LCP4809
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2
2026
DUE 27 AUGUST 2026
The Governing Body's Duty to Adopt a Code of Conduct: A Legal Analysis of Section 20(d) of the
Schools Act 84 of 1996
1. Introduction: The Statutory Mandate
Section 20(1)(d) of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 (SASA) mandates that "the governing
body of a public school must adopt a code of conduct for learners at the school."¹ This provision
establishes one of the core governance functions of School Governing Bodies (SGBs), placing upon
them the responsibility to create a disciplinary framework that maintains order while respecting
the constitutional rights of learners.
The code of conduct serves as a foundational document that specifies permissible and prohibited
conduct, outlines disciplinary procedures, and establishes sanctions for transgressions. Its primary
purpose is to create "a disciplined and purposeful school environment that is dedicated to the
improvement and maintenance of the quality of the learning process."² However, this statutory
duty is not without constraints, and case law has significantly shaped how this function must be
exercised.
2. Procedural Requirements and Constitutional Constraints
2.1 The Participatory Process
Section 8 of the Schools Act requires that the SGB must adopt a code of conduct only "after
consulting with learners, parents and educators."³ This consultation requirement gives effect to the
principle of participatory democracy by including various rights-holders in the policy-making
process. The code must also conform to the Constitution and may not infringe upon any rights of
participants, including the right to equality, dignity, and freedom of religion and culture.⁴
2.2 Constitutional Limitations on Disciplinary Measures
The case law has consistently affirmed that a school's code of conduct must strike a delicate
balance between maintaining discipline and protecting individual learners' constitutional rights. In
the Pretoria Girls High School matter, learners protested against a hair policy that prohibited Afros
and other natural hairstyles, arguing that the policy amounted to racial discrimination.⁵ The
school's code of conduct, while ostensibly promoting "ubuntu" and "equality and inclusivity," was
interpreted in a manner that prevented black learners from wearing their hair naturally, with staff
making prejudicial comments about black hair.⁶
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2
2026
DUE 27 AUGUST 2026
The Governing Body's Duty to Adopt a Code of Conduct: A Legal Analysis of Section 20(d) of the
Schools Act 84 of 1996
1. Introduction: The Statutory Mandate
Section 20(1)(d) of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 (SASA) mandates that "the governing
body of a public school must adopt a code of conduct for learners at the school."¹ This provision
establishes one of the core governance functions of School Governing Bodies (SGBs), placing upon
them the responsibility to create a disciplinary framework that maintains order while respecting
the constitutional rights of learners.
The code of conduct serves as a foundational document that specifies permissible and prohibited
conduct, outlines disciplinary procedures, and establishes sanctions for transgressions. Its primary
purpose is to create "a disciplined and purposeful school environment that is dedicated to the
improvement and maintenance of the quality of the learning process."² However, this statutory
duty is not without constraints, and case law has significantly shaped how this function must be
exercised.
2. Procedural Requirements and Constitutional Constraints
2.1 The Participatory Process
Section 8 of the Schools Act requires that the SGB must adopt a code of conduct only "after
consulting with learners, parents and educators."³ This consultation requirement gives effect to the
principle of participatory democracy by including various rights-holders in the policy-making
process. The code must also conform to the Constitution and may not infringe upon any rights of
participants, including the right to equality, dignity, and freedom of religion and culture.⁴
2.2 Constitutional Limitations on Disciplinary Measures
The case law has consistently affirmed that a school's code of conduct must strike a delicate
balance between maintaining discipline and protecting individual learners' constitutional rights. In
the Pretoria Girls High School matter, learners protested against a hair policy that prohibited Afros
and other natural hairstyles, arguing that the policy amounted to racial discrimination.⁵ The
school's code of conduct, while ostensibly promoting "ubuntu" and "equality and inclusivity," was
interpreted in a manner that prevented black learners from wearing their hair naturally, with staff
making prejudicial comments about black hair.⁶
