A senior Pietermaritzburg schoolteacher accused of sexual harassment and intimidation claims the allegations are ‘a vicious attack on his character and credibility and an attempt to have him removed from his position’.

The teacher, from a top school, has denied the damning allegations made against him and is fighting against a court application by the school governing body (SGB) to have him removed.

The matter follows the suspension of another senior staff member after the Department of Education visited the school last week.

ALSO READ | Allegations of sexual harassment, intimidation at Pietermaritzburg primary school

The matter came before the Pietermaritzburg High Court yesterday on an urgent basis. However, the court ruled that it was not urgent, and the matter was struck off the roll as an urgent application, but it can be reinstated as a regular matter.

According to court papers, the allegations against the senior teacher ranged from sexual harassment, intimidation, and nepotism to misconduct. It was alleged that he made sexual remarks to female staff members.

Other allegations were of ‘inappropriate behaviour on school trips, including excessive drinking and smoking in front of learners, verbal abuse towards staff members, screaming at staff members, throwing files at staff members, emotional blackmail and badmouthing staff members behind their backs’.

In his answering affidavit, the teacher denies all allegations, claiming that they were baseless, untrue, and/or an exaggeration of the true nature of events.

He says he is strongly of the view that this vicious attack on his character and credibility is an attempt to have him removed from his position by a suspended teacher.

He also claims that the teacher in question, also in a senior position, has been gunning for his position and has gained support from other staff members.

“Due to his belief that he ought to have been appointed in the position as opposed to me, he had difficulty with working under me and this was not a hidden fact,” he says in his replying papers.

He also claims that an article by The Witness this week, based on the court application on the allegations, was a petition for the reinstatement of the suspended teacher.

In court on Thursday, the SGB’s legal counsel argued that the matter was urgent due to the allegations against the senior teacher being reported to the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education on numerous occasions and the department having failed to act. They further emphasised that the suspension of the other senior teacher was not the trigger for the urgent court interdict.

“The SGB does not side with the suspended senior teacher. We believe if this application is not treated with urgency, it will only be until September that a date will be available and the situation at the school will deteriorate.”

The legal representative for the Department of Education said the two-day notice from when the application was filed to the court date was not enough time for the department to respond.

He also claimed that there were degrees of urgency and the school was still functional with the senior teacher in it.

“There is no harm in this matter being heard in three weeks’ time or even later. We are only here because they (the SGB) do not like the senior teacher and that is not a good enough reason. Furthermore, the school and SGB had been informed that the department was investigating the allegations and feedback will be provided by the end of the month.”

The legal counsel said the court should set an example with this case that rules should not be overlooked.

In court on Thursday, the SGB’s legal counsel argued that the matter was urgent due to the allegations against the senior teacher being reported to the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education on numerous occasions and the department having failed to act. They further emphasised that the suspension of the other senior teacher was not the trigger for the urgent court interdict.

“The SGB does not side with the suspended senior teacher. We believe if this application is not treated with urgency, it will only be until September that a date will be available and the situation at the school will deteriorate.”

The legal representative for the Department of Education said the two-day notice from when the application was filed to the court date was not enough time for the department to respond.

He also claimed that there were degrees of urgency and the school was still functional with the senior teacher in it.

“There is no harm in this matter being heard in three weeks’ time or even later. We are only here because they (the SGB) do not like the senior teacher and that is not a good enough reason. Furthermore, the school and SGB had been informed that the department was investigating the allegations and feedback will be provided by the end of the month.”

The legal counsel said the court should set an example with this case that rules should not be overlooked.