ADDRESS MACANJANA LETTER TO PS - AG

MANZINI - All the accusations by the Human Rights Commission towards Schools Manager Macanjana Motsa have to be shouldered by the PS, Bertram Stewart.

This is because the office of the attorney general (AG) has since advised the commission to address its letter to the principal secretary (PS) in the Ministry of Education and Training instead of the schools manager.

Following the prevention of the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT) President Mbongwa Dlamini from attending his child’s open day at Mhubhe High School, where he was suspended from performing his professional duties as a teacher, Dlamini then reported the matter to the commission.

Investigations

In response, the commission conducted its own investigations and wrote a letter to the schools manager, asking her to explain her actions of prohibiting the SNAT president from exercising his parental rights.
This publication has it in authority that the Ministry of Education and Training submitted the letter from the Human Rights Commission to the AG’s Office to reply it.

However, instead of replying to the letter, Assistant AG Mbuso Simelane raised a point of law by advising the Human Rights Commission to take note that in terms of Section 72 (2) of the Constitution, a ministry or department of government was under the supervision of a PS. “Hence the Ministry of Education and Training is under the responsibility of the PS in the ministry,” Simelane said in the letter.

He then said in the premise, the commission’s letter should have been addressed to the PS in the ministry.
He advised the commission to correct the anomaly by addressing it to the PS before they could respond.

Constitution

Section 76 of the Constitution talks about PSs and Subsection II says; “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a ministry or a department of the government shall be under the supervision of a principal secretary whose office shall be a public office.”
When called to clarify his letter, Simelane said it was the PS who was responsible to answer for any decision or act done by officers under the ministry which he/she supervises.

Meanwhile, in its letter, the commission said it was particularly concerned that the prohibition of the complainant from the school, even as a parent, violated Section 29 (3) of the Constitution (children’s rights to be properly cared for).

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.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: