It has become clear that the School Governing Body (SGB) of Soutpansberg Primary School in Louis Trichardt and the Limpopo Department of Education have reached an impasse, with the SGB maintaining that it remains the school's duly elected governing body, while the department categorically states that it has stripped the SGB of its powers.
In a dispute dating back to 2021, the SGB and the current principal, Ms Mashudu Mushaathama, have been at loggerheads over the management of the school. "As it stand currently, the principal is not attending SGB meetings and does not cooperate with the SGB whatsoever," said Ms Livhuwani Phophi Ntlama, chairperson of the SGB, in an interview last week. The situation, she said, has now forced them to take action, as they are the ones with children at the school. "We have to fight for our children, because at the end of the day, it is my child's education. We are still following through on our mandate," said Ntlama.
In last week's edition, we reported at length on the ongoing conflict at the school. This culminated in a meeting with parents at the school on 28 March, called by the principal and the Limpopo Department of Education's (LDoE) director of institutional governance, Dr Moses Mulaudzi. Also in attendance were the LDoE's circuit manager, Mr Falaza Baloyi, and Dr T Mmako. Notably absent was the SGB.
"They capitalised on the fact that they knew when they sent out the invitation [for the meeting with parents], by law the SGB knew it was not an official but [an] illegal invitation. So, we as SGB did not honour the invitation because they did not invite the SGB, they invited parents. And yes, their response was: 'No, but the SGB is also parents', but remember as a parent, I come in my official legal capacity as a member of the SGB," said Ntlama.
Yet the meeting went ahead, and several allegations were levelled against the SGB, including claims of financial mismanagement. It was further alleged that the company appointed as the independent reviewer of the school's finances, Visious Professional Business Accountants (VPBA), was neither properly registered nor approved by the MEC. These were, according to the department, among the findings of an investigation into alleged irregularities at the school. Following this investigation, LDoE spokesperson Mr Mike Maringa confirmed that the SGB had been stripped of its functions, and that the department had appointed personnel to oversee governance at the school on its behalf.
We are still the school's SGB
The SGB, however, disputes this. "The duly elected SGB is still in operation," said Ntlama. She said that only the MEC for Education or the department's head of department (HOD) could make such a decision, and that they had not been formally informed of any such action. She explained that a proper process must be followed to strip an SGB of its powers and that no such process had been followed or even initiated.
A comprehensive list of questions was sent to Maringa to clarify the current status of the SGB and the broader situation at the school.
Department says SGB's functions were withdrawn
Maringa confirmed that while the SGB was legally established, its status had changed, following a decision by the acting head of department (AHoD) to withdraw all SGB functions. This decision, he said, was taken on 18 February this year. "In addition, the parents of learners at Soutpansberg Primary have also passed 'a motion of vote of no confidence' in two parents' meetings (viz. 28/03/2025 and 03/04/2025). The parents' resolution on passing a motion of vote of no confidence means that the current SGB must automatically dissolve, and a new interim structure be appointed by the AHoD," said Maringa.
SGB says meetings were illegal
The SGB maintains that both parents' meetings were held illegally and that any decision taken at such meetings carried no legal weight. Nonetheless, according to Maringa, an interim structure—referred to as "Sufficiently Appointed Persons"—has already been appointed by the AHoD to take over the SGB's functions.
"The decision to withdraw all SGB functions was taken by the AHoD and not the MEC, as provided in Section 22(2) of the South African Schools Act (SASA) and Section 9 of the BELA Act, with some minor amendments to SASA (Act No 84 of 1996)," said Maringa. He added that the decision followed an investigation that revealed governance challenges, including dysfunctionality and mismanagement of school funds. According to him, the SGB had been given seven working days to respond to the AHoD's intention to withdraw its functions, and this period expired without any representations being received as required by SASA.
SGB denies knowledge of investigation
The SGB denies that such a process occurred. "In our case, we don't have [evidence of] such investigations that were done," said Ntlama.
Following the 28 March meeting, allegations surfaced that departmental representatives had deliberately spread misinformation and half-truths about the SGB to confuse parents. This includes the claim that VPBA was not properly registered or approved by the MEC. The owner of VPBA, Mr Sydwell Lithole, has since produced a letter of appointment from the MEC and said that statements made against him were defamatory.
In response, Maringa said that Dr Mulaudzi's investigation focused on the SGB's functionality as part of the broader governance challenges at the school, as alleged by stakeholders, including parents—not solely on financial mismanagement. "The school invite to the parents meeting on 28 March 2025 was sent through the principal to all parents of learners at the school, including all staff members. Unfortunately, other people like the owner of VPBA were not invited, as he does not have a child at the school and therefore is not a legal parent at the Souties. It came as a surprise to us to learn that there were individuals attending the meeting uninvited," said Maringa.
That said, Maringa noted that they had investigated Lithole's claim. "The department can confirm that when the investigation into financial mismanagement was conducted and concluded in April 2024, Visious Professional Business Accountants was neither registered with IRBA nor approved by the MEC," he said. VPBA was only listed as an approved company by the MEC in December 2024. "This means it was expected to start auditing the school's financial statements between 1 January and 31 March 2025," said Maringa.
The dates are significant. "We came into effect on 5 April 2024, so some of the allegations are directed at the previous SGB," said Ntlama. She added, however, that no clear distinction had been made between the current and previous SGBs in the allegations.
Department says SGB was well-aware of investigation
Maringa elaborated on the investigation that the SGB claimed to know nothing about. "The investigations into the alleged mismanagement of school finances were conducted by officials from Head Office who deal with Norms and Standards for School Funding," he said. He added that the findings were shared with the school. "The officials, through the circuit manager and district governance manager, tried to arrange a series of meetings with the governing body, but the SGB did not attend," said Maringa.
Another issue of contention is the alleged reference to the SGB as an "illegal structure" during the 28 March meeting. "According to the department, during the parents meeting there was no mention of the governing body as being an 'illegal structure', and the person making this allegation was ill-informed and misguided. It was stated that the SGB was operating without policies that were adopted and ratified by both parents and the circuit manager."
Maringa said that all decisions and actions on governance matters at the school were regarded as illegal and not implementable. "The department still maintains that Soutpansberg Primary has not had adopted and ratified policies for the past three years," he said.
This is contested by the SGB, who provided the newspaper with copies of their policies. Although unsigned, they maintain that the signed copies were with the department.
From the above, it appears that the relationship between the SGB, the school principal and the department has become irreparably strained. The SGB has complained about the department's failure to respond to concerns over the principal's non-performance and unwillingness to cooperate with the SGB. Maringa, however, said the opposite was true, claiming the department had made several attempts to convene meetings to address complaints about Principal Mushaathama, without success.
So what now?
Regarding the way forward, Maringa said that alongside the withdrawal of the SGB's functions and the appointment of "Sufficiently Qualified Persons" to perform those duties, the resolutions passed by parents would now be formalised at a meeting convened by departmental officials at the circuit or district office. This meeting was scheduled for Monday, 14 April, and the current SGB members were invited to attend.
Asked whether the SGB had attended the meeting, Ntlama said they had not. "We responded to the Circuit through our legal counsel on Friday and counter-proposed a meeting at their earliest availability with the said department, where our legal counsel will be available. The Circuit did not respond to our lawyers, but rather tried to force a meeting with the SGB," said Ntlama. They have since asked the department for copies of the attendance register and minutes from the two parents' meetings to verify whether a resolution was legally taken. "We have not received it," said Ntlama.
Maringa was asked to confirm whether the meeting to dissolve the SGB had taken place on Monday and what the outcome was. At the time of our going to press, he had not yet responded.