By Staff Reporters
A war of words is raging at Soutpansberg Primary School in Louis Trichardt between members of the school-governing body (SGB) and the Limpopo Department of Education (LDoE). The department has announced that it has withdrawn the SGB's powers, but a court order prohibits it from taking control of the school's bank accounts.
On Friday, 28 March, representatives from the LDoE scheduled a meeting at the school to speak to parents and educators. In a letter dated 25 March, parents and guardians were invited to discuss "key matters concerning the school". The letter, issued on an official school letterhead, was signed by Dr Moses Mulaudzi, the LDoE's director of institutional governance.
The SGB immediately responded, distancing itself from the meeting and informing parents that it was not legally constituted. The chairperson of the SGB, Ms Livhuwani Phophi Ntlama, told parents the department had no permission or authority to use the school's letterhead when sending out such an invitation. "The Provincial Department has no legal authority to engage parents on school-governance issues without proper consultation with the SGB," said Ntlama.
But despite the SGB's threats of legal action and to discipline the principal – whom the SGB believes to be in cahoots with the department – the meeting went ahead.
A fight that dates back to 2021
It was clear from the letter that animosity still exists between the school's principal, Ms Mashudu Mushaathama, and the SGB. The conflict began shortly after her appointment in 2021. The school had been without a principal since Ms Adri Kloppers retired in 2019.
The former SGB had conducted interviews and made a recommendation on whom they believed was the best candidate. This recommendation was vetoed by the department. The circuit manager of the Soutpansberg East Circuit, Mr Falaza Baloyi, was then accused of appointing a relative as principal.
The SGB refused to accept the appointment, creating a tense and unhealthy climate at the school. The deputy principal, Mr Nyambeni Muravha, had to serve as acting principal while the impasse continued. At one stage, the principal's office was reportedly locked by the SGB chairperson, forcing her to use the school hall as her office.
In a letter sent to parents on 8 March 2025, the department is accused of actively and illegally trying to disrupt activities at the school. The letter refers to an alleged attempt by "the principal, in collaboration with the circuit manager," to take control of the school's bank account. This allegedly occurred in December last year, when the department became aware of withdrawals from the account.
The SGB then successfully applied for an urgent interdict in the Thohoyandou division of the Limpopo High Court to unlock the account and prohibit the department, the principal and the circuit manager from accessing the funds. The interdict was not opposed by the department, apparently because it had not been notified.
"Even after the High Court's ruling, the principal and circuit manager attempted to gain unauthorised access to the school's bank account once again," the SGB told parents.
Department accuses SGB of corruption
The meeting on Friday, 28 March, was well attended by concerned parents worried about the future of their children at what appeared to be becoming a dysfunctional school.
Dr Mulaudzi, who convened the meeting, urged educators and parents to support the principal in the running of the school rather than align themselves with SGB members. He said schools should be managed by principals, not governing-body members. In his presentation, Mulaudzi explained the distinct roles of the principal and the SGB, highlighting each party's responsibilities and powers.
He also pointed out what he alleged were irregularities in the way the school was being governed. He claimed the accounting firm appointed by the SGB was not properly registered or approved by the MEC.
According to his presentation, an investigation into the school's finances showed that between January 2023 and March 2024, the funds were mismanaged. He alleged that R184,043 had been spent without proof, and that several instances were found where money raised through fundraising had not been deposited into the school's bank account. He added that the school holds an old investment account with R1.3 million that was not approved by the MEC.
Mulaudzi's list of alleged financial misconduct includes payment to SGB members for services rendered, spending on unbudgeted items, and exempting some SGB members from paying school fees. He added that the misappropriation of funds should be reported to law-enforcement agencies, which, he said, was the department's intention.
In his presentation, Mulaudzi described the current SGB as an illegal structure, not guided by any formally adopted policies as required by education policy and legislation.
He also criticised the SGB for approaching the court to unlock the bank accounts. He said the department had not been served with court papers and the matter had been heard without its knowledge or representation.
Mulaudzi said the department had decided in February to withdraw all the functions of the SGB.
Stop with the lies, says SGB
The chairperson of the SGB, Ms Ntlama, denied that the SGB had acted unlawfully. She said the school's financial statements were prepared in strict compliance with Section 43 of the South African Schools Act (SASA). An independent accounting firm, Visious Professional Business Accountants (VPBA), had been appointed, based on its credentials and long-standing service to the school.
She said Mulaudzi's claim that VPBA was not approved by the Department of Education (DoE) was incorrect, adding that all financial service providers used by the school must meet regulatory financial reporting standards. She also provided a departmental circular showing that VPBA is registered on the MEC's list of approved auditors.
Ntlama said the SGB remained committed to financial transparency and compliance with all relevant regulations. "If the department has concerns regarding VPBA's status, we urge them to provide formal clarification rather than making unverified claims," she said.
She also pointed out that the current SGB had assumed office in April 2024. "Any financial transactions before this period fall under the previous administration. The SGB cannot be held accountable for matters predating its tenure," she said.
Ntlama added that the SGB had no knowledge of the transactions mentioned by Mulaudzi.
"If discrepancies existed, the appropriate governance structures should have been used to address them at the time. The department's accusations without substantiating proof appear to be a deliberate attempt to defame and tarnish the reputation of the current SGB. We challenge the department to provide concrete evidence rather than making baseless public accusations," she said.
Do not drag us into your fight
Mr Sydwell Lithole of VPBA also expressed doubt about the way the department conducted the 28 March meeting. "For those guys [from the department] to have come in and said what they have said, at least they should have been informed … By implication they said, 'that guy is not qualified'," said Lithole in an interview with the newspaper.
Lithole added that he had already sought legal recourse for what he described as the "defamatory" remarks made at the meeting. He said he did not want money but a written apology from the department. "It must be sent to all parents who were there, the staff and also to myself. It must be a formal apology acknowledging that they were incorrect in what they have said," said Lithole. He has given the department 14 days to comply.
Lithole's unhappiness stems from the accusation that they are not registered and therefore not qualified to do an independent review of the school's financials. He stated that they were indeed registered and also tendered the letter of appointment they received from the MEC for Education in December last year.
As for missing monies, Lithole said that he and his company were being dragged into a fight of which they were not a party to. As accountants, he explained, they dealt with past transactions and could only interpret what was reflected on the bank statement. "It is not there. I can even show you the bank statements. It is not there..." Lithole said.
Lithole stated that their role in the school's financials was limited to UIF and SARS compliance and that they were not involved in issues of payment. Their job is to review transactions. As for the investment account, Lithole pointed out that that account has been there since 1980 and, like any school, there is an account for the day-to-day running of the school and an account, like the investment account, from which capital projects are funded. "Even on the financials we have reported the balance," said Lithole with reference to the investment account.
Was a charge laid?
A media enquiry was sent to the LDoE last week, asking whether a criminal case had been opened with the police in light of the accusations made by Dr Mulaudzi. In terms of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004, all incidents of suspected fraud involving amounts exceeding R100,000 must be reported.
The spokesperson for the Department of Education, Mike Maringa, said a case had been opened by the school's principal for the disappearance of fundraising funds. Initially, the principal and other school stakeholders believed the amount missing was R47,000, but a departmental investigation revealed the actual figure was R247,000.
Maringa said the department had already appointed personnel to oversee governance at the school on behalf of the SGB. He confirmed that the SGB's functions had been revoked by the department.