and further asked Motsa to give an explanation in writing within seven working days.

In the letter, which was signed by Commissioner Sabelo Masuku, the organisation said in pursuing its mandate, it received a complaint from Dlamini, concerning his suspension and subsequent restraint from entering the premises of Mhubhe High School, which was communicated through a note, dated May 21, 2019.
Furthermore, the commission said it had been brought to its attention and confirmed by its investigation that Dlamini had a child enrolled at the school.
“Additionally, we have been informed that your office issued further instruction to the complainant to not set foot in the school even in his capacity as a parent of a learner to the extent that he missed his child’s open day,” reads part of the letter.

On that note, the commission said it was of the opinion that the prohibition was either for broad or its application was overly broad so as to impede the parent and the child’s fundamental rights as enriched in the Constitution and other relevant international human rights instruments.
“We are particularly concerned that the prohibition of the complainant from the school, even as a parent, violates Section 29 (3) of the Constitution (children’s rights to be properly cared for),” the commission said.

Furthermore, it said the same act by the schools manager was against the principle of the best interest of the child as articulated in the Children Protection and Welfare Act of 2012.

Therefore, the commission advised the ministry to consider the effect of the generalised directive and its potential psychological effects and stigma to the child of the complainant. It said it strongly believed that the directive was only intended to suspend the complainant from performing his professional duties, not parental duties which happened occasionally in the school.

Directive

“You (Motsa) are therefore kindly urged to clarify your directive and show cause why the complainant should not be allowed to exercise his parental rights or if arrangements to have him attend to his child’s school activities would be prejudicial to your impending investigations,” reads part of the letter.

The schools manager was also asked to also indicate what steps she had taken to assist the complainant to exercise his parental rights under the circumstances. She was told to provide responses within seven working days upon receipt of the letter. This means that the schools manager has up to Friday to respond because the letter was delivered to her office last Wednesday.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: