Chairperson of the Council of UNISA v AfriForum NPC (CCT 135/20) [2021] ZACC 32; 2022 (2) SA 1 (CC); 2022 (3) BCLR 291 (CC) (22 September 2021)

1


CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA


Case CCT 135/20

In the matter between:


CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA First Applicant

CHAIRPERSON OF THE SENATE OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA Second Applicant

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA Third Applicant

and

AFRIFORUM NPC Respondent



Neutral citation: Chairperson of the Council of UNISA v AfriForum NPC [2021]
ZACC 32

Coram: Khampepe ADCJ, Jafta J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mhlantla J,
Pillay AJ, Theron J, Tlaletsi AJ and Tshiqi J


Judgment: Majiedt J (unanimous)

Heard on: 20 May 2021

Decided on: 22 September 2021

Summary: University language policy — phasing out of Afrikaans as a
language of teaching and learning — limitation of section 29(2) of
the Constitution — justification required

2

ORDER/BEVEL



On appeal from the Supreme Court of
Appeal (hearing an appeal from the High
Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division,
Pretoria):
1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. Save as set out below, the
appeal is dismissed.
3. The order of the Supreme
Court of Appeal is suspended
until the commencement of
the University of South
Africa’s 2023 academic year.
4. In the event that the University
of South Africa decides to
continue with the language
policy adopted in 2016, the
requirements of section 29(2)
of the Constitution must be
complied with.
5. If, by the commencement of
the 2023 academic year, the
University of South Africa
decides to adopt an entirely
new language policy, the order
of the Supreme Court of
Appeal, save f or the costs
order, will fall away.
Op appèl vanaf die Hoogste Hof van Appèl
(vir die aanhoor van ’n app èl vanaf die
Hooggeregshof van Suid -Afrika, Gauteng
Afdeling, Pretoria):
1. Verlof tot appèl word
toegestaan.
2. Behalwe soos hieronder
uiteengesit, word die appèl
van die hand gewys.
3. Die bevel van die Hoogste Hof
van Appèl word opgeskort tot
die aanvang van die
Universiteit van Suid -Afrika
se 2023 akademiese jaar.
4. Indien die Universiteit van
Suid-Afrika besluit om voort
te gaan met die taalbeleid wat
in 2016 aanvaar is, moet die
vereistes van artikel 29(2) van
die Grondwet nagekom word.
5. Indien, teen die aanvang van
die 2023 akademiese jaar, die
Universiteit van Suid -Afrika
besluit om ’n heeltemal nuwe
taalbeleid te aanvaar, sal die
bevel van die Hoogste Hof van
3
6. The University of South
Africa must pay Afri Forum’s
costs in this Court, including
the costs of two counsel.

Appèl, behalwe vir sy
kostebevel, wegval.
6. Die Universiteit van Suid -
Afrika moet AfriForum se
koste in hierdie Hof betaal,
insluitende die koste van twee
advokate.



JUDGMENT/UITSPRAAK




MAJIEDT J (unanimous):


Introduction
[1] CJ Langenhoven, the celebrated
Afrikaans writer and a fierce activist for the
language, described Afrikaans as “our
highest honour, our greatest possession, the
one and only white man’s language which
was made in South Africa” .1 But another
acclaimed Afrikaans writer o f more recent
times, Jan Rabie, tellingly observed that “we
distort history when we present Afrikaans
today as increasingly ‘whiter’ than it really
MAJIEDT R (eenparig):


Inleiding
[1] CJ Langenhoven, die gevierde
Afrikaanse skrywer en vurige kampvegter
van die taal , het Afrikaans beskryf as “ons
hoogste eer, ons grootste besitting, die een en
enigste witmans -taal wat in Suid -Afrika
geskep is” .1 Maar ’n ander hoogs
aangeskrewe Arikaanse skrywer van meer
onlangse tye, Jan Rabie, het treffend
opgemerk dat “ons die geskiedenis verwring
wanneer ons Afrikaans vandag voorhou as

1 Cited by Giliomee The Afrikaners: Biography of a People
(Tafelberg Publishers Limited, Cape Town 2003) (Giliomee
I) at 369. CJ Langenhoven lived between 1873 and 1932,
and is acknowledged as having been staunchly conservative
in his outlook. He is per haps best known for authoring the
lyrics of apartheid South Africa’s national anthem, “Die
Stem van Suid-Afrika”.
1 Aangehaal deur Giliomee The Afrikaners: Biography of a
People (Tafelberg Uitgewers Beperk, Kaapstad 2003)
(Giliomee I) op 369. CJ Langenhoven het tussen 1873 en
1932 geleef en hy word alom beskou as iemand met ‘n
stoere konserwatiewe lewensuitkyk. Hy is seker meeste
bekend as skrywer van die lirieke van die volkslied van
apartheid Suid-Afrika,“Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”.

4
is so that it fits our ideology of increasing
separation”.2 And a giant of Afrikaans
literature, Breyten Br eytenbach, said in an
affidavit in Gelyke Kanse:

“Afrikaans is the living and
changing and change -making
outcome of diverging and at times
conflicting histories. These diverse
origins characterised by adaptation,
conquest, subjugation, oppression,
survival, resistance, transformation
– descended from European
dialects, Malay, Portuguese,
seafarer language, Khoi languages,
Arabic Afrikaans, the Qur’an and
the Bible, the courts and churches
and kitchens and hospitals a nd
vineyards and factories of our
country – have made Afrikaans a
unique hybridisation that finds unity
as a Creole language which is the
verbalisation of the complex world
in which we move.”3

toenemend ‘witter’ as wat dit werklik is ten
einde ons ideologie van toenemende
apartheid te pas”.2 En ’n reus van Afrikaanse
literatuur, Breyten Breytenbach, het in ’n
eedsverklaring in Gelyke Kanse verklaar:

“Afrikaans is the living and
changing and change -making
outcome of diverging and at times
conflicting histories. These diverse
origins characterised by adaptation,
conquest, subjugation, oppression,
survival, resistance, transformation
– descended from European dialects,
Malay, Portuguese, seafarer
language, Khoi languages, Arabic
Afrikaans, the Qur’an and the Bible,
the courts and churches and kitchens
and hospitals and vineyards and
factories of our country – have made
Afrikaans a unique hybridisation
that finds unity as a Creole language
which is the verbalisation of the
complex world in which we move.”3

2 Rabie Polemika (John Malherbe (Pty) Limited, Cape
Town 1966) at 106. Jan Rabie is recognised as a liberal
Afrikaans writer of the 1960s and 1970s. He was born in
1920 and passed away in 2001.
2 Rabie Polemika (John Malherbe (Edms) Beperk, Kaapstad
1966) op 106. Jan Rabie word beskou as ‘ n liberale
Afrikaanse skrywer van die 1960s en 1970s. Hy was in
1920 gebore en is oorlede in 2001.

3 Breytenbach’s supporting and expert affidavit at para 8, as
cited in Gelyke Kanse v Chairperso n, Senate of the
University of Stellenbosch [2019] ZACC 38; 2020 (1) SA
368 (CC); 2019 (12) BCLR 1479 (CC) at para 87.
Breytenbach was born in 1939 and is known for his fierce
opposition to apartheid, having been imprisoned by that
regime from 1975 to 1982 on terrorism charges. The
translation from the original Afrikaans is by Froneman J in
his separate concurrence in Gelyke Kanse.
3 Breytenbach se ondersteunende en deskundige
eedsverklaring in para 8, soos aangehaal in Gelyke Kanse v
Chairperson of the Senate of the Univer sity of Stellenbosch
[2019] ZACC 38; 2020 (1) SA 368 (CC) ; 2019 (12) BCLR
1479 (CC), in para 87. Breytenbach was in 1939 gebore en is
bekend vir sy hewige teenstand teen apartheid, waarvoor hy
van 1975 tot 1982 tronkstraf uitgedien het, nadat hy deur die
apartheid regime gevo nnis is op aanklagte van terrorisme.
Die vertaling vanaf die oorspronklike Afrikaans is deur
Froneman R in sy aparte samestemmende uitspraak in Gelyke
Kanse.

5
[2] This stark contrast between three
white Afrikaans writers of different eras and
outlooks bear s testimony to the troubled,
warped discourse around Afrikaans. Today,
“the majority of Afrikaans speakers are
black, and it is spoken as a first language by
people from multiple ethnic and social
backgrounds”.4

[3] This case concerns a decision to
discontinue Afrikaans as a language of
teaching and learning at South Africa’s
largest university. It is the latest in a trilogy
of cases relating to policy decisions by
universities to remove Afrikaans as a
medium of teaching and learning . In the
first, University of the Free State,5 this Court
had to decide “whether that university acted
consistently with its obligations in terms of
section 29(2) of the Constitution in adopting

[2] Hierdie skerp kontras tussen drie wit
Afrikaanse skrywers van verskillende
tydvakke en uitkyke, is teke nend van die
troebel, verwronge diskoers aangaande
Afrikaans. Vandag is “die meerderheid van
Afrikaanssprekendes swart, en die taal word
as eerste taal gebesig deur mense van
veelvuldige etniese en maatskaplike
agtergronde”.4

[3] Hierdie saak handel oor die besluit
deur Suid-Afrika se grootste universiteit om
die onderrig en leer in Afrikaans te staak. Dit
is die nuutste in ’n trilogie van sake wat
verband hou met beleidsbesluite deur
universiteite om Afrikaans as medium van
onderrig en leer te verwyder. In die eerste
een, University of the Free State ,5 moes
hierdie Hof beslis “of daardie universiteit

4 Willemse “ The Afrikaans Cultural Expressions of the
Powerless and Subjugated” in George (ed) A Companion to
African Literatures (John Wiley & Sons Limited, Hoboken
2021) (Willemse I) at 252. See also Willemse The Hidden
Histories of Afrikaans (9 October 2015), available at
http://www.up.ac.za/media/shared/45/willemse_mistra-
20151105-2_2.zp80127.pdf (Willemse II), where he states:
“Today six in ten of the almost seven
million Afrikaans speakers in South
Africa are estimated to be black (in the
generic sense of the word), a fi gure that
will by all indications increase
significantly in the next decade.”
4 Willemse “ The Afrikaans Cultural Expressions of the
Powerless and Subjugated ” George (uitg) A Companion to
African Literatures (John Wiley & Sons Limited, Hoboken
2021) (Willem se I) op 252. Sien ook: Willemse: The
Hidden Histories of Afrikaans (9 Oktober 2015), beskikbaar
by http://www.up.ac.za/media/shared/45/willemse_mistra -
20151105-2_2.zp80127.pdf (Willemse II), waar hy aandui
dat:
“Today six in ten of the almost seven
million Afrikaans speakers in South
Africa are estimated to be black (in the
generic sense of the word), a figure that
will by all indications increase
significantly in the next decade.”


5 AfriForum v University of the Free State [2017] ZACC 48;
2018 (2) SA 185 (CC); 2018 (4) BCLR 387 (CC)
(University of the Free State).
5 AfriForum v University of the Free State [2017] ZACC 48;
2018 (2) SA 185 (CC); 2018 (4) BCLR 387 (CC)
(University of the Free State).

6
a policy that phases out Afrikaans as a
co-equal medium of instruction with
English”.6 Next, in Gelyke Kanse ,7 the
central issue was whether Stellenbosch
University’s 2016 language policy that
created three language specifications –
parallel, dual and single medium, thereby
removing the previous d ominance of
Afrikaans – was an infringement of the right
of Afrikaans students to mother tongue
education. And now, in this matter, this
Court is asked to determine whether the
decision to adopt a new language policy in
2016 by the third applicant, the University of
South Africa (UNISA) : (a) passes
constitutional muster; (b) was rational; and
(c) complied with procedural prescripts.
This new language policy aimed to enhance
the status of indigenous African languages,
while also phasing out Afrikaans and
removing the guarantee that courses be
offered in both Afrikaans and English.

[4] This Court’s decisions in Gelyke
Kanse and University of the Free State do
not signal an acceptance that the Afrikaans
language must ineluctably be diminished as
a language of te aching and learning in our
konsekwent opgetree het met sy verpligtinge
ingevolge artikel 29(2) van die Grondwet,
deur ’n beleid te aanvaar wat Afrikaans
uitfaseer as ’n gelyke onderrig medium met
Engels”.6 Daarna, in Gelyke Kanse,7 was die
kernvraag of die Universiteit van
Stellenbosch se 2016 taalbeleid wat drie taal
spesifikasies vestig – parallel, dubbel
medium en enkel medium, en sodoende
wegdoen met Afrikaans se oorheersendheid
– inbreuk maak op Afrikaanssprekende
studente se reg op moedertaal onderrig. En
nou, in hierdie saak, word hierdie Hof
versoek om te bepaal of die besluit geneem
in 2016 deur die derde applikant, die
Universiteit van Suid -Afrika (UNISA), om
’n nuwe taalbelei d te aanvaar ten einde die
status van inheemse tale te bevorder, en
terselfdertyd Afrikaans uitfaseer en wegdoen
met die waarborg dat kursusse in beide
Afrikaans en Engels aangebied sal word,
(a) grondwetlik; (b) rasioneel was; en (c) of
die prosedurele voorskrifte nagevolg was.

[4] Hierdie Hof se beslissings in Gelyke
Kanse en University of the Free State is glad
nie aanduidend van ’n aanvaarding dat
Afrikaans onafwendbaar afgeskaal moet


6 Id at para 22. 6 Id in para 22.



7 Gelyke Kanse above n 3 at paras 1-6.
7 Gelyke Kanse n 3 hierbo in paragrawe 1-6.

7
country’s institutions of higher education.
Apart from the fact that each case must be
decided on its facts, the role of Afrikaans in
our institutions and civic life cannot be
reduced to a simplistic narrative of
hegemony and decline. We must resist such
simplistic narratives, many of which feed on
false myths about the origins and
development of the Afrikaans language.

[5] With this in mind, before dealing
with the present challenge to UNISA’s
revised language policy, the true origins and
development of Afrikaans bear
consideration. This is necessary to correct
the false narrative concerning its origins,
development and present position in our
society.

Afrikaans in proper perspective
[6] Chinua Achebe reminded us that
“until the lions have their own historians, the
history of the hunt will always glorify the
hunter”.8 And so it is too with the history of
the origins and development of the
Afrikaans language.

word as ’n taal van onderrig en leer in ons
land se hoër onderwysinstellings nie. Buiten
die beginsel dat elke saak op sy eie feite
beoordeel moet word, kan Afrikaans se rol in
ons instellings en gemeenskapslewe nie
bloot verminder word tot ’n vereenvoudigde
weergawe van oorheersing en agteruitgang
nie. Ons moet waak teen su lke
vereenvoudigde weergawes, baie waarvan
ontaard uit valse mites aangaande die
ontstaan en ontwikkeling van die Afrikaanse
taal.

[5] Op hierdie grondslag, alvorens
oorweging geskenk word aan die
onderhawige aanslag teen UNISA se
gewysigde taalbeleid, verg d ie ware
oorsprong en ontwikkeling van Afrikaans
eers betragting van naderby, ten einde die
onegte weergawe van die taal se oorsprong,
ontwikkeling en heersende plek in ons
samelewing by te lê en reg te stel.

Afrikaans in behoorlike perspektief
[6] Chinua Achebe het ons herinner dat
“totdat die leeus hulle eie geskiedenis
skrywers het, sal die geskiedenis van die jag

8 Chinua Achebe was a celebrated Nigerian poet, writer and
academic, the author of Things Fall Apart , generally
considered to be the most widely read book in modern
African literature. See Brooks “Chinua Achebe, The Art of
Fiction No. 139” (1994) 133 The Paris Review.
8 Chinua Achebe was ‘n geso gte Nigeriese digter, skrywer
en akademikus, die skrywer van “Things Fall Apart”, wat
algemeen beskou word as die boek wat die meeste gelees is
in moderne Afrika literatuur. Sien Brooks “Chinua Achebe,
The Art of Fiction No. 139” (1994) 133 The Paris Review.

8
[7] Afrikaans is a creole language that
developed during the 19th century un der
colonialism in South Africa.9 It is a
language that was once spoken by “peasants,
the urban proletariat , what ever their ethnic
background, and even the middle class of
civil servants, traders and teachers”.10

[8] Afrikaans is a veritable potpourri of
different languages, melded into what has
been referred to in this Court as “ one of the
cultural treasures of South African national
life, widely spoken and deeply implanted,
the vehicle of outstanding literature, the
bearer of a ri ch scientific and legal
vocabulary and possibly the most creole or
‘rainbow’ of all South African tongues”.11 A
great injustice is being done to Afrikaans
through the contorted hegemonic white
history12 that has been “inculcated by
altyd die jagter vereer”.8 En so is dit ook met
die geskiedenis van die oorsprong en
ontwikkeling van die Afrikaanse taal.

[7] Afrikaans is ’n kreoolse taal wat
ontwikkel het gedurende die 19e eeu onder
kolonialisme in S uidelike Afrika.9 Dit is ’n
taal wat destyds gepraat is deur eenvoudige
grondbewoners, die stedelike werkersklas en
selfs middelklas staatsamptenare, handelaars
en onderwysers.10

[8] Afrikaans is ’n klassieke mengelmoes
van verskillende tale, saamgesmelt tot,
waarna daar in hierdie Hof verwys is as, “een
van die kulturele skatte van Suid-Afrikaanse
nasionale bestaan, wat wyd gebesig word en
diep gesetel is, die medium v an uitnemende
literatuur, die draer van ’n ryk wetenskaplike
en regs -woordeskat en moontlik die mees



9 Giliomee “The Rise and Possible Demise of Afrikaans as
Public Language” (2004) Nationalism and Ethnic Politics
25 (Giliomee II) at 25-7.
9 Giliomee “The rise and possible demise of Afrikaans as
public language” (2004) Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 25
(Giliomee II) op 26-7.

10 Willemse II above n 4 at 3-4. 10 Willemse II n 4 hierbo op 3-4.

11 Per Sachs J in Gauteng Provincial Legislature: In re
Gauteng School Education Bill of 1995 [1996] ZACC 4;
1996 (3) SA 165 (CC); 1996 (4) BCLR 537 (CC) (Gauteng
Provincial Legislature) at para 49.
11 Per Sachs R in Gauteng Provincial Legislature In re:
Gauteng School Education Bill of 1995 [1996] ZACC 4;
1996 (3) SA 165 (CC); 1996 (4) BCLR 537 (CC) (Gauteng
Provincial Legislature) in para 49.


12 Van der Waal “Creolisation and Purity: Afrikaans
Language Politics in Post-Apartheid Times” (2012) African
Studies 71 446 (Van der Waal ) at 449 and 456 . S ee also
Giliomee II above n 9 at 27; Van Heerden Afrikaaps: A
Celebratory Protest Against the Racialised Hegemony of
“Pure” Afrikaans (Master’s thesis, Stellenbosch
University, 2016) (Van Heerden) at 1, 24, 33, 35, 88-9. Van
der Waal states that the creole origin of Afrikaans is
contested. Many linguists minimised the influence of
12 Van der Waal “Creolisation and Purity: Afrikaans
Language Politics in Post -Apartheid Times” African
Studies 71 446 ( Van der Waal ) op 449 en 456; sien ook
Giliomee n 9 hierbo op 27; Van Heerden Afrikaaps: a
celebratory protest against the racialised hegemony of
‘pure’ Afrikaans (Meesters tesis, Universiteit van
Stellenbosch, 2016) ( Van Heerden) op 1, 24, 33, 35, 88 -9.
Van der Waal verklaar dat die kreoolse oorsprong van
Afrikaans betwis word. Verskeie ta alkundiges het bruin
9
Afrikaner Christian national education,
propaganda an d the media” 13 and
shamefully overlooks its equally important
black history.14

[9] During the era of Afrikaner
nationalism,15 a time when the language was
used as a weapon for ethnic mobilisation,
Afrikaans became a cultural symbol of
“Afrikanerness” and national unity. 16
Afrikaans was deployed “to secure power in
kreoolse of ‘reënboog’ van alle Suid -
Afrikaanse tale”. 11 ‘’n Groot onreg word
Afrikaans aangedoen deur die verwronge
oorheersende wit geskiedenis 12 wat
“ingeburger is deur Afrikaner Christelike
nasionale onderwys, propaganda en die
media”13 en wat skaamteloos Afrikaans se
ewe belangrike swart geskiedenis
misken.14141


people of colour on Afrikaans and Giliomee describes the
contested existence of Afrikaans (what I refer to as “white”
history) as follows (Giliomee II above n 9):
“Afrikaans was, in its essence, a dialect of
Dutch that had over time undergone a
limited measure of creolisa tion or
deviation from the basic Dutch structure.”
mense se invloed op Afrikaans tot ‘n minimum beperk en
Giliomee beskryf die betwiste bestaan van Afrikaans (wat
ek die “wit” geskiedenis noem) soos volg (Giliomee II n 9
hierbo):
“Afrikaans was, in its essence, a dialect of
Dutch that had over time undergone a
limited measure of creolisation or
deviation from the basic Dutch structure.”

13 Willemse II above n 4 at 1. 13 Willemse II n 4 hierbo op 1.

14 I refer to the creolisation theory of Afrikaans as the
“black” history of the language, which includes the stories
of all people of colour that are side-lined from the dominant
discourse. See Groenewald Slawe, Khoekhoen en
Nederlandse Pidgins aan die Kaap, CA. 1590 -1720: ’n
Kritiese Ondersoek na die Sosiohistoriese Grondsla e van
die Konvergensieteorie oor die Ontstaan van Afrikaans
(Master’s thesis, University of Cape Town, 2002) at 42 -3;
Van der Waal above n 12 at 449; Willemse II above n 4 at
3-4; Conradie and Groenewald “Die Ontstaan en Vestiging
van Afrikaans” in Carstens and Bosman Die Ontstaan en
Vestiging van Afrikaans (Van Schaik, Pretoria 2014)
(Conradie and Groenewald) at 28; Roberge “The formation
of Afrikaans” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 27 at 34 -
5.
14 Ek verwys na die kreoliseringsteorie van Afrikaans as die
“swart” geskiedenis , wat die stories van alle mense van
kleur wat opsy gestoot is vanaf die oorheersende diskoers
insluit. Sien Groenewald Slawe, Khoekhoen en
Nederlandse Pidgins aan die Kaap, CA. 1590 -1720: ’n
Kritiese ondersoek na die Sosiohistories e Grondslae van
die Konvergensieteorie oor die ontstaan van Afrikaans
(Meesters tesis, Universiteit van Kaapstad, 2002) op 42 -3;
Van der Waal n 12 hierbo op 449; Willemse II n 4 hierbo
op 3 -4; Conradie and Groenewald “Die ontstaan en
vestiging van Afrikaan s” in Carstens en Bosman Die
Ontstaan en Vestiging van Afrikaans (Van Schaik, Pretoria
2014) (Conradie and Groenewald) op 28; en Roberge “The
formation of Afrikaans” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics
27 op 34-5.

15 The era of Afrikaner nationalism arose towards the end of
the 19th century (Giliomee II above n 9 at 30).
15 Die era van Afrikaner nasionalisme het teen die einde van
die 19de eeu ontstaan. (Giliomee II n 9 hierbo op 30).


16 Ponelis The development of Afrikaans (Peter Lang, New
York 1993) at 52 -3 and Van Heerden above n 12 at 22,
citing Pokpas and Van Gensen “Afrikaans en Ideologie in
Taalbeplanning: ’n S tryd van Standpunte” in Webb
Afrikaans ná apartheid (Van Schaik, Pretoria 1992)
(Pokpas and Van Gensen) at 170-1.
16 Ponelis The development of Afrikaans (Peter Lang, New
York 1993) op 52-3 en Van Heerden n 12 hierbo op 22 met
verwysing na Pokpas en Van Gensen “Afrikaans en
Ideologie in Taalbeplanning: ’n Stryd van Standpunte” in
Webb Afrikaans ná apartheid (Van Schaik, Pretoria 1992)
(Pokpas en Van Gensen) op 170-1.


10
the hands of an exclusive group” and
became associated with the
“marginalisation” and “exclusion” of
“uncivilised” Afrikaans speakers.17

[10] There is a compelling argument that
“the endeavour to establish Afrikaans as
‘white’ laid the foundation for ‘racist
nationalism, the rise of Afrikaner hegemony,
and the politics of apartheid ’”.18 As
Willemse explains:

“In the course of the 20th century,
Afrikaner nationalism c laimed
proprietorship of Afrikaans, the first
language of persons from divergent
backgrounds, to such an extent that
a discussion of it also becomes a
discussion about the exclusion of a
significant percentage of Afrikaans
speakers. . . . Historically,
[Afrikaans, as a body of
knowledge,] bears the traces of
conscious disregard and even
continued suppression of a
[9] Gedurende die tydvak van Afrikaner
nasionalisme,15 ’n tyd toe die taal gebruik is
as ’n wapentuig vir etniese mobilisering, het
Afrikaans ’n kulturele simbool van
“Afrikanerskap” en nasionale eenheid
geword.16 Afrikaans was aangewend “om
mag te vestig in die hande van ’n
eksklusiewe groep” en was vereenselwig met
die “marginalisering” en “uitslu iting” van
“onbeskaafde” Afrikaans-sprekendes.17

[10] Daar is ’n oorredende betoog dat die
strewe na “die vestiging van Afrikaans as
‘wit’ die grondslag daarstel vir ‘ rassistiese
nasionalisme, die toename van Afrikaner
oorheersing, en die politiek van
apartheid’”.18 Soos Willemse verduidelik:

“In the course of the 20th century,
Afrikaner nationalism claimed
proprietorship of Afrikaans, the first
language of persons from divergent
backgrounds, to such an extent that a
discussion of it also becomes a
discussion about the exclusion of a
significant percentage of Afrikaans


17 Pokpas and Van Gensen id at 171. What is meant by
“uncivilised” Afrikaans speakers is black Afrikaans
speakers.
17 Pokpas en Van Gensen id op 171. Met “onbeskaafde”
Afrikaanssprekendes word swart Afrikaanssprekendes
bedoel.

18 Van Heerden above n 12 at 23 referring to Hendricks “The
Potential Advantage of an Egalitarian View of the Varieties
of Afrikaans ” in Prah (ed) Mainstreaming Afrikaans
Regional Varieties (Centre for Advanced Studies of African
Society, Cape Town 2012) at 51.
18 Van Heerden n 12 hierbo op 23 met verwysing na
Hendricks “The potential advantage of an egalitarian view
of the varieties of Afrikaans” in Prah (uitg) Mainstreaming
Afrikaans regional varieties (Sentrum vir Gevord erde
Studies van die Afrikaanse Samelewing, Kaapstad 2012) op
51.

11
considerable portion of the
Afrikaans language community.”19

[11] The history of Afrikaans is
multi-faceted. The esta blishment and
existence of the language c annot be
attributed to a single race. Afrikaans
speakers were of different languages , races,
nationalities, and social classes.20 This black
history teaches us that Afrikaans is more
than just the language of “racists, oppressors
and unreconstructed natio nalists”, but
instead that it “bears the imprint of a fierce
tradition of anti -imperialism, anti -
colonialism, of an all-embracing humanism
and anti-apartheid activism”.21

[12] Afrikaans evolved mainly from
Dutch, Malay, Portuguese, Khoi languages,
and Arabic -Afrikaans.22 When the Dutch
colonialists landed at the Cape of Good
Hope in 1652 and established a refreshment
station there, they were compelled to interact
speakers. . . . Historically,
[Afrikaans, as a body of knowledge,]
bears the traces of conscious
disregard and even continued
suppression of a considerable
portion of the Afrikaans lan guage
community.”19

[11] Die geskiedenis van Afrikaans is
veelvuldig in sy fasette. Die vestiging en
bestaan van die taal kan nie bloot toegeskryf
word aan een enkele rassegroep nie.
Afrikaanssprekendes was afkomstig vanaf
verskillende rasse, nasionaliteite en sosiale
stande.20 Hierdie swart geskiedenis dui aan
dat Afrikaans meer is as bloot die taal van
“rassiste, onderdrukkers en ongekorrigeerde
nasionaliste”, maar eerder die “indruk dra
van ‘n vurige tradisie van anti -imperialisme,
anti-kolonialisme, van ’n alles omvattende
menswees en anti-apartheid aktivisme”.21

[12] Afrikaans het grotendeels ontwikkel
vanaf Hollands, Maleis, Portugees, Khoi

19 Van Heerden above n 12 at 23 -4, citing Willemse
“Considering a more multi -faceted Afrikaans” in Prah id,
at 65.
19 Van Heerden n 12 hierbo op 23 -4 met verwysing na
Willemse “Considering a more multi-faceted Afrikaans” in
Prah, id op 65.

20 Van der Waal above n 12 at 449. See also Giliomee II
above n 9 at 25.
20 Van der Waal n 12 hierbo op 449. Sien ook Giliomee II
n 9 hierbo op 25.

21 Willemse II above n 4 at 1 and Van Heerden above n 12
at 31, 66-7, 133.
21 Willemse II n 4 hierbo op 1 en Van Heerden n 12 hierbo
op 31, 66-7, 133.

22 See Conradie and Groenewald above n 14 at 46. See also
the theory of DC Hesseling as described in Van Heerden
above n 12 at 82 -3; Roberge above n 14 at 34 -5; and
Giliomee II above n 9 at 27.
22 Sien Conradie en Groenewald n 14 hierbo op 46. Sien
ook die teorie van DC Hesseling soos beskryf in
Van Heerden n 12 hierbo op 82-3; Roberge n 14 hierbo op
34-5; en Giliomee II n 9 hierbo op 27.

12
with Southern Africa ’s first peoples, the
Khoisan, particularly for purposes of trade.23
Later, probably around the early 1700s,
enslaved people from East Africa and East
Asia were brought to the Cape as forced
labour.24 The colonisers forced the Khoisan
people and the enslaved Eastern people to
speak Dutch, thus manifesting the first roots
of the Afrikaans language. 25 Afrikaans
linguists all agree that the Khoisan and the
enslaved people played important roles in
the origins and development of Afrikaans –
they only differ on whether their roles were
pivotal or less substantial.26

[13] The Cape Mus lim community, that
consisted primarily of enslaved people
brought to the Cape from the Indonesian
tale, en Arabiese Afrikaans. 22142Toe die
Hollandse kolonialiste in 1652 by die Kaap
die Goeie Hoop geland en ’n verversingstasie
daar gevestig het, was hulle genoodsaak om
interaksie te hê met Suider -Afrika se eerste
bewoners, die Khoisan, vernaamlik ten einde
handel te dryf. 23 Later, moontlik teen die
vroee 1700’s, is slawe vanaf Oos -Afrika en
Oos-Asië na die Kaap gebring as dwang
arbeid.24 Die kolonialiste het die Khoisan
mense en die Oosterse slawe gedwing om
Hollands te praat, en sodoende die eerste
grondlegging van Afrikaans bewerkstellig. 25
Afrikaanse letterkundiges is dit eens dat die
Khoisan en die slawe belangrik e rolle
gespeel het in die oorsprong en ontwikkeling
van Afrikaans – hulle verskil slegs of daardie

23 Van Heerden above n 12 at 81. 23 Van Heerden n 12 hierbo op 81.

24 Roberge above n 14 at 53 and Conradie and Groenewald
above n 14 at 39. The Netherlands gained control of the
eastern parts of India when they conquered the Portuguese
ruling there during the 1650s.
24 Roberge n 14 hierbo op 53 en Conradie en Groenewald n
14 hierbo op 39. Nederland het beheer oor die oostelike dele
van Indië verkry toe hulle die regerende Portugese daar in die
1650s verslaan het.

25 Van Heerden above n 12 at 34. See also Valley and
Valley “Hip Hop Masala” (2010) available at
http://kaganof.com/kagablog/?s=hip+hop+masala, who
state that, “ Afrikaans developed as a bridging language to
ease communication between the indigenous people,
imported slaves and their masters.”
25 Van Heerden n 12 hierbo op 34. Sien ook Valley en Valley
“Hip Hop Masala” (2010) beskikbaar by
http://kaganof.com/kagablog/?s=hip+hop+masala, wat
verklaar dat “Afrikaans het ontwikkel as ’n oorbruggingstaal
om die kommunikasie tussen die inheemse volk, die
ingevoerde slawe en hul meesters te vergemaklik”.

26 Giliomee II above n 9 at 27 and Groenewald above n 14
at 4. Scholars draw a distinction between the Philologists’
school of thought and the Creolists. The former takes the
view that Afrikaans developed primarily from dialectical
Dutch, with minor influence from the Khoisan and the
enslaved people. The latter school of thought, on the other
hand, opines that the development of Afrikaans was largely
due to the influence of the enslaved people and the
indigenous Khoisan people.
26 Giliomee II n 9 hierbo op 27 en Groenewald n 14 hierbo op
4. Kenners tref onderskeid tussen die Filoloë se denkrigting
en die van die Kreoliste. Die eersgenoemde is van mening
dat Afrikaans hoofsaaklik uit dialektiese Nederlands
ontwikkel het, met geringe invloed van die Khoisan en die
slawe. Die laasgenoemde denkskool is weer die mening
toegedaan dat die ontwikkeling van Afrikaans grootliks te
wyte was aan die invloed van die slawe en die inheemse Khoi-
en San-mense.


13
archipelago, Bengal, the South Coast of
India, Ceylon (now known as Sri Lanka) and
the East Coast of Africa (including
Madagascar), adopted Afrikaans as thei r
first language during the 1830s.27 This form
of Afrikaans was presented in Arabic text
and was recognised as Arabic -Afrikaans.28
Recently, the role that Arabic played in the
development of Afrikaans has been
recognised.29

[14] Arabic-Afrikaans was predominantly
used in religious contexts (the Islamic Cape
Muslim community studied the Qur’an that
was written in Arabic). 30 One of the first
writings in Afrikaans emanated in 1860 from
a Cape Town madrasah, 31 where a
descendant of enslaved people copied a
rolle deurslaggewend of bloot minder
omvattend was.26143

[13] Die Kaapse Moslemgemeenskap, wat
grootliks bestaan het uit slawe wat na die
Kaap gebring is vanaf di e Indiese
eilandgroep, Bengalie, die Suidkus van
Indië, Ceylon (tans bekend as Sri Lanka) en
die Ooskus van Afrika (insluitende
Madagaskar), het Afrikaans aangeneem as
hul eerste taal gedurende die
1830s.27144Hierdie vorm van Afrikaans is
voorgehou in Arabie se teks en is erken as
Arabiese Afrikaans.28145Die rol wat Arabies
in die ontwikkeling van Afrikaans vervul het,
het onlangs erkenning ontvang.29

[14] Arabiese Afrikaans is oorheersend
gebesig binne godsdienstige raamwerke (die

27 Groenewald above n 14 at 4. It is pointed out that, as long
ago as 1897, Hesseling – widely recognised as the founder
of the history of Afrikaans linguistics – alluded to the
pivotal role that enslaved people played in the development
of Afrikaans.
27 Groenewald n 14 hierbo op 4. Dit word daarop gewys dat
Hesseling, wat al sedert 1897 algemeen erken word as die
stigter van die geskiedenis van die Afrikaanse taalkunde,
verwys het na die deurslaggewende rol wat slawe in die
ontwikkeling van Afrikaans gespeel het.

28 In 1951, Van Selms discovered the role that Arabic played
in the development of Afrikaans. See Davids and Willemse
The Afrikaans of the Cape Muslims (Stigting vir die
Bemagtiging van Afrikaans, Bellville 2018 ) (Davids and
Willemse) at 11.
28 In 1951 ontdek Van Selms die rol wat Arabies in die
ontwikkeling van Afrikaans gespeel het; sien Davids en
Willemse “The Afrikaans of the Cape Muslims” (Stigting
vir die Bemagtiging van Afrikaans, Bellville 2018) (Davids
en Willemse) op 11.

29 Id. The authors opine that th e reason why the Arabic
influence was only discovered in the mid -20th century was
the lack of Afrikaans students and academia who could read
and understand Arabic.
29 Id. Die skrywers is van mening dat die rede waarom die
Arabiese invloed eers in die middel van die 20ste eeu ontdek
is, te wyte is aan die gebrek aan Afrikaanse studente en
akademici wat Arabies kon lees en verstaan.


30 Conradie and Groenewald above n 14 at 52 and Davids
and Willemse above n 28 at 11-3, 16.
30 Conradie en Groenewald n 14 hierbo op 52 en Davids en
Willemse n 28 hierbo op 11-3, 16.

31 A madrasah is an Islamic educational institution. 31 ’n Madrassa is ’n Islamitiese opvoedkundige instelling.




14
prayer in his exercise book. 32 That prayer,
in Arabic script, closely resembles modern
day Afrikaans.33 One of the oldest Afrikaans
books was authored prior to 1867 by
Abubaker Effendi and was titled
Bayān al-Din.34 This guidebook to Islam
was written in Arabic-Afrikaans, a language
that was the bearer of intimate thoug hts and
religion of the literate Cape Muslim
community.35

[15] Van Heerden notes that the
contribution of Arabic -Afrikaans occurred
before the time that Afrikaans was
appropriated as a “white” language:

“Before the appropriation of the
creole language Afrikaans by
‘patriotic male European colonists’
during the late nineteenth century,
‘men introduced the creole language
into t he public sphere’ via ‘[t]he
first book in Afrikaans . . . wri tten
Islamitiese Kaapse Moslem gemeenskap het
die Koran bestudeer wat in Arabies geskryf
is).30 Een van die eerste Afrikaanse geskrifte
het in 1860 ontspruit by ’n madrassa in
Kaapstad,31 waar ’n afstammeling van slawe
’n gebed in sy skryfboek afgeskryf het. 32
Daardie gebed, in Arabie se skrif, het ‘n
nabye ooreenkoms met hedendaagse
Afrikaans.33 Een van die oudste Afrikaanse
boeke is geskryf voor 1867 deur
Abubaker Effendi met die titel van Bayan al-
Din.34 Hierdie handleiding oor Islam is
geskryf in Arabiese Afrikaans, ’n taal wat die
draer was van die intieme gedagtes en
godsdiens van die geletterde Kaapse Moslem
gemeenskap.35

[15] Van Heerden dui aan dat die bydrae
van Arabies e Afrikaans plaasgevind het
voordat Afrikaans toege-eien is as ’n wit taal:


32 Willemse II above n 4 at 1. 32 Willemse II n 4 hierbo op 1

33 Id at 1 -3. Willemse mentions that an even earlier
madrasah exercise book , dating back to 1806, was
discovered by the writer Davids, in his path-breaking The
Afrikaans of the Cape Muslims (above n 28). That would
be the earliest known writing in Afrikaans.
33 Id op 1 -3. Willemse noem dat ’n selfs ouer madrassa -
oefenboek deur die skrywer Davids ontdek is , in sy
baanbrekerswerk The Afrikaans of the Cape Muslims (n 28
hierbo). Dit sou dus die oudste Afrikaanse geskrif wees.

34 Willemse II above n 4 at 3. 34 Willemse II n 4 hierbo op 3.

35 Id. 35 Id.
36 Van Heerden above n 12 at 35, citing Shell Children of
Bondage: A Social History of the Slave Society at the Cape
of Good Hope (University Press of New England, Hanover
1994).
36 Van Heerden n 12 hierbo op 35, met aanhaling van Shell
Children of bondage: A social history of the slave society at
the Cape of Good Hope (University Press of New England,
Hanover 1994).


15
by an imam, a slave descendant’.
However, ‘[slave] owners would
later adopt [Afrikaans]. . . and call it
their own’.”36

Further, Van Heerden notes that:

“The literature first also came from
the black community. If we go back
to the early Muslim sch olars in the
Cape, the teachers, who taught at the
madrassas. This is where
Afrikaans, written with Arabic
script, first emerged. It’s long
before the Bible. The Bible is
translated in the second decade of
the 1900s. We’re talking now about
the last decade of the 1700s, and the
first two decades of the 1800s, is
where Islamic scholars, teachers,
are teaching the children in
Afrikaans, in phonetic Afrikaans,
using Arabic script.”37

[16] By 1870, the mixture of languages in
the Cape was recognised as a distinct
language – Afrikaans.38 It is reported that by
the end of the 19th century, Afrikaans, as a
written medium, experienced a decline.39 As
a spoken language, it suffered against the
“Before the appropriation of the
creole language Afrikaans by
‘patriotic male European colonists’
during the late nineteenth century,
‘men introduced the creole language
into the public sphere’ via ‘[t]he first
book in Afrikaans. . . written by an
imam, a slave descendant’.
However, ‘[slave] owners would
later adopt [Afrikaans]. . . and call it
their own”.

Van Heerden dui verder aan dat:

“The literature first also came from
the black community. If we go back
to the early Muslim scholars in the
Cape, the teachers, who taught at the
madrassas. This is where Afrikaans,
written with Arabic script, first
emerged. It’s long before the Bible.
The Bible is translated in the second
decade of the 1900s. We’re talking
now about the last decade of the
1700s, and the first two decades of
the 1800s, is where Islamic scholars,
teachers, are teaching the children in
Afrikaans, in phonetic Afrikaans,
using Arabic script.”37



37 Van Heerden id at 114. 37 Van Heerden id op 114.
38 Id at 5. 38 Id op 5.
39 Giliomee II above n 9 at 29. 39 Giliomee II n 9 hierbo op 29.
40 Id. 40 Id.



16
dominance of English and Dutch. 40
Following the South African War of
1899-1902 (Anglo -Boer War), Britain
colonised the remainder of South Africa (the
Orange Free State and Transvaal were
Afrikaner Republics with Dutch as the
official language) , and English was
introduced as the official language. 41 In
1909, Dutch and English were recognised by
the South Africa Act42 as languages of equal
force.43 The struggle to replace Dutch with
Afrikaans ensued in the 20th century. At the
forefront was an obscure attorney and poet
who contributed immensely to the
development of Afrikaans literature and
cultural history, CJ Langenhoven, referred
to earlier. 44 However, as Giliomee n otes,
Langenhoven erred grievously when he
described Afrikaans as a “white man’s
language”.45

[17] During the twentieth century,
activists of Afrikaans used the
National Party (NP) as its vehicle to drive
their cause. 46 Most activists, like
[16] Teen 1870 is die mengsel van tale in
die Kaap erken as ‘n aparte taal - Afrikaans.38
Daar is opgeteken dat Afrikaans teen die
einde van die 19 de eeu agteruit gegaan het. 39
Afrikaans as voertaal het gely onder die
oorheersing van Engels en Hollands .40 Na
die Suid-Afrikaanse oorlog vanaf 1899 tot
1902 (Anglo-Boere oorlog), het Brittanje die
res van Suid -Afrika gekolonialiseer (die
Oranje Vrystaat en Transvaal was Afrikaner
republieke met Hollands as die amptelike
taal) en Engels is ingestel as die amptelike
taal.41 In 1909 is Hollands en Engels deur die
Suid-Afrika Wet42 erken as gelykwi gtige
tale.43 Die strewe na die vervanging van
Hollands met Afrikaans het ’n aanvang
geneem gedurende die 20 ste eeu. Aan die
voorgrond was ’n onbekende prokureur en
digter wat beduidend bygedra het tot die
ontwikkeling van Afrikaanse letterkunde en
kulturele geskiedenis, CJ Langenhoven, na
wie vroeër verwys is.44 Maar, soos Giliomee
aanteken, Langenhoven het gruwelik
gefouteer toe hy Afrikaans beskryf het as die
“witman se taal”.45


41 Id. 41 Id.
42 South Africa Act, 1909. 42 Suid-Afrika Wet, 1909.
43 Id at section 137. 43 Id in artikel 137.
44 Giliomee II above n 9 at 34. 44 Giliomee II n 9 hierbo op 34.
45 Id at 35. 45 Id op 35.
46 Id at 36. 46 Id op 36.






17
Langenhoven, chose to fight the battle for
Afrikaans under the “white” flag and they
established a racial community whose
struggle for the adv ancement of Afrikaans
was subordinate t o the entrenchment of
white supremacy, instead of forming a
language community whose social identity
was shaped by the struggle for the
acceptance of Afrikaans as a public language
enjoying similar status as English .47
Giliomee considered the consequences of
this thinking, stating as follows:

“[T]he salience of race had to
diminish and the creed ‘Die taal is
gans die volk’ (the language
constitutes the entire people), which
activists often cited, had to be made
a reality across racial boundaries.”48

[18] The NP pursued a racially motivated
agenda that eventually led to the “historic
exclusivity of the Afrikaners, their culture
and their language”49 and the stance against
Afrikaans by the black citizens of our
country. Afrikaans became the language of
the oppressor: “the medium used when white
policemen arrested [b]lack pass offenders or

[17] Gedurende die twintigste eeu, het
Afrikaanse aktiviste die Nasionale Par ty
(NP) aangewend as die middel om hul saak
te bedryf. 46 Die meeste aktiviste, soos
Langenhoven, het verkies om die stryd vir
Afrikaans te voer onder die “wit” vlag. In
navolging daarvan het hulle ’n
rassegemeenskap gevestig wie se stryd vir
die bevorder ing van Afrikaans ondergeskik
was aan die vestiging van wit oorheersing,
instede daarvan om ’n taalgemeenskap te stig
wie se maatskaplike identiteit gevorm is deur
die stryd vir die aanvaarding van Afrikaans
as ’n openbare taal met soortgelyke status as
Engels.47 Giliomee het die nagevolge van
hierdie gesindheid oorweeg, en die volgende
gesê:

“[T]he salience of race had to
diminish and the creed ‘Die taal is
gans die volk’ (the language
constitutes the entire people), which
activists often cited, had to b e made
a reality across racial boundaries.”48

[18] Die NP het ’n rasgemotiveerde
agenda bedryf wat uiteindelik aanleiding

47 Id. 47 Id.
48 Id. 48 Id.
49 Id at 39. 49 Id op 39.




18
when white civil servants ordered [black
people] or ‘coloured’ people out of their
houses in racially mixed slum areas”. 50
Afrikaans was forced upon the black
community who strongly resisted and, sadly,
the exclusive “white” history replaced the
forgotten “black” history of our language.

[19] It bears emphasis that, to
simplistically style Afrikaans as having a
one-dimensional history and existence as
“the language of the whites” , and as “the
language of the oppressor”, is entirely
misconceived and flies in the face of the true
history of its origins and development
sketched above . As Valley and Valley
explain:

“[W]hile [b]lack students in Soweto
were protesting against the use of
Afrikaans as the la nguage of
instruction, Afrikaans -speaking
‘coloured’ youth joined in the fight
against the government, and used
their Afrikaans to mobilise
communities to fight against the
injustices of the day. Members of
the UDF, Ashley Kriel, Allan
Boesak and Cheryl Carolus come to
mind as some of the youth who were
at the forefront of resistance politics
gegee het tot die “geskiedkundige
eksklusiwiteit van die Afrikaners, hul kultuur
en hul taal”49 en die standpunt teen Afrikaans
wat deur ons land se swart burgers ingeneem
is. Afrikaans het die onderdrukker se taal
geword: “die medium wat gebruik is
wanneer wit polisiemanne swart pas
oortreders gearresteer het, of wanneer wit
staatsamptenare [swart mense] of
‘gekleurde’ mense gelas het om hul huise te
verlaat in ras vermengde krotbuurtes”. 50
Afrikaans was afgeforseer op die swart
gemeenskap wat dit sterk teengestaan het en,
betreurenswaardig, het die eksklusiewe
“wit” geskiedenis die vergete “swart "
geskiedenis van die taal vervang.

[19] Dit moet beklemtoon word dat die
vereenvoudigde aantekening van Afrikaans
se een-dimensionele geskiedenis en bestaan
as “die taal van die witmense” en “die taal
van die onderdrukker”, geheel en al gegrond
is op ’n wanvoorligting wat indruis teen die
ware geskiedenis van die taal se oorsprong en
ontwikkeling soos voorheen aangestip. Soos
Valley en Valley verduidelik:

“[W]hile black students in Soweto
were protesting against the use of
Afrikaans as the language of

50 Id at 42. 50 Id op 42.

19
in Cape Town in the 1970s and
’80s.”51

[20] Afrikaans was undeniably employed
as a tool of oppression – it is part of our very
painful past. As Gasnolar emphasises:
“Afrikaans has a painful history in our
country, and was used by the apartheid
regime to degrade millions, and that past
cannot simply be ignored.”52 But its history
is far more multifaceted and nuanced than
that. Valkhoff explains that “[i] t is not
always either one thing or another in the
evolution of such a delicate social
phenomenon as speech or language”.53 And
as Roberge rightly concludes:

“In the history of Afrikaans it was
not always Dutch or substratum
grammar, but three linguistic
traditions – European, African
(Khoikhoi), and Asian – that have
met and converged with one another
to produce a new whole that is truly
more than the sum of its parts.”54
instruction, Afrikaans -speaking
‘coloured’ youth joined in the fight
against the government, and used
their Afrikaans to mobilise
communities to fight against the
injustices of the day. Members of
the UDF, Ashley Kriel, Allan
Boesak and Cheryl Carolus, come to
mind as some of the youth who were
at the forefront of resistance politics
in Cape Town in the 1970s and
’80s.”51

[20] Afrikaans is ongetwyfeld aangewend
as ’n instrument van onderdrukking – dit is
deel van ons pynlike verlede. Soos Gasnolar
benadruk: “Afrikaans het ’n pynlike verlede
in ons land, en was aangewend deur die
apartheid regime om miljoene mense te
verneder, en daardie verlede kan nie net bloot
ignoreer word nie”. 52 Maar die taal se
geskiedenis is baie meer veelledig en
genuanseerd as dit. Valkhoff verduidelik dat
“[d]it is nie altyd bloot die een of die ander
aspek in die ewolusie van ’n delikate

51 As cited by Van Heerden above n 12 at 85. 51 Soos aangehaal deur Van Heerden n 12 hierbo op 85.
52 Gasnolar “Afrikaans has a Painful History and was Used
to Degrade Millions” (19 November 2015) available at
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2015-11-19-
afrikaans-has-a-painful-history-and-was-used-to-degrade-
millions/#.VzXkl5FcRBe.
52 Gasnolar “Afrikaans has a painful history and was used
to degrade millions” (19 November 2015) beskikbaar by
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2015-11-19-
afrikaans-has-a-painful-history-and-was-used-to-degrade-
millions/#.VzXkl5FcRBe.
53 Valkhoff Studies in Portuguese and Creole, with Special
Reference to South Africa (Witwatersrand University Press,
Johannesburg 1966) at 231.
53 Valkhoff Studies in Portuguese and creole, with special
reference to South Africa (Witwatersrand University Press,
Johannesburg 1966) op 231.




54 Roberge above n 14 at 87. 54 Roberge, n 14 hierbo op 87.
20

[21] While Afrikaans originated out of
oppression and continued to be a tool of
oppression, its subsequent development into
a heterogeneous, “rainbow” 55 language,
spoken today by more black people than
white people, is a marvel lous paradox of
human ingenuity and creativity.
Recognising the major role played by lowly
indigenous peoples and enslaved people in
its history and development is crucial. The
misconception that it is “the language of
whites” and “the language of the oppressor”
is an iniquitous portrayal of the language and
its true roots. It bears repetition that today,
Afrikaans is spoken predominantly by black
people. And it is spoken by black people in
not only so-called “coloured” townships, but
also in many African townships in several
regions in this country. It is the language of
prince and pauper alike, existing
comfortably in academia and the professions
on the one hand, and in every -day parlance
on the other.

[22] It is apt to follow the example of
Froneman J in University of the Free State ,
by borrowing from the world -renowned
South African -born fantasy novelist
maatskaplike verskynsel soos spraak of taal
nie”.53 En soos Roberge tereg opmerk:

“In the history of Afrikaans it was
not always Dutch or substratum
grammar, but three linguistic
traditions - European, African
(Khoikhoi), and Asian - that have
met and converged with one another
to produce a new whole that is truly
more than the sum of its parts.”54

[21] Alhoewel Afrikaans ontstaan het uit
onderdrukking en ’n voortgesette instrument
van onderdrukking was, is sy latere
ontwikkeling tot ’n heterogene, “reënboog”55
taal wat vandag gebesig word deur meer
swartmense as witmense, ’n wonderlike
paradoks van menslike ondernemendheid en
kreatiwiteit. Die erkenning van die
belangrike rol wat eenvoudige inheemse
mense en slawe in die taal se geskiedenis en
ontwikkeling gespeel het, is ontsettend
belangrik. Die wanopvatting van Afrikaans
as “die witmense se taal” en “die taal van die
onderdrukker”, is ’n skreiende
wanvoorstelling van die taal en die ware
oorsprong daarvan. Dit verg herhaling dat
Afrikaans tans oorheersend die taal van
swartmense is. En dit word gebesig deur

55 To borrow from Sachs J in Gauteng Provincial
Legislature above n 11.
55 Ontleen van Sachs R in Gauteng Provincial Legislature
n 11 hierbo.



21
JRR Tolkien, who pointed out that “it is
necessary ‘to distinguish, as far as that is
possible, between languages as such and
their speakers ’ and to remember that
languages ‘are not hostile one to another’”.56
And that it is only when “men are hostile
[that] t he language of their enemies may
share their hatred”.57 In our country, English
has become the mainstream language of
choice through necessity in virtually all
spheres of everyday life, including
commerce, law, culture and education. That
is so, despite i ts colonial heritage.
Universities as intellectual hubs of
transformative constitutionalism must lead
the charge for the decolonisation of
language. The only way to achieve that is to
ensure that all indigenous languages are
progressively introduced as l anguages of
teaching and learning , within the means
reasonably available. In Gelyke Kanse, this
Court recognised that “[e]ndorsing the
University’s 2016 Language Policy a s
conforming with section 29(2) comes at a
cost. Our judgment must acknowledge it.”58
swartmense, nie net in sogenaamde
“kleurling” woonbuurte nie, maar ook in baie
swart woonbuurte in verskeie streke van ons
land. Dit is die taal van beide prinse en hul
onderdane, wat gemaklik bestaan in die
akademie en beroepe aan die een kant, en in
gewone omgangstaal aan die ander kant.

[22] Dit is aangewese om Froneman R se
voorbeeld in University of the Free State na
te volg en te leen vanaf die wêreldbekende
Suid-Afrikaans gebore fantasie skrywer,
JRR Tolkien, wat uitgewys het dat “dit
noodsaaklik is om ‘te onderskei, so ver
moontlik, tussen tal e op sigself, en hul
sprekers’ en om te onthou dat tale ‘nie
vyandiggesind teenoor mekaar is nie’”. 56
Verder moet ons onthou dat “slegs wanneer
mense vyandiggesind is, hul teenstanders se
taal hul vyandiggesindheid sal deel”. 57 In
ons land het Engels die hoof voertaal van
keuse geword, bloot vanweë noodsaak, in
alle sfere van alledaagse lewe, insluitend in
die handel, regte, kultuur en opvoedkunde.
Dit is die geval, ten spyte van die taal se

56 Tolkien “English and Welsh” in Tolkien The Monsters
and the Critics and Other Essays (HarperCollins, London
2013) at 178. As cited in University of the Free State above
n 5 at para 88.
56 “English and Welsh” in Tolkien The Monsters and the
Critics and Other Essays (HarperCollins, Londen 2013) op
178. Soos verwys na in University of the Free State n 5
hierbo in para 88.
57 Id at para 88. 57 Id op para 88.


58 Gelyke Kanse above n 3 at para 47. 58 Gelyke Kanse n 3 hierbo in para 47.
59 Id at para 48. 59 Id op para 48.
22
This Court also cautioned that the
“flood-tide of English” is a real threat to
minority languages, including Afrikaans. 59
The cost and threat in this context were
comprehensively articulated by Froneman J
in his separate concurrence in that matter
and need not be repeated. There, and also in
University of the Free State , he rightly
bemoaned the dominance of English over
other indigenous languages, including
Afrikaans.60

[23] To conclude under this rubric: t he
disturbing tendency of the one -dimensional
portrayal of Afrikaans as a “white
language”, and as “the language of the
oppressor”, is manifestly misconceived, as I
have attempted to show. Afrikaans speakers
must accept , however , that their language
now enjoys equal status with the other ten
official languages. Afrikaans cannot
continue to enjoy its privileged position to
the exclusion of the other indigenous
languages, which were so terribly neglected
under apartheid. That said, it is imperative
to dispute its one -dimensional, skewed
hegemonic whit e history by asserting that
Afrikaans constitutes heterogeneity. We
kolonialistiese afkoms. Universite ite as
intellektuele instellings van hervormende
grondwetlikheid, moet die voortou neem in
die soeke na die dekolonisering van taal. Die
enigste manier om dit te bewerkstellig is om
te verseker dat alle inheemse tale
stelselmatig ingestel word as tale van
onderrig en leer, binne geredelik beskikbare
middele. In Gelyke Kanse het hierdie Hof as
volg toegegee : “die bevestiging dat die
Universiteit se 2016 Taalbeleid voldoen aan
artikel 29(2) kom teen ‘n koste. Ons
uitspraak moet erkenning verleen daaraan”.58
Hierdie Hof het ook gemaan dat “die
vloedgolf van Engels” ’n wesenlike
bedreiging is vir minderheidstale, insluitend
Afrikaans.59 Die koste en bedreiging in
hierdie verband is breedvoerig uiteengesit
deur Froneman R in sy aparte
samestemmende uitspraak in daardie saak en
behoef geen herhaling nie. Daar, en ook in
University of the Free State , het hy tereg
Engels se oorheersing oor ander inheemse
tale, insluitend Afrikaans, bekla.60

[23] Ter afsluiting van hierdie rubriek: die
kommerwekkende tendens van die eensydige
voorhou van Afrikaans as ’n “wit taal” en

60 Id at paras 75 and 79 and University of the Free State
above n 5 at para 93.
60 Id in paragrawe 75 en 79 en University of the Free State
n 5 hierbo in para 93.




23
must remain mindful of Chinua Achebe’s
perspective of history that “until the lions
have their own historians, the history of the
hunt will always glorify the hunter”.61 In the
present context in particular:

“[W]e still have to recognise the
multi-faceted nature of the
Afrikaans speaking community, the
numerical dominance of its black
speakers, and the need to advance
Afrikaans in a multilingual,
all-inclusive antiracist environment,
as a n example and as part of the
development and intellectualisation
of African languages. We also have
to recognise that Afrikaans is at the
core of many fellow South
Africans’ sense of identity, and they
are not necessarily white.”62

[24] Let us turn, then, to the question at the
heart of this matter, which is whether
UNISA’s revised language policy, which
reduces the extent of teaching and learning
in Afrikaans, passes constitutional muster.

Background
[25] UNISA is the sole distance -learning
institution of higher education in
“die onderdrukker se taal”, is gegrond op ’n
skreiende wanvoorligting, soos ek probeer
aantoon het. Afrikaanssprekendes moet
egter aanvaar dat hul taal nou gelyke status
geniet met die ander tien amptel ike tale.
Afrikaans kan nie aanhou om sy bevoorregte
posisie te geniet ten koste van die ander
inheemse tale, wat so verskriklik afgeskeep
is onder apartheid, nie. Daarby gesê, is dit
noodsaaklik om die eensydige, verwronge
oorheersende wit geskiedenis t e bestry deur
Afrikaans se diversiteit te beklemtoon. Ons
moet gedagtig bly aan Chinua Achebe se
perspektief van geskiedenis dat “totdat die
leeus hulle eie geskiedenis skrywers het, sal
die geskiedenis van die jag altyd die jagter
vereer”.61 In die onderhawige verband veral:

“[W]e still have to recognise the
multi-faceted nature of the Afrikaans
speaking community, the numerical
dominance of its black speakers, and
the need to advance Afrikaans in a
multilingual, all -inclusive antiracist
environment, as an example and as
part of the development and
intellectualisation of African
languages. We also have to
recognise that Afrikaans is at the
core of many fellow South Africans’

61 Brooks above n 8. 61 Brooks n 8 hierbo.
62 Willemse II above n 4 at 10. 62 Willemse II n 4 hierbo op 10.



24
South Africa and the largest on the
continent. The vast majority of UNISA’s
students are unable to, or prefer not to, attend
residential universities. UNISA was
established in 1959 and it offered tuition in
both Afrikaans and Engl ish. It emerged
from the University of the Cape of Good
Hope, which was established in 187 3.63
Upon its establishment, UNISA was
incorporated into a distance -learning
university.64 In 2004 it merged with two
other major distance -learning institutions,
Technikon SA and Vista University.65

[26] At the outset, it is useful to expound
UNISA’s 2006 language policy. The stated
objective of the 2006 language policy was to
inform “the use of language in all aspects of
communication of the University, i .e.
tuition, public, internal and external
communication”. It promised, amongst
other things, that UNISA would make
tuition available in the official languages of
South Africa on the basis of functional
multilingualism. While English and
Afrikaans could operate as hi gher
sense of identity, and they are not
necessarily white.”62

[24] Vervolgens behandel ek dan die
kernvraag in hierdie saak, die
grondwetlikheid van UNISA se hersiene
taalbeleid wat die omvang van die onderrig
en leer in Afrikaans verminder.

Agtergrond
[25] UNISA is die enigste tersiêre
instansie in Suid-Afrika wat afstandonderrig
aanbied, dit i s ook die grootste van sy soort
op die kontinent. Die meerderheid van
UNISA se studente is nie in staat , of verkies
om nie by residensiële universiteite te
studeer nie. UNISA is in 1959 gestig en het
onderrig in beide Afrikaans en Engels
aangebied. UNIS A het ontstaan vanuit die
Universiteit van die Kaap die Goeie Hoop,
wat in 187363 gestig is, en is later omskep in
’n universiteit vir afstandsonderrig. 64 In
2004 het UNISA en twee ander groot
instansies vir afstandonderrig, Technikon
Suider-Afrika en Vis ta Universiteit,
saamgesmelt.65

63 UNISA “The Leading ODL University” (2020), available
at
https://www.unisa.ac.za/sites/corporate/default/About/The-
leading-ODL-university.
63 UNISA “The Leading ODL University” (2020)
beskikbaar by
https://www.unisa.ac.za/sites/corporate/default/About/The-
leading-ODL-university.
64 Id. 64 Id.
65 UNISA Access to Information Manual (2006) at 1. 65 UNISA Access to Information Manual (2006) op 1.




25
education-level languages, UNISA would
pro-actively support African languages with
a view to them becoming the medium of
instruction at higher education level. That
2006 language policy was revised in 2010.
According to UNISA, this need for revision
stemmed from a natural attrition of the
demand for Afrikaans, a desire for equality
between Afrikaans and other African
languages as support, rather than as
languages of teaching and learning , and
students’ preference to study in English .
Consequently, a fter 2010, teaching and
learning at UNISA was delivered in terms of
a revised language policy that envisaged the
promotion and advancement of
multilingualism, whilst retaining Afrikaans
and English as languages of teaching and
learning.

[27] In 2012, UNISA int roduced the
“Guidelines for the Discontinuation of
Afrikaans in Certain Modules” (the
Guidelines). The Guidelines operated
together with the revised 2010 policy. In
terms of the Guidelines, all undergraduate
modules were grouped into one of three
categories. These were:
(a) Fully bilingual, English and
Afrikaans, for tuition in any
module that has consistently

[26] Uit die staanspoor is dit van nut om
met UNISA se 2006 taalbeleid te begin. Die
gestelde doelwit van UNISA se 2006
taalbeleid was om “die gebruik van taal in
alle aspekte van kommunikasie van die
Universiteit toe te lig, d.w.s. onderrig,
openbare, interne en eksterne
kommunikasie”. Dit het, onder andere,
beloof dat UNISA onderrig beskikbaar sou
stel in die amptelike tale van Suid -Afrika
volgens die beginsel van funksionele
veeltaligheid. Terwyl Afrikaans en Enge ls
op hoër onderwysvlak as onderrigtaal
gebruik kon word, sou UNISA pro-aktief die
gebruik van ander Afrikatale ondersteun, met
die oog daarop om hierdie tale op hoër
onderwysvlak as onderrigmedium aan te
wend. D aardie 2006 taalbeleid is in 2010
hersien. Volgens UNISA het die behoefte
om die taalbeleid te hersien ontspruit as
gevolg van die natuurlike afname in die
vraag na Afrikaans, ’n strewe na gelykheid
tussen Afrikaans en ander Afrikatale as
ondersteuningstale eerder as taal van leer en
onderrig, as ook die voorkeur van studente
om in Engels te studeer. Gevolglik is leer en
onderrig by UNISA aangebied na 2010
volgens die hersiene taalbeleid, wat die
bevordering van meertaligheid beoog het,
26
not had fewer than 100
Afrikaans students in the last
three years;
(b) Mixed mode delivery in terms
of which all modules that have
consistently had, over the last
three years, between 15 and
100 Afrikaans students in
every registration period,
would automatically
discontinue formal tuition and
printed study material in
Afrikaans; and
(c) English-only modules that
consistently over the previous
three years have had less than
15 Afrikaans students in every
registration period, may
discontinue tuition in
Afrikaans, provided the
Senate Language Committee
(SLC), which was established
by the Senate to review
UNISA’s language policy and,
thereafter, make
recommendations to the
Senate, is informed
accordingly. Departments
would have the option to
continue tuition in Afrikaans
in these modules, but may
terwyl Afrikaans en Engels as onderrigtale
behoue gebly het.

[27] In 2012 het UNISA die “Riglyne vir
die Staking van Afrikaans in Sekere
Modules” (die Riglyne) bekendgestel. Die
Riglyne is in samehang met die hersiene
2010 beleid toegepas. Ingevolge die Riglyne
was alle voorgraadse modules in een van die
volgende drie kategorieë ingedeel. Dit was:
(a) Volkome tweetalig, Engels en
Afrikaans, vir onderrig in
enige module wat oor die
voorafgaande drie jaar
voortdurend nie minder as 100
Afrikaanse studente gehad het
nie;
(b) Gemengde modus aanbieding,
waarvolgens formele onderrig
en gedrukte studiemateriaal
outomaties gestaak sou word
in alle modules wat oor die
voorafgaande drie jaar
voortdurend tussen 15 en 100
Afrikaanse studente in elke
registrasietydperk gehad het;
en
(c) Modules alleenlik in Engels
aangebied wat oor die
voorafgaande drie jaar
voortdurend minder as 15
27
only make study materials
available on a digital platform.
Examination papers for these
modules would be in English,
but with an option to have
Afrikaans papers so that
students would be able to read
the examination papers in
Afrikaans and to answer them
in that language.

[28] After a comprehensive review
process, commencing in 2013, a draft
language policy and its implementation plan,
providing for only English as a language of
teaching and learning , was formulated in
2014. Several meetings followed during the
ensuing two years, in which UNISA’s SLC,
Senate and Council deliberated extensively
on the draft langua ge policy. Acting in
terms of section 27(2) of the Higher
Education Act (the Act),66 UNISA’s Senate
(whose Chairperson is the second applicant)
and Council (whose Chairperson is the first
applicant) decided to adopt this revised
language policy on 30 March 2016 and
28 April 2016 respectively (the impugned
decision).

Afrikaanse studente in elke
registrasietydperk gehad het
kon gestaak word, mits die
Senaat se Taal Kommittee
(STK), wat deur die Senaat
gestig is om UNISA se
taalbeleid te hersien en
aanbevelings aan die Senaat te
maak, dienooreenkomstig
ingelig is. Departemente sou
die opsie hê om onderrig in
hierdie modules in Afrikaans
voort te sit, maar
studiemateriaal moes slegs op
’n digitale platform beskikbaar
gestel word.
Eksamenvraestelle vir hierdie
modules so u in Engels
opgestel word, met die opsie
om Afrikaanse vraestelle
beskikbaar te stel sodat
studente die vraestelle in
Afrikaans kon lees en
beantwoord.

[28] Na afloop van ’n omvattende
hersieningsproses wat in 2013 begin is, is
daar in 2014 ’n konsep taalbelei d en
implementeringsplan geformuleer wat slegs

66 101 of 1997. 66 101 van 1997.

28
[29] Section 27(2) of the Act empowers a
university, subject to the policy framework
determined by the Minister of Higher
Education and Training, through its Council,
and with the concurrence of its Senate, to
determine its language policy, publish it and
make it available upon request. The relevant
policy framework for present purposes is the
Language Policy for Higher Education (the
National Language Policy), established by
the Ministry of Educati on in November
2002.67 The stated objective of UNISA’s
revised language policy was to institute
measures to enhance the status of indigenous
African languages, while also phas ing out
Afrikaans and thereby removing the
guarantee that courses be offered in b oth
Afrikaans and English. In effect, English
became the sole medium of tuition and
vir Engels as leer - en onderrigtaal
voorsiening gemaak het. In die
daaropvolgende twee jaar is verskeie
vergaderings belê waar UNISA se STK, die
Senaat en die Raad breedvoerig beraadslaag
het oor die konsep taalbeleid . Kragtens
artikel 27(2) van die Wet op Hoër
Onderwys,66 het die Senaat (die Senaat se
Voorsitter is die tweede applikant) en die
Raad (die Raad se Voorsitter is die eerste
applikant) onderskeidelik op 30 Maart 2016
en 28 April 2016 besluit om die hersiene
taalbeleid aan te neem (die gewraakte
besluit).

[29] Artikel 27(2) van die Wet bemagtig ‘n
universiteit om deur die Raad en met
goedkeuring van die Senaat, ‘n ta albeleid te
ontwikkel, te publiseer en beskikbaar te stel

67 The National Language Policy’s main objectives are as
follows:
“[T]o promote multilingualism and to
enhance equity and access in higher
education through the development, in
the medium to long -term, of South
African languages as mediums of
instruction in higher education, alongside
English and Afrikaans; [t]he development
of strategies for promoting student
proficiency in designated language(s) of
tuition; [t]he retention and strengthening
of Afrikaans as a language of scholarship
and science; [t]he promotion of the study
of South African languages and literature
through planning and funding incentives;
[t]he promotion of t he study of foreign
languages; and [t]he encouragement of
multilingualism in institutional policies
and practices.”
67 Die Nasionale Taalbeleid se hoof doelwitte is:
“[O]m veeltaligheid te bevorder en om
billikheid en toegang tot hoër onderwys te
versterk deur die ontwikkeling, in die
medium- tot langtermyn, van Suid -
Afrikaanse tale as onderrigmediums in
hoër onderwys, tesame met Engels en
Afrikaans; [d]ie ontwikkeling van
strategiëe om studente vaardigheid in ’n
aangewese taal of tale van onderrig te
bevorder; [d]ie behoud en versterking van
Afrikaans as ’n taal van kundigheid en
wetenskap, [d]ie bevordering van die
studie van ander Suid -Afrikaanse tale en
literatuur deur beplanning- en
befondsings inisiatiewe; [d]ie
bevordering van die studie van
buitelandse tale; en [d]ie aanmoediging
van veeltaligheid in institusionele beleide
en praktyke”.

29
learning. All formal course materials,
assignments and examinations were
available in English only.68

Litigation History
High Court
[30] The respondent, Afri Forum NPC
(AfriForum), launched an application in the
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng
Division, Pretoria, to review and set aside
the language policy because of procedural
irregularities and the policy’s inconsistency
with section 29(2) of the Constitution, and to
interdict the implementation of the policy
pending that review application. 69
AfriForum challenged the legality and
rationality of the language policy. It also
argued that it is not consistent with
section 29(2) of the Constitution, as it does
not accommodate Afrikaans students’ desire
to be taught in the language of their choice,
even though it is reasonably practicable to
do so.

op versoek. Hierdie beleidsbepaling is
onderhewig aan die beleidsraamwerk wat
deur die Minister van Hoër Onderwys en
Opleiding daargestel word. Vir huidige
doeleindes is die relevante beleidsraamw erk
die Taalbeleid vir Hoër Onderwys (die
Nasionale Taalbeleid) wat in
November 2002 deur die Ministerie van
Onderwys bekendgestel is.67 Die verklaarde
doelwit van UNISA se hersiene taalbeleid
was om maatstawwe te implementeer wat die
status van inheemse Afrikatale bevorder en
terselfdertyd Afrikaans uit te faseer en
daardeur die waarborg, dat kursusse in beide
Afrikaans en Engels aangebied sal word, te
verwyder. Die effek was dus dat Engels die
enigste medium van onderrig en leer geword
het. Alle formele kursus materiaal, opdragte
en eksamens was slegs in Engels beskikbaar
gestel.68


68 Clause 4.2.1 of the revised policy unequivocally states:
“The language of learning and teaching in all undergraduate
courses will be English, with scaffolding in other official
languages as outlined in 4.4.” The “scaffolding” refers to
learner support materials and activities.
68 Klousule 4.2.1 van die hersiende taalbeleid verklaar
onomwonde: “Die taal van leer en onderrig in alle
voorgraadse kursusse sal Engels wees, met ondersteuning
in ander amptelike tale soos uiteengesit in 4.4”. Die
“ondersteuning” verwys na studente ondersteunings
materiaal en aktiwiteite.

69 AfriForum v Chairman of the Council of the University of
South Africa [2017] 1 All SA 832 (GP) (High Court
judgment).
69 AfriForum v Chairman of the Council of the University of
South Africa [2017] 1 All SA 832 (GP) (Hooggeregshof
uitspraak).

30
[31] The review application was partly
based on the Promotion of Administrative
Justice Act (PAJA),70 on the assumption that
the impugned decision constituted
administrative action.71 However, after the
institution of the review application, it was
held by this Court in University of the Free
State that the language policy decision taken
in that instance by the University of the Free
State did not constitute administrative action
within the meaning of PAJA. 72 AfriForum
then abandoned its reliance on PAJA , but it
persisted with its challenge on the principle
of legality. That challenge failed in the High
Court.73

[32] The High Court noted that the
constitutional right to receive an education
in the language of one’s choice is qualified
as “tuition in the language of choice must be
‘where that education is reasonably
practicable’”.74 Given the declining demand
for Afrikaans, together with the need for
resources to develop the academic status of
other official languages, the High Court
Litigasie geskiedenis
Hooggeregshof
[30] Die respondent, AfriForum NWO
(AfriForum), het ’n aansoek in die
Hooggeregshof van Suid Afrika, Gauteng
Afdeling, Pretoria (Hooggeregshof ) ingestel
om die taalbeleid te hersien en tersyde te stel
op grond van prosedurele onreëlmatighede
en teenstrydigheid met artikel 29(2) van die
Grondwet. Daarmee saam is aansoek gedoen
vir ‘n interdik om die implementering van die
beleid te verhoed hange nde daardie
hersieningsaansoek.69 AfriForum het die
wetlikheid en rasionaliteit van die taalbeleid
betwis. AfriForum het ook aangevoer dat die
taalbeleid teenstrydig is met artikel 29(2) van
die Grondwet, omrede dit nie Afrikaanse
studente, wat ’n begeerte het om in die taal
van hul keuse te studeer, akkommodeer nie,
ten spyte daarvan dat dit redelik prakties
uitvoerbaar is om dit te doen.

[31] Die hersieningsaansoek was
gedeeltelik gebring in terme van die Wet op
Bevordering van Administratiewe

70 3 of 2000. 70 3 van 2000.

71 High Court judgment above n 69 at para 20. 71 Hooggeregshof uitspraak n 69 hierbo in para 20.

72Id; University of the Free State above n 5 at para 35. 72 Id; University of the Free State n 5 hierbo in para 35.

73 High Court judgment above n 69 at para 21 and 81. 73 Hooggeregshof uitspraak n 69 hierbo in paragrawe 21 en
81.

74 Id at para 28. 74 Id in para 28.

31
found that UNISA was justified , because of
considerations of equity, practicability, and
the need to redress the results of past racially
discriminatory practices, to discontinue the
use of Afrikaans as a language of teaching
and learning.75 There was thus no violation
of the section 29(2) right.

[33] On rationality, the High Court held
that the language policy was rationally
connected to UNISA’s powers in terms of
section 27(2) of the Act and the National
Language Policy. 76 The High Court noted
that, while the National Language Policy in
general supports the retention of Afrikaans
as a language of academi a and science, this
does not prohibit the adoption of policies
that remove Afrikaans. 77 In respect of
legality, the High Court dismissed
AfriForum’s submissions that certain
procedures provided for in the rules of the
Senate had not been com plied with and that
these procedural irregularities rendered the
decision invalid. 78 While certain specific
rules were not complied with – specifically,
no formal vote had occurred and information
was distributed to members later, outside the
Geregtigheid (WBAG)70 op die
veronderstelling dat die gewraakte besluit
administratiewe optrede behels.71 Nadat die
hersieningsaansoek ingestel is, het hierdie
Hof egter in University of the Free State
beslis dat die besluit aangaande die taalbeleid
wat deur die Universiteit van die Vrystaat in
daardie aangeleentheid geneem is, nie
administratiewe aksie soos bedoel in die
WBAG behels nie .72 AfriForum het die
steun op die WBAG laat vaar, maar steeds
voortgegaan met bestryding op grond van die
wetlikheidsbeginsel. Die aansoek in die
Hooggeregshof was onsuksesvol.73

[32] Die Hooggeregshof het genotuleer dat
die grondwetlike reg om onderwys in ’n taal
van eie keuse te ontvang gekwalifiseer word
as “onderwys in die taal van keuse moet wees
‘waar daardie onderwys redelikerwys
doenlik is ’”.74 Gegewe die afname in die
vraag na Afrikaans, tesame met die
hulpbronne wat benodig word om die
akademiese status van die ander amptelike
tale te bevorder, het die Hooggeregshof
bevind dat UNISA se besluit om die gebruik
van Afrikaans as leer - en onderrig taal te

75 Id at para 41. 75 Id in para 41.

76 Id at para 45. 76 Id in para 45.

77 Id. 77 Id.

78 Id at paras 65-72. 78 Id in paragrawe 65-72.

32
official timeframe – the Senate had followed
the rules it created for itself by convention,
which allowed for flexibility. 79 In addition,
the High Court held that Afri Forum could
not rely on Albutt80 as the basis for its
procedural challenge, because th at case did
not give rise to a general principle that public
consultations must occur whenever
institutions de termine policy.81 The High
Court consequently dismissed the review
application.82

Supreme Court of Appeal
[34] With the leave of the High Court,
AfriForum successfully appealed to th e
Supreme Court of Appeal. 83 That Court,
relying on Ermelo,84 emphasised that in an
instance where a student already enjoys the
benefit of being taught in an official
language of their choice, the state has a
negative duty not to diminish this right
staak, geregverdig was vanweë oorweginge
van billikheid, uitvoerbaarheid en die
noodsaaklikheid om die gevolge van rasse
diskriminerende praktyke van die verlede reg
te stel.75 Daar was dus geen skending van die
artikel 29(2) reg nie.

[33] Wat rasiona liteit aanbetref, het die
Hooggeregshof bevind dat die taalbeleid
rasioneel verband hou met UNISA se
bevoegdhede ingevolge artikel 27(2) van die
Wet op Hoër Onderwys en die Nasionale
Taalbeleid.76 Die Hooggeregshof het
genotuleer dat, hoewel die Nasionale
Taalbeleid oor die algemeen die behoud van
Afrikaans as akademiese - en navorsingstaal
ondersteun, dit nie die aanneem van beleid e
wat Afrikaans verwyder, verbied nie. 77 Wat
wetlikheid aanbetref, het die Hooggeregshof
AfriForum se betoog, dat daar nie aan sekere
prosedures wat in die Senaatreëls vervat

79 Id at paras 70-2. 79 Id in paragrawe 70-2.

80 Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and
Reconciliation [2010] ZACC 4; 2010 (3) SA 293 (CC);
2010 (5) BCLR 391 (CC).
80 Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and
Reconciliation [2010] ZACC 4; 2010 (3) SA 293 (CC);
2010 (5) BCLR 391 (CC).

81 High Court judgment above n 69 at paras 78-9. 81 Hooggeregshof uitspraak n 69 hierbo in paragrawe 78-9.

82 Id at para 87. 82 Id in para 87.

83 AfriForum NPC v Chairperson of the Council of the
University of South Africa , unreported judgment of the
Supreme Court of Appeal, Case No 765/2018
(30 June 2020) (Supreme Court of Appeal judgment) at
para 3.
83 AfriForum NPC v Chairperson of the Council of the
University of South Africa; ongerapporteerde uitspraak van
die Hoogste Hof van Appèl, Saak No 765/2018 (30 Junie
2020) (Hoogste Hof van Appèl uitspraak) in para 3.

84 Head of Department, Mpumalanga Department of
Education v Hoërskool Ermelo [2009] ZACC 32; 2010 (2)
SA 415 (CC); 2010 (3) BCLR 177 (CC) (Ermelo).
84 Head of Department, Mpumalanga Department of
Education v Hoërskool Ermelo [2009] ZACC 32; 2010 (2)
SA 415 (CC); 2010 (3) BCLR 177 (CC) (Ermelo).

33
without appropriate justification. In order to
justify the removal of the dual
English/Afrikaans model of teaching and
learning, UNISA had to show that it was not
reasonably practicable to sustain it , but had
failed to do so .85 In addition, the Supreme
Court of Appeal held that the justification
offered by UNISA, based on the availability
of resources, was unconvincing in light of
the normative content of section 29(2) of the
Constitution.86 The Court emphasised that
compliance with section 29(2) goes “beyond
the availability of resources”.87

[35] As for the considerations of equity
that are central to the determination of
reasonable practicability, the Supreme Court
of Appeal held that the facts of the matter are
distinguishable from those in University of
the Free State and Gelyke Kanse.88 UNISA
is a distance -learning university, so there
was no threat of Afrikaans creating
segregated classes or fostering racial
supremacy, the Court reasoned .89
Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Appeal
word voldoen is nie en dat hierdie
prosedurele onreëlmatighede die besluit
ongeldig gemaak het, verwerp. 78 Alhoewel
sekere spesifieke reëls nie nagekom is nie –
meer spesifiek dat daar geen formele
stemproses plaasgevind het nie en dat
inligting eers na afloop van die amptelike
spertydperk aan lede versprei is – het die
Senaat in die besluitnemingsproses, deur
konvensie, eie reëls geskep wat
buigsaamheid moontlik gemaak het. 79
Boonop het die Hooggeregshof b evind dat
AfriForum nie op Albutt80 kan steun as die
basis van die prosedurele argument nie,
omdat Albutt nie ’n algemene beginsel
geskep het wat bepaal dat openbare
konsultasies moet plaasvind wanneer
instellings beleid e bepaal nie. 81 Die
Hooggeregshof h et gevolglik die
hersieningsaansoek van die hand gewys.82

Hoogste Hof van Appèl
[34] Met verlof van die Hooggeregshof het
AfriForum suksesvol appèl aangeteken na
die Hoogste Hof van Appèl. 83 Daardie Hof,

85 Supreme Court of Appeal judgment above n 83 at paras
35-7, 47.
85 Hoogste Hof van Appèl uitspraak n 83 hierbo in
paragrawe 35-7, 47.

86 Id at para 38. 86 Id in para 38.

87 Id. 87 Id.

88 Id at para 42. 88 Id in para 42.

89 Id. 89 Id.

34
concluded that UNISA had failed to
establish that the adoption of its new policy
in 2016 was conducted in a constitutionally
compliant manner and did not detract from
the section 29(2) right without appropriate
justification.90 The Supreme Court of
Appeal declared the adopted language
policy unconstitutional and unlawful and set
it aside. 91 It ordered UNISA to reinstate
Afrikaans modules that have been
discontinued pursuant to the adoption of the
language policy.92

[36] In upholding the appeal with costs,
the Supreme Cou rt of Appeal issued the
following order:

“The order of the court a quo is set
aside and replaced with the
following:
(a) the resolutions of the
Council and Senate of the
University of South Africa
to approve a new language
policy on 28 April and
30 March 2016,
respectively, are set aside;
(b) the new language policy
adopted by the University
of South Africa is declared
wat op Ermelo84 gesteun het, het beklemtoon
dat die staat, in ‘n geval waar ‘n student reeds
onderrig ontvang in ‘n amptelike taal van eie
keuse, ’n negatiewe plig het om nie sonder
behoorlike regverdiging hierdie reg te beperk
nie. Om die verwydering van die
dubbelmedium (Engels/Afrikaans) model
van onderrig en leer te regverdig, moes
UNISA bewys dat dit nie redelik uitvoerbaar
was om die model te onderhou nie ,85 maar
het hierin misluk. Verder het die Hoogste
Hof van Appèl bevind dat die regverdiging
wat UNISA voorgehou het, wat verband
gehou het met die be skikbaarheid van
hulpbronne, nie oortuigend was nie, gegewe
die normatiewe aard van artikel 29(2) van die
Grondwet.86 Die Hof het daarop gewys dat
die nakoming van artikel 29(2) “meer verg as
die beskikbaarheid van hulpbronne”.87

[35] Ten opsigte van die
billikheidsoorwegings, wat die kern van die
bepaling van redelike uitvoerbaarheid vorm,
het die Hoogste Hof van Appèl bevind dat
die feite van die aangeleentheid onderskei
kan word van dié in University of the Free
State en Gelyke Kanse.88 Aangesien UNISA

90 Id at para 47. 90 Id in para 47.

91 Id at para 48. 91 Id in para 48.

92 Id. 92 Id.

35
unconstitutional and
unlawful and is set aside to
the extent that Afrikaans
has been removed as a
language of learning and
tuition;
(c) the University of South
Africa shall prominently
publish on its website and
in three major Afrikaans
newspapers in South Africa
and transmit by email to all
its students a notice:
(i) containing a full
list of the modules
that were on offer
in Afrikaans as at
28 April 2016;
(ii) offering all
prospective
students for the
next academic year
admission in such
modules as
presented on first
year level;
(iii) offering all existing
students, if they
were enrolled in
any one of those
courses or would
have enrolled for
the subsequent year
course available in
Afrikaans, but had
perforce to follow
afstandsonderrig bied, was daar geen
bedreiging dat Afrikaans aparte klasse sou
skep of rasseoorheersing sou bevorder nie. 89
Die Hoogste Hof van Appèl het tot die
slotsom gekom dat UNISA versuim het om
aan te toon dat die aanvaarding van die nuwe
taalbeleid in 2016 op ‘n grondwetlike wyse
geskied het en nie sonder regverdiging die
artikel 29(2) reg beperk het nie. 90 Die
Hoogste Hof van Appèl het die aanvaarde
taalbeleid ongrondwetlik en onwettig
verklaar en dit tersyde gestel. 91 Die Hof het
UNISA gelas om die Afrikaanse modules,
wat op grond van die nuwe taalbeleid gestaak
is, weer in te stel.92

[36] Die Hoogste Hof van Appèl het die
appèl met koste gehandhaaf en die volgende
bevel uitgereik:

“Die bevel van die hof a quo word
tersyde ge stel en vervang met die
volgende:
(a) die resolusie van die Raad
en Senaat van die
Universiteit van Suid Afrika
op 28 April en 30 Maart
2016 onderskeidelik om ’n
nuwe taalbeleid goed te
keur, word tersyde gestel;
(b) die nuwe taalbeleid wat deur
die Univer siteit van Suid
36
the module in
English, a choice to
enrol on the basis
that they may
follow the module
in Afrikaans until
completion of their
studies;
(iv) all the modules
mentioned above
will be presented in
full in the
following
academic years
until the language
policy has been
lawfully amended,
if at all.”93

In this Court
[37] UNISA argues that the Supreme
Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the
information that was before the Senate and
Council was not sufficient to comply with
the reasonable practicability requirement.
This is so because, as set out in
Gelyke Kanse, the constitutional criterion of
reasonable practicability under section 29(2)
is objective. UNISA contends that the
continued provision of Afrikaans language
modules at UNISA is not reasonably
practicable. Th at is due to the low and
Afrika aanvaar is, word
ongrondwetlik en onwettig
verklaar en word tersyde
gestel tot die mate dat dit
Afrikaans as leer - en
onderrigtaal verwyder;
(c) die Universiteit van Suid
Afrika moet prominent ’n
kennisgewing op sy
webwerf en in drie groot
Afrikaanse koerante in Suid
Afrika publiseer en per e -
pos aan al sy studente stuur
wat:
(i) ’n volledige lys van
die modules wat op
28 April 2016 in
Afrikaans
aangebied is bevat;
(ii) alle voornemende
studente vir die
komende
akademiese jaar
toelating bied in
modules soos op
eerstejaarsvlak
aangebied;
(iii) aan alle bestaande
studente, indien
hulle ingeskryf was
vir een van daardie
kursusse of sou
inskryf vir die

93 Id. 93 Id.

37
dwindling demand for courses in Afrikaans,
and the need for equity in language policy so
that past imbalances may be red ressed.
UNISA also invokes the substantial
attendant costs and language demographics.

[38] UNISA points to the following
shortcomings in the reasoning of the
Supreme Court of Appeal:
(a) It failed to appreciate the
objective nature of the test
under section 2 9(2),
manifested by its conclusion
that UNISA made a mistake of
law in its interpretation of the
right in section 29(2).
(b) It took issue with UNISA’s
attempts to rely on evidence
that had not served before the
Senate or Council.
(c) It erred in departing from the
Plascon-Evans94 rule in
respect of the facts upon
which the objective test was to
be applied.
(d) It erred in accepting
AfriForum’s argument on cost
containment that study
daaropvolgende
jaarkursus wat in
Afrikaans
beskikbaar is, maar
die module in
Engels moes neem,
’n keuse bied om in
te skryf met die
verstandhouding
dat hulle die module
in Afrikaans kan
neem tot voltooiing
van hul studies;
(iv) al die bogenoemde
modules in die
daaropvolgende
akademiese jare
volledig aangebied
sal word totdat die
taalbeleid we ttiglik
gewysig is, indien
wel.”93

In hierdie Hof
[37] UNISA voer aan dat die Hoogste Hof
van Appèl gefouteer het deur tot die slotsom
te kom dat die inligting wat voor die Senaat
en die Raad was, nie voldoende was om aan
die redelike uitvoerbaarheidsvereiste te
voldoen nie. Dit is omrede, soos wat in
Gelyke Kanse beslis is, die grondwetlike

94 Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty)
Ltd [1984] ZASCA 51; 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) ( Plascon-
Evans).
94 Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty)
Ltd [1984] ZASCA 51; 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) ( Plascon-
Evans).

38
materials could be provided
online and that English
modules could cross-subsidise
Afrikaans modules.

[39] It is forcefully contended on behalf of
UNISA that in applying an objective test,
there is no concern with how the decision -
maker understood her discretion, what her
subjective reasons were for the decision , or
what did or did not serve bef ore her when
making the decision. All that matters is
whether that decision is justified on the facts
before the Court. In support of this
proposition, UNISA cites Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers.95 UNISA contends that, in
determining the objective facts, a court
applies the ordinarily applicable evidentiary
rules. In motion proceedings, that entails
applying the so-called Plascon-Evans test.96

[40] UNISA denies that its decisions were
irrational, contending that it did not
“remove”, “abolish”, “eradicate”,
“abandon” or “do away with ” Afrikaans
tuition. Instead, the new language policy
maatstaf van redelike uitvoerbaarheid
kragtens artikel 29(2), objektief is. UNISA
beweer dat die voortges ette aanbied van
modules in Afrikaans by UNISA nie redelik
uitvoerbaar is nie. Dit is as gevolg van die
lae en kwynende vraag na kursusse in
Afrikaans, en die behoefte aan billikheid in
’n taalbeleid, sodat die wanbalanse van die
verlede reggestel kan wor d. UNISA steun
ook op die aansienlike gepaardgaande koste
en taaldemografie.

[38] UNISA wys op die volgende
tekortkominge in die beredenering van die
Hoogste Hof van Appèl:
(a) Dit het nie die objektiewe aard
van die toets ingevolge artikel
29(2) begryp nie, wat blyk uit
die hof se gevolgtrekking dat
UNISA ’n regsfout begaan het
met die interpretasie van
artikel 29(2);
(b) Dit het fout gevind met UNISA
se poging om te steun op
bewyse wat nie voor die Senaat
of die Raad gedien het nie;

95 Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associ ation of South
Africa: In re Ex Parte President of the Repu blic of South
Africa [2000] ZACC 1; 20 00 (2) SA 674 (CC); 2000 (3)
BCLR 241 (CC) ( Pharmaceutical Manufacturers) at paras
88-90.
95 Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Sou th
Africa: In re Ex Parte President of the Republic of South
Africa [2000] ZACC 1; 2000 (2) SA 674 (CC); 2000 (3)
BCLR 241 (CC) ( Pharmaceutical Manufacturers ) in
paragrawe 88-90.

96 Plascon-Evans above n 94 at 634E-635C, cited at para 16
of Gelyke Kanse above n 3.
96 Plascon-Evans n 94 hierbo op 634E-635C, na verwys in
para 16 van Gelyke Kanse n 3 hierbo.

39
preferred English as the language of
teaching and learning , whilst placing
Afrikaans on the same footing as the other
official languages. Tuition in Afrikaans and
the other of ficial languages was being
offered where there is capacity, with learner
support in the student’s language, and with
the intent that Afrikaans’ development as
well as that of the other official languages
should be promoted . This, UNISA points
out, is bes t reflected in clause 4.2.3 of the
new language policy, which provides:

“Where there is capacity, a selected
number of modules and
programmes will progressively be
offered in more than one official
South African language i n order to
support relevant national policies.”

It contends that this provision moves the
university’s new language policy into a
“realm of genuine multilingualism”.
Whereas the previous language policy
entrenched English and Afrikaans whilst
paying lip service to developing other
African languages, the new language policy
enables UNISA to offer courses in African
languages as well as in Afrikaans.

[41] On remedy, UNISA points to the
practical difficulties of reinstating modules
(c) Dit het gefouteer deu r af te
wyk van die Plascon-Evans94
reël ten opsigte van die feite
waarop die objektiewe toets
toegepas moes word;
(d) Dit het gefouteer deur
AfriForum se betoog, dat
studiemateriaal aanlyn verskaf
kan word en vir
kruissubsidiëring deur Engelse
modules om koste te bespaar,
te aanvaar.

[39] Dit word heftig namens UNISA
aangevoer dat by die toepassing van ’n
objektiewe toets dit nie saak maak hoe die
besluitnemer haar diskresie verstaan het nie,
wat haar subjektiewe redes vir die besluit
was nie, en wat wel en wa t nie voor haar
gedien het tydens die neem van die besluit
nie. Al wat tersaaklik is, is of die besluit
geregverdig is deur die feite voor die Hof. As
steun vir hierdie betoog, verwys UNISA na
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers. 95 UNISA
beweer dat by die bepa ling van die
objektiewe faktore, ’n hof die gewone
toepaslike bewysreëls toepas. In
mosieverrigtinge behels dit die toepassing
van die sogenaamde Plascon-Evans toets.96

40
that have been discontinued fo r four years,
which will require extensive resources
without any guarantee that any , or a
substantial number of, students will register
for the modules. In addition, the
reinstatement of the modules would be the
same as introducing the modules afresh in
Afrikaans, so that equity would require that
the modules be offered in the nine other
official languages as well. UNISA therefore
challenges the orders granted by the
Supreme Court of Appeal. It submits that
the appropriate remedy would rather have
been to suspend any order of invalidity of the
decisions adopting the new language policy,
so as to enable UNISA to consider what
changes to make to the policy. In the event
of this Court dismissing its appeal, UNISA
requests that the order of invalidity be
suspended until the beginning of the 2023
academic year, to enable it to implement an
order properly, or to amend its language
policy in a constituti onally compliant
manner.

[42] AfriForum argues that section 29(2)
requires UNISA , as an organ of state , to
consider all reaso nable alternatives and to
take into account equity, practicability and
the need to redress the injustices of the past.
UNISA did not do this and has contended
[40] UNISA ontken dat die besluite
irrasioneel was, en beweer dat dit nie
Afrikaanse onderrig “verwyder”, ”afgeskaf”,
“uitgeroei”, “weggelaat” of “mee
weggedoen het” nie. Die nuwe taalbeleid het
eerder Engels as taal van leer en onderrig
verkies, terwyl Afrikaans op dieselfde
grondslag as die ander amptelike tale geplaas
is. Onderrig in Afrikaans en in die ander
amptelike tale word aangebied waar daar
kapasiteit is, met leerder ondersteuning in die
student se taal, en met die bedoeling dat
Afrikaans en die ander amptelike tale
bevorder behoort te word. UNISA wys
daarop dat dit die beste weerspieël word in
klousule 4.2.3 van die nuwe taalbeleid, wat
bepaal:

“Where there is capacity, a selected
number of modules and programmes
will progressively be offered in more
than one official South African
language in order to support relevant
national policies.”

UNISA beweer dat hierdie bepaling die
universiteit se nuwe taalbe leid laat
aanbeweeg na “’n milieu van ware
meertaligheid”. Terwyl die vorige taalbeleid
Engels en Afrikaans verskans het en slegs
lippediens bewys het ten aansien van die
ontwikkeling van ontwikkelende Afrika tale,
41
that this is an obligation borne by the state,
not itself. Nor did UNISA present any
evidence to show that formal tuition in
Afrikaans would detract from the
development of tuition in any other
languages, or conduct a study on the demand
for Afrikaans courses. AfriForum argues
that the statistics which UNISA does present
should be rejected, as they are not accurate.
On the question of equity, it argues that
UNISA failed to show that it would not be
able to offer the benefits of the new language
policy to students whose first language is
neither English nor Afrikaans, while
retaining Afrikaans as a language of
teaching and learning.

[43] AfriForum submits that UNISA bears
the “negative burden” of establishing
“appropriate justification” for why the right
to receive education in the language of one’s
choice should be abrogated. The
justification must address the criterion of
“reasonable practicability” referred to in
section 29(2), and UNISA has failed to do
so. In addition, UNISA did not consult with
affected students before deciding to
implement the language policy, and the
Senate’s de cision to a pprove the language
policy did not comply with the procedural
requirements of section 27(2) of the Act.
stel die nuwe taalbeleid UNISA in staat om
kursusse in ander Afrika tale sowel as
Afrikaans aan te bied.

[41] Ten aansien van die remedie, verwys
UNISA na die praktiese struikelblokke om
modules weer in te stel wat al vir vier jaar
gestaak is, wat omvattende hulpbronne
vereis sonder enige waarborg dat studente vir
die modules sal registreer. Die herinstel van
die modules sal verder dieselfde uitwerking
hê as om die modules in Afrikaans opnuut in
te stel. Billikheid sou derhalwe vereis dat die
modules ook in die ander nege amptelike tale
aangebied m oes word. UNISA betwis
gevolglik die bevele uitgereik deur die
Hoogste Hof van Appèl. Die submissie word
verder voorgehou dat die gepaste remedie
eerder sou wees om die bevel van die
ongeldigheid van die besluite om die nuwe
taalbeleid aan te neem, op te skort ten einde
UNISA in staat te stel om veranderinge aan
die taalbeleid te oorweeg. Ingeval hierdie
Hof die appèl van die hand sou wys, versoek
UNISA dat die bevel van ongeldigheid
opgeskort word tot die begin van die 2023
akademiese jaar ten einde dit in staat te stel
om die bevel behoorlik te implementeer, of
om die taalbeleid te wysig op ’n
grondwetlike wyse.

42

[44] In the alternative, AfriForum argues
that UNISA’s decision was irrational and not
authorised by law. On rationality, it argues
that the Sen ate and Council failed to have
regard to relevant considerations and to
consult persons who would be most directly
affected by the decisions. In respect of
legality, AfriForum argues that the Senate
did not comply with its own rules. And on
remedy, it submits that the order of the
Supreme Court of Appeal is just and
equitable. That order does not mean that
UNISA is required to reinstate Afrikaans
modules that had already been discontinued
under the Guidelines at the time when t he
new policy was adopted. There is
accordingly no merit in UNISA’s contention
that the order goes further than reinstating
the status quo ante as at 28 April 2016.

Jurisdiction and leave to appeal
[45] This matter concerns a fundamental
right in section 29(2) of the Constitution and,
as stated, it is the latest in a trilogy of cases
on the policy of Afrikaans as a language of
teaching and learning . The source of
UNISA’s power to determine language
policy is section 27(2) of the Act , which
emanates from section 29(2) of the
[42] AfriForum betoog dat artikel 29(2)
van UNISA, as ’n staatsorgaan, vereis om
alle redelike alternatiewe te oorweeg en om
billikheid, uitvoerbaarheid, en die noodsaak
om die ongeregtighede van die verlede reg te
stel. UNISA het dit nie gedoen nie, en
beweer eerder dat dit ‘n verpligting is wat op
die staat rus, en nie op UNISA nie. UNISA
het ook nie enige bewyse voorgelê wat
aantoon dat formele onderrig in Afrikaans
afbreuk sal doen aan die ontwikkeling van
onderrig in ander tale, of ’n studie
onderneem oor die behoefte vir Afrikaanse
kursusse nie. Die statistieke wat UNISA wel
voorlê moet verwerp word, aangesien dit nie
akkuraat is nie. Aangaa nde billikheid,
beweer AfriForum dat UNISA versuim het
om te toon dat dit nie in staat sou wees om
die voordele van die nuwe taalbeleid aan
studente te bied wie se huistaal nie Engels of
Afrikaans is nie, en terselfdertyd Afrikaans
as ’n taal van leer en onderrig te behou.

[43] AfriForum voer aan dat UNISA die
“negatiewe bewyslas” dra om “gepaste
regverdiging” aan te toon waarom die reg om
onderrig in jou taal van keuse te ontvang
afgeskaf moet word. Die regverdiging moet
die maatstaf van “redelike uitvoerbaarheid”,
soos na verwys in artikel 29(2), aanspreek, en
UNISA het misluk om aldus te doen. Verder
43
Constitution. UNISA was thus exercising
public power when it took the impugned
policy decision, and that policy is
reviewable under the doctrine of legality. 97
It is now settled that the question whether an
official language that has been developed to
convey complex scientific and technical
concepts and which has been a medium of
instruction for many decades could lose its
status as a medium of instruction, is a
constitutional issue.98 Furthermore, the
history and sensitivity of the choice of a
specific language as a medium of
instruction, Afrikaans in particular,
ordinarily raise s a point of law of general
public importance.99

[46] Like University of the Free State and
Gelyke Kanse , the issues here engage our
jurisdiction and it is in the interests of justice
to hear the matter. Leave should therefore
be granted.

Section 29(2) of the Constitution
[47] Having examined the socio -political
space occupied by Afrikaans, we must turn
het UNISA nie die geaffekteerde studente
geraadpleeg voor die besluit geneem is om
die taalbeleid te implementeer nie, en die
Senaat se besluit om die taalbeleid goed te
keur he t nie voldoen aan die prosedurele
vereistes van artikel 27(2) van die Wet.

[44] As alternatief voer AfriForum aan dat
UNISA se besluit irrasioneel was en nie
regtens gemagtig word nie. Betreffende
rasionaliteit, betoog AfriForum dat die
Senaat en die Raad ver suim het om die
tersaaklike oorwegings in ag te neem en om
die persone wat die meeste geraak gaan word
deur die besluit te raadpleeg. Ten aansien
van wetlikheid, betoog AfriForum dat die
Senaat nie sy eie reëls nagekom nie. Wat die
remedie aanbetref, voe r AfriForum aan dat
die uitspraak van die Hoogste Hof van Appèl
regverdig en billik is. Dié bevel beteken nie
dat daar van UNISA vereis word om modules
wat alreeds onder die Riglyne gestaak is toe
die beleid aangeneem was, weer in te stel nie.
Daar is gevolglik geen meriete in UNISA se
aanname dat die bevel verder gaan as om die
status quo ante soos op 28 April 2016 te
herstel nie.

97 University of the Free State above n 5 at para 37. 97 University of the Free State n 5 hierbo in para 37.

98 Id at para 38. 98 Id in para 38.

99 Id. 99 Id.

44
our attention to its position in the law.
Section 29(2) of the Constitution provides:

“Everyone has the right to receive
education in the official language or
languages of their choice in publi c
educational institutions where that
education is reasonably practicable.
In order to ensure th e effective
access to, and implementation of,
this right, the state must consider all
reasonable educational alternatives,
including single medium
institutions, taking into account—
(a) equity;
(b) practicability; and
(c) the need to redress the
results of past racially
discriminatory laws and
practices”.

[48] The section, which consists of “ two
distinct but mutually reinforcing parts”, 100
entrenches a qualified right to be taught in a
preferred official language at a public
institution of learning. The qualification is
one of reasonable pract icability,101 that
consists of both factual and normative
components.102 Factually, the question of
practicability, relates to resource constraints

Jurisdiksie en verlof tot appèl
[45] Hierdie saak handel oor ’n
fundamentele reg in artikel 29(2) van die
Grondwet, en soos vermeld, is dit die nuutste
in ’n trilogie van sake wat verband hou met
beleidsbesluite oor Afrikaans as ’n medium
van opvoeding en onderrig. Die bron van
UNISA se bevoegdheid om die taalbeleid te
bepaal is artikel 27(2) van die Wet, wat
voortspruit uit artikel 29(2) van die
Grondwet. UNISA het derhalwe ’n openbare
bevoegdheid uitgeoefen toe die gewraakte
beleidsbesluit geneem is, en dié beleid is
hersienbaar onder die wetlikheids beginsel.97
Dit is nou gevestigde reg dat die vraag of ’n
amptelike taal, wat ontwikkel is om
komplekse wetenskaplike en tegniese
konsepte oor te dra, wat vir dekades ’n
medium van onderrig was en nou moontlik
daardie status kan verloor, ’n grondwetlike
vraagstuk is. 98 Verdermeer is die
geskiedenis en sensitiwiteit van taal as ’n
medium van onderrig, veral Afrikaans,
gewoonlik ’n regspunt van algemene
openbare belang.99


100 Ermelo above n 84 at para 52. 100 Ermelo n 84 hierbo in para 52.

101University of the Free State above n 5 at paras 53-4. 101 University of the Free State n 5 hierbo in paragrawe 53-4.

102 Id at para 113. 102 Id in para 113.

45
and the feasibility of adopting a particular
language policy. The norm ative aspect
concerns the legal standard o f
reasonableness, to be tested against
constitutional norms which include equity,
the need for redress of past discriminatory
laws and practices, and non-racialism.

[49] With reference to Ermelo,103 this
Court described the process of establishing
what “reasonable practicability” entails as
follows:

“After the words ‘where that
education is reasonably practicable’
in section 29(2) follow factors to be
[46] Soos in University of the Free State en
Gelyke Kanse , betrek die regsvrae hier ons
jurisdiksie en dit is in die belang van
geregtigheid om die aangeleentheid aan te
hoor. Verlof tot appèl moet dus toegestaan
word.

Artikel 29(2)
[47] Noudat die ondersoek na die sosio -
politiese spasie wat deur Afrikaans ingeneem
word afgehandel is, moet ons ons aa ndag
verskuif na Afrikaans se posisie in die reg.
Artikel 29(2) van die Grondwet bepaal:


103 Ermelo above n 84 at paras 52 and 53, where this Court
explained:
“When it is reasonably practicable to
receive tuition in a language of one’s
choice will depend on all the relevant
circumstances of each particular case. . . .
In short, the reasonableness standard built
into section 29(2)(a) imposes a context
sensitive understanding of each claim for
education in a language of choice. . . . It
must follow that when a learner already
enjoys the benefit of being taught in an
official language of choice the [s]tate
bears the negative duty not to take away
or diminish the right without appropriate
justification. . . . The second part of
section 29(2) of the Constitution points to
the manner in which the [s]tate must
ensure effective access to and
implementation of the r ight to be taught
in the language of one’s choice. . . . In
resorting to an option, such as a single or
parallel or dual medium of instruction,
the [s]tate must take into account what is
fair, feasible and satisfies the need to
remedy the results of past racially
discriminatory laws and practices.”
103 Ermelo n 84 hierbo in paragrawe 52 en 53 waar hierdie hof
verduidelik het:
“When it is reasonably practicable to
receive tuition in a language of one’s
choice will depend on all the relevant
circumstances of each particular case . . . .
In short, the reasonableness standard built
into section 29(2)(a) imposes a context
sensitive understanding of each claim for
education in a language of choice . . It must
follow that when a learner already enjoys
the benefit of being taught in an official
language of choice the state bears the
negative duty not to take away or diminish
the right without appropriate justification .
. . The second part of section 29(2) of the
Constitution points to the manner in which
the state must ensure effective access to and
implementation of the right to be taught in
the language of one’s choice. . . . In
resorting to an option, such as a single or
parallel or dual medium of instruction, the
State must take into account what is fair,
feasible and satisfies the need to remedy the
results of past racially dis criminatory laws
and practices.”

46
considered in an endeavour to give
effect to ‘the right to receive
education in the official language or
languages of their choice ’. This
subsection insists on ‘all reasonable
educational alternatives ’ being
explored. To avoid lip service to
this fundamental right, concrete
albeit broad options are alluded to
for ‘effective access ’ to it or its
possible practical enjoyment . . .
section 29(2) requires ‘(a) equity;
(b) practicability; and (c) the need to
redress the results of past racially
discriminatory laws and practices ’,
to feature prominently in exploring
the possibility of offering education
in an official language of choice.
They relate to equality,
responsiveness and non -racialism.
And all reasonable educational
alternatives must be investigated
within this context and with this
purpose high on the list of
instructive factors.”104

[50] The right to education in a language
of one’s choice is entrenched in
section 29(2), circumscribed only by
appropriateness and reasonableness. 105 In
that respect, it is aligned with international
“Elkeen het die reg om in openbare
onderwysinstellings onderrig te
ontvang in die amptelike taal of tale
van eie keuse waar daardie onderrig
redelik uitvoerbaar is. Ten einde die
doeltreffende toegang tot, en
verwesenliking van hierdie reg, te
verseker, moet die staat alle redelike
onderrig alternatiewe, met inbegrip
van enkelmedium instellings,
oorweeg, met inagneming van—
(a) billikheid;
(b) uitvoerbaarheid; en
(c) die noodsaak om die
gevolge van wette en
praktyke van die verlede wat
op grond van ras
gediskrimineer het, reg te
stel.”

[48] Hierdie artikel, wat bestaan uit “twee
onderskeibare maar wedersyds versterkende
dele”100 vestig ’n gekwalifiseerde reg om
onderrig t e word in ’n amptelike taal van
keuse by ’n openbare onderwysinstelling.
Die kwalifikasie is een van redelike
uitvoerbaarheid,101 wat bestaan uit beide
feitelike en normatiewe komponente. 102
Feitelik het die vraag oor uitvoerbaarheid
betrekking op hulpbronbeperkings en die

104 University of the Free State above n 5 at paras 47-8. 104 University of the Free State n 5 hierbo in paragraaf 47-8.

105 Gelyke Kanse above n 3 at para 21. 105 Gelyke Kanse n 3 hierbo in para 21.

47
instruments.106 In University of the Free
State, this Court expounded:

“Reasonableness within the context
of section 29(2) demands that
equity, practicability and the critical
need to undo the damage caused by
racial discrimination, also be the
intrinsic features of the decision -
making process relating to effective
access to education in a language of
choice. For they are some of the
decisive factors to which regard
must be had even where ‘a learner
already enjoys the benefit of being
taught in an official language of
choice’. Inequitable access and the
unintended entrenchment or
fuelling of racial disharmony would
thus be the ‘appropriate
justification’ for taking away or
diminishing the already existing
enjoyment of the right to be taught
in one’s mother tongue.”107

[51] A key consideration is equity , which
is an aspect that is emphasised by UNISA in
haalbaarheid om ’n bepaalde taalbeleid aan
te neem. Die normatiewe aspek het
betrekking op die regsstandaard van
redelikheid, wat getoets moet word teen
grondwetlike norme wat billikheid, die
behoefte van regstelling van diskriminerende
wette en praktyke van die verlede en nie -
rassisme insluit.

[49] Met verwysing na Ermelo,103 het
hierdie Hof die proses om vas te stel wat
“redelike uitvoerbaarheid” behels , as volg
beskryf:

“After the words ‘where that
education is reasonably practicable ’
in section 29(2) follow factors to be
considered in an endeavour to give
effect to ‘“the right to receive
education in the official language or
languages of their choice” ’. This
subsection insists on “’all reasonable
educational alternatives” ’ being
explored. To avoid lip service to this
fundamental right, concrete albeit

106 Id at para 22. In Gelyke Kanse id this Court cited
Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights,
9 June 1996; Article 8 of the European Charter for Regional
or Minority Languages, 5 November 1992; Article 29(1)(c)
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
20 November 1989; Article 12 of the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities,
1 February 1995; Article 5 of the Convention Against
Discrimination in Educa tion, 14 December 1960; and
Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, 16 December 1966.
106 Id in para 22. In Gelyke Kanse id het hierdie hof Artikel
29 van die Universele Verklaring van Taalregte,
9 Junie 1996, aangehaal; Arti kel 8 van die Europese
Handves vir Streeks - of Minderheidstale, 5 November
1992; Artikel 29(1)(c) van die Konvensie oor die Regte van
die Kind, 20 November 1989; Artikel 12 van die
Raamwerkverdrag vir die Beskerming van Nasionale
Minderhede, 1 Februarie 1995; Artikel 5 van die Konvensie
teen Diskriminasie in die Onderwys, 14 Desember 1960; en
Artikel 27 van die Internasionale Verbond oor Burgerlike
en Politieke Regte, 16 Desember 1966.

107 University of the Free State above n 5 at para 50. 107 University of the Free State n 5 hierbo in para 50.

48
this Court. UNISA stresses that there is a
need for equity in language policy so that
past imbalances may be redressed. In
addition, it points out that English is
accepted locally and internationally as a
preferred medium of communication,
business and teaching. This Court
elaborated on the principle of equity in
University of the Free State:

“Where the enjoyment of the right
to be instructed in an official
language of choice is achievable
without undermining any
constitutional aspiration or value,
then the equity test might well have
been met. The challenge could
however arise when scarce
resources are deployed to cater for a
negligible number of students,
affording them close, personal and
very a dvantageous attention while
other students are crowded into
lecture rooms. Where access,
integration and racial harmony are
imperiled by giving effect to the
right to be educated in an official
language of choice, then the
criterion of reasonable practicability
would not have been met . . . .
Reasonable practicability therefore
requires not only that the
practicability test be met, but also
that considerations of
reasonableness that extend to equity
broad options are alluded to for
“effective access” to it or its possible
practical enjoyment . . . section 29(2)
requires ‘(a) equity; (b)
practicability; and (c) the need to
redress the results of past racially
discriminatory laws and practices, ’
to feature prominently in exploring
the possibility of offering education
in an official language of choice.
They relate to equal ity,
responsiveness and non -racialism.
And all reasonable educational
alternatives must be investigated
within this context and with this
purpose high on the list of instructive
factors.”104

[50] Die reg tot onderrig in ’n taal van eie
keuse is verskans in artikel 29(2), wat slegs
deur toepaslikheid en redelikheid omskryf
word.105 In daardie opsig strook dit met
internasionale instrumente.106 In University
of the Free State het hiedie Hof verduidelik:

“Reasonableness within the context
of section 29(2) demands that equity,
practicability and the critical need to
undo the damage caused by racial
discrimination, also be the intrinsic
features of the decision -making
process relating to effective access
to education in a language of
choice. For they are some of the
decisive factors to which regard
49
and the need to cure the ills of our
shameful apartheid p ast, be
appropriately accommodated. And
that is achievable only if the
exercise of the right to be taught in
a language of choice does not pose
a threat to racial harmony or
inadvertently nurture racial
supremacy. That goes to
practicability. The question then is,
has the use of Afrikaans as a
medium of instruction at the
University had a comfortable
co-existence with our collective
aspiration to heal the divisions of
the past or has it impeded the
prospects of our unity in our
diversity?”108

Did UNISA co mply with the prescripts of
section 29(2)?
[52] Section 29(2) consists of two parts:
(a) first, it confers a right to
receive education in the
official language of one’s
choice at a public institution,
subject only to the
qualification that such
education “is r easonably
practicable”;
must be had even where ‘a learner
already enjoys the benefit of being
taught in an official language of
choice’. Inequitable access and the
unintended entrenchment or fuelling
of racial disharmony would thus be
the ‘appropriate justification’ for
taking away or diminishing the
already existing enjoyment of the
right to be taught in one’s mother
tongue.”107

[51] ’n Belangrike oorweging is billikheid,
’n aspek wat beklemtoon word deur UNISA
in hierdie Hof. UNISA beklemtoon dat daar
’n behoefte is vir billikheid in die taalbeleid
ten einde die wanbalanse van die verlede aan
te spreek. Verder, wys dit daarop dat Engels
aanvaar word op beide plaaslike en
internasionale vlak as ’n voorkeur medium
van kommunikasie, besigheid e n onderrig.
Hierdie Hof het as volg uitgebrei op die
beginsel van billikheid in University of the
Free State:

“Where the enjoyment of the right to
be instructed in an official language
of choice is achievable without
undermining any constitutional
aspiration or value, then the equity
test might well have been met. The
challenge could however arise when

108 Id at paras 52-3. 108 Id in paragrawe 52-3.

50
(b) secondly, it imposes an
obligation for the state to
“consider all reasonable
educational alternatives”,
taking into account the
considerations listed in
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), “in
order to ensure the effective
access to, and implementation
of” the right.

[53] It is plain from this Court’s
jurisprudence that “reasonably practicable”
envisages something that is reasonably
capable of being done. In respect of the
obligation on the state, UNISA adopted the
startling position in Prof Moche’s
supplementary affidavit, that “as opposed to
the [s]tate, UNISA is not liable to ensure the
effective access to, and implementation of,
the right concerned in the Republic”.
UNISA maintained this position throughout,
until the litigation reached this Court. This
is a fundamental misconception. UNISA is
an organ of state. In Harrielall this Court
held:

“[I]t cannot be gainsaid that the
University is an organ of [s]tate. It
is a public institution through which
the [s]tate discharges its
constitutional obligation to make
scarce resources are deployed to
cater for a negligible number of
students, affording them close,
personal and very advantageous
attention while other stu dents are
crowded into lecture rooms. Where
access, integration and racial
harmony are imperiled by giving
effect to the right to be educated in
an official language of choice, then
the criterion of reasonable
practicability would not have been
met . . . Reasonable practicability
therefore requires not only that the
practicability test be met, but also
that considerations of
reasonableness that extend to equity
and the need to cure the ills of our
shameful apartheid past, be
appropriately accommodated. And
that is achievable only if the exercise
of the right to be taught in a language
of choice does not pose a threat to
racial harmony or inadvertently
nurture racial supremacy. That goes
to practicability. The question then
is, has the use of Afrikaans a s a
medium of instruction at the
University had a comfortable co -
existence with our collective
aspiration to heal the divisions of the
past or has it impeded the prospects
of our unity in our diversity?”108

51
access to further education
realisable.”109

[54] As an organ of state, UNISA is
therefore obliged in terms of section 29(2) to
“consider all reasonable educational
alternatives, including single medium
institutions, taking into ac count (a) equity;
(b) practicability; and (c) the need to redress
the results of past racially discriminatory
laws and practices”.

[55] UNISA was constrained to advance
facts on affi davit to justify the decision it
took by demonstrating that it applied its
mind to the considerations listed in
section 29(2) and that it complied with the
prescripts of that section. This point was
emphatically made by this Court in Gelyke
Kanse:

“Earlier, I noted it was the
University’s own decision -making
structures that “judged” that the cost
of securing inclusivity in teaching,
while not diminishing Afrikaans,
was too high. Well, who are they to
judge that? It is a good question.
Certainly, the Court owes no
obvious deference to the institution
Het UNISA die voorskrifte van artikel 29(2)
nagekom?
[52] Artikel 29(2) bestaan uit twee
gedeeltes:
(a) Eerstens vestig dit ’n reg om
onderrig te word in ’n
amptelike taal van jou keuse by
’n openbare instelling,
onderhewig slegs aan die
voorbehoud dat sodanige
onderrig “redelik prakties
uitvoerbaar is”;
(b) Tweedens plaas dit ’n
verpligting op die staat om
“alle redelike onderrig
alternatiewe in ag te neem”,
met inagneming van die
aspekte in paragrawe (a), (b)
en (c), “ten einde die
effektiewe toegang tot, en
implementering van die reg te
verseker”.

[53] Dit is duidelik uit hierdie Hof se
regspraak dat “redelike uitvoerbaarheid” iets
vooropstel wat redelikerwys gedoen kan
word. Ten aansien van die verpligting op die
staat, het UNISA in Prof Moche se

109 Harrielall v University of KwaZulu-Natal [2017] ZACC
38; 2017 JDR 1716 (CC) ; 2018 (1) BCLR 12 (CC) at para
15.
109 Harrielall v University of KwaZulu-Natal [2017] ZACC
38; 2017 JDR 1716 (CC); 2018 (1) BCLR 12 (CC) in para
15.

52
making the judgment. The Court
must itself scrutinise the facts the
institution advances for diminishing
language-preferent tuition while
bearing in mind that it is a
multifactored function al
determination in which the
judgment of those entrusted with the
institution’s well -being should be
accorded what this Court has called
‘appropriate respect ’. This means
that when considerations of cost are
advanced, the Court’s scrutiny will
necessarily be tempered by some
measure not of deferring to a
judgment that might not be sound,
but rather of prudent worldly -wise
caution in supplanting the judgment
of experienced others .”110
(Emphasis added.)

[56] When UNISA’s decision to abandon
Afrikaans as a language of teaching and
learning is tested against objective
considerations of reasonableness
encapsulated in section 29(2), there must be
some evidence of how it, as an organ of state,
went about applying its mind. The decision
must, after all, comply with the prescripts of
that section, which specifically calls for an
evaluation of whether the state (in this case,
UNISA) did in fact “consider all reasonable
aanvullende eedsverklaring , die verbasende
houding ingeneem dat “anders as die staat,
UNISA geen verpligting het om toe te sien
tot effektiewe toegang tot, en
implementering van hierdie bepaalde reg in
die Republiek nie”. UNISA het deurgaans
volgehou met hierdie standpunt, totdat die
litigasie hierdie Hof bereik het. Hierdie is ’n
fundamentele wanopvatting. UNISA is ’n
staatsorgaan. In Harrielall het hierdie Hof
bevind dat:

“[I]t cannot be gainsaid that the
University is an organ of [s]tate. It
is a public institution through which
the [s] tate discharges its
constitutional obligation to make
access to further education
realisable.”109

[54] As ’n staatsorgaan is UNISA
derhalwe verplig om ingevolge artikel 29(2)
“alle redelike onderrig alternatiewe te
oorweeg, insluitend enkelmedium
instellings, met inagneming van (a)
billikheid; (b) uitvoerbaarheid; en (c) die
noodsaak om die gevolge van voorheen
rasgebaseerde diskriminerende wette en
praktyke reg te stel”.


110 Gelyke Kanse above n 3 at para 42. 110 Gelyke Kanse n 3 hierbo in para 42.

53
educational alternatives”, taking into
account the considerations listed in
paragraphs (a), (b) and ( c). UNISA cannot
simply say that a decision was taken,
regardless of how it was tak en and without
advancing any version of what was
considered, and then leave it to this Court to
test its objective reasonableness. That
would be tantamount to a complete
abdication of its constitutional obligations.
As Gelyke Kanse makes plain, there must be
facts advanced to justify UNISA’s decision,
for the Court to assess whether that decision
passes muster.111

[57] It is unsurprising, given its fallacious
stance in its papers in respect of these
obligations, that UNISA singularly failed to
adduce any evidence that it had regard to the
considerations listed in section 29(2) at the
time when the impugned decision was made.
In respect of the justification of its decision
and compliance with section 29(2), there is
no evidence put up by UNISA that bears
scrutiny. It is plain that n either the Senate,
nor the Council, had regard to information
relevant to any assessment of reasonable
practicability. This includes information
regarding:
[55] UNISA was verplig om ’n
eedsverklaring te maak waarin dit feite moes
aanvoer ter regverdiging van die be sluit wat
dit geneem het, deur aan te toon dat dit wel
aandag geskenk het aan die oorweginge
vervat in artikel 29(2) en dat dit die
voorskrifte van daardie artikel nagekom het.
Daardie punt is onomwonde gemaak in
Gelyke Kanse:

“Earlier, I noted it was th e
University’s own decision -making
structures that ‘judged’ that the cost
of securing inclusivity in teaching,
while not diminishing Afrikaans,
was too high. Well, who are they to
judge that? It is a good question.
Certainly, the Court owes no
obvious deference to the institution
making the judgment. The Court
must itself scrutinise the facts the
institution advances for diminishing
language-preferent tuition while
bearing in mind that it is a
multifactored functional
determination in which the judgment
of those entrusted with the
institution’s well -being should be
accorded what this Court has called
‘appropriate respect’ . This means
that when considerations of cost are
advanced, the Court’s scrutiny will
necessarily be tempered by some

111 Id. 111 Id.

54
(a) what the demand for teaching
and learning in Afrikaans at
UNISA was;
(b) how many students requested
tuition in Afrikaans;
(c) what financial and human
resources were required to
continue with teaching and
learning in Afrikaans in order
to meet that demand; and
(d) the extent to which UNISA
did in fact have such
resources, or put differently,
the extent to which it was
commercially feasible for
UNISA to continue with
tuition and learning in
Afrikaans.

[58] It was incumbent upon UNISA to
provide appro priate justification for the
decision it took to change its language policy
that had an adverse effect on the rights of
Afrikaans students to receive tuition in their
language of choice. The principles outlined
in section 29(2) were not explicitly
considered in the final meetings of the SLC,
the Senate and the Council , which
culminated in the adoption of the new
language policy. “Reasonable
practicability” as a concept and factors
measure not of d eferring to a
judgment that might not be sound,
but rather of prudent worldly -wise
caution in supplanting the judgment
of experienced others .”110 (Klem
gevoeg)

[56] Wanneer UNISA se besluit om weg te
doen met Afrikaans as taal van onderrig en
leer gemeet word aan die objektiewe
oorweginge van redelikheid vervat in
artikel 29(2), moet daar ten minste
bewysmateriaal bestaan rakende die wyse
waarop UNISA, qua staatsorgaa n, te werke
gegaan het om oorweging te skenk aan die
voorskrifte. Per slot van sake moet die
besluit tog daardie artikel se voorskrifte
nakom, wat bepaald vereis dat die staat (in
hierdie geval, UNISA), werklik as ’n feit,
“oorweging geskenk het aan alle redelike
onderrig alternatiewe”, met inagneming van
die oorweginge in paragrawe (a), (b) en (c).
UNISA kan nie bloot verklaar dat ’n besluit
geneem is nie, ongeag hoe dit geneem is en
sonder om ’n weergawe voor te hou van wat
in ag geneem is, en dit dan a an hierdie Hof
oor te laat om die objektiewe redelikheid
daarvan te toets nie. Dit sou neerkom op ’n
totale afstanddoening van sy grondwetlike
verpligtinge. Soos Gelyke Kanse dit duidelik
stel, moet daar feite voorgehou word wat
UNISA se besluit regverdi g, ten einde
55
associated with it do not feature anywhere in
the deliberations of those en tities, and are
not mentioned at all in the impugned
decision or in UNISA’s reasons for the
decision.

[59] UNISA’s reliance on Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers is fallacious. The passage
cited does not bear out UNISA’s contentions
that “ there is no concern with h ow the
decision maker understood her discretion,
what her su bjective reasons were for the
decision and what did or did not serve before
her when making the decision. All that
matters is whether that decision is justified
on the facts before the Court .” These
submissions, it will be recalled, relate to the
objective approach to the reasonable
practicability criterion in section 29(2). But
that is not what was decided in
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers . That case
concerned the question whether a court has
the power to review and set aside a decision
by the President to bring into force the South
African Medicines and Medical Devices
Regulatory Authority Act. 112 That decision
was challenged on the basis that bringing the
Act into operation was premature, since the
regulations necessary to give effect to other
hierdie Hof in staat te stel om te bepaal of
daardie besluit wel aan die vereistes
voldoen.111

[57] Gegewe UNISA se erge dwaling in sy
stukke aangaande hierdie verpligtinge, is dit
kwalik verrassend dat UNISA heeltemal
versuim om enige bewysmateriaal voor te
hou dat dit enigsins ag geslaan het op die
oorweginge vervat in artikel 29(2), ten tyde
van die bestrede besluit. Daar is geen
aanvaarbare bewysmateriaal vanaf UNISA
ten aansien van die regverdiging van sy
besluit en die nakoming van artikel 29(2) nie.
Dit blyk duidelik dat nog die Senaat, nog die
Raad, enigsins ag geslaan het op tersaaklike
inligting om redelike uitvoerbaarheid te
bepaal. Dit sluit in inligting ten opsigte van:
(a) wat die aanvraag was by
UNISA ten aansien van
onderrig en leer in Afrikaans;
(b) hoeveel studente onderrig in
Afrikaans aangevra het;
(c) welke finansi ële en menslike
hulpbronne nodig was vir die
voortgesette onderrig en leer in
Afrikaans ten einde te voorsien
in daardie aanvraag; en

112 132 of 1998. 112 132 van 1998.

56
provisions of the Act were not made. It was
also alleged that the Government Notice
purporting to publish the schedules was
invalid. The applicants consequently sought
an order declaring invalid the Proclamation
purportedly bringing the Act into
operation113 and the Government Notice.114

[60] Having become common cause, or at
least not seriously disputed on the papers,
that, viewed objectively , the decision to
bring the Act into force before the regulatory
framework was in place, was made in error,
this Court held:

“The President’s decision to bring
the Act into operation in such
circumstances cannot be found to be
objectively rational on any basis
whatsoever. The fact that the
President mistakenly believed that it
was appropriate to bring the Act into
force, and ac ted in good faith in
doing so, does not put the matter
beyond the reach of the Court’s
powers of review. What the
Constitution requires is that public
power vested in the Executive and
other functionaries be exercised in
an objectively rational manner.
This the President manifestly,
(d) die mate waartoe UNISA wel
sulke hulpbronne gehad het, of
anders gestel, tot welke mate
dit kommersieel volhoubaar
was vir UNISA om voort te
gaan met onderrig en leer in
Afrikaans.

[58] Dit was van UNISA verwag om
behoorlike regverdiging voor te lê vir die
besluit wat geneem is om die t aalbeleid te
verander, wat ’n nadelige uitwerking gehad
het op die regte van Afrikaanse studente om
onderrig te ontvang in die taal van hul keuse.
Die beginsels vervat in artikel 29(2) is nie
uitdruklik oorweeg in die STK, Senaat en die
Raad se finale ver gaderings wat uitgeloop
het in die aanvaarding van die nuwe
taalbeleid nie. “Redelike uivoerbaarheid” as
’n konsep en die faktore wat daarmee
gepaard gaan, verskyn nêrens in die
besprekings van daardie entiteite nie, en
word glad nie vermeld in die bestrede besluit
of in UNISA se redes vir die besluit nie.

[59] UNISA se steun op Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers is misplaas. Die gedeelte wat
aangehaal word bied geen steun vir UNISA

113 Pharmaceutical Manufacturers above n 95 at para 4. 113 Pharmaceutical Manufacturers n 95 hierbo in para 4.

114 Id at para 6. 114 Id in para 6.

57
though through no fault of his own,
failed to do.
Rationality in this sense is a
minimum threshold requirement
applicable to the exercise of all
public power by members of the
Executive and other functionaries.
Action that fa ils to pass this
threshold is inconsistent with the
requirements of our Constitution,
and therefore unlawful. The setting
of this standard does not mean that
the courts can or should substitute
their opinions as to what is
appropriate, for the opinions of
those in whom the power has been
vested. As long as the purpose
sought to be achieved by the
exercise of public power is within
the authority of the functionary, and
as long as the functionary’s
decision, viewed objectively, is
rational, a court cannot i nterfere
with the decision simply because it
disagrees with it, or considers that
the power was exercised
inappropriately. A decision that is
objectively irrational is likely to be
made only rarely but if this does
occur, a court has the power to
intervene and set aside the irrational
decision. This is such a case.
Indeed, no rational basis for the
decision was suggested. On the
contrary, the President himself
approached the court urgently, with
se betoog dat “ dit nie saak maak is hoe die
besluitnemer haar diskresie verstaan he t nie,
wat haar subjektiewe redes vir die besluit
was nie, en wat wel en wat nie voor haar
gedien het tydens die neem van die besluit
nie. Al wat tersaaklik is, is of die besluit
geregverdig is deur die feite voor die Hof ”.
Daar sal onthou word dat hierdie betoog
betrekking het op die objektiewe benadering
tot die redelik e uitvoerbaarheid maatstaf in
artikel 29(2). Maar dit is nie wat beslis is in
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers nie. Daardie
saak het gehandel oor die vraag of ’n hof die
bevoegdheid he t om die besluit van die
President om die Wet op Suid -Afrikaanse
Medisyne en Mediese Toestelle Regulerende
Owerheid112 in werking te stel, te hersien en
tersyde te stel. Daardie besluit was betwis op
die grondslag dat die inwerkingstelling van
die Wet voortydig was, aangesien die nodige
regulasies om uitvoering te gee aan die ander
bepalings van die Wet, nog nie gemaak was
nie. Dit was ook aangevoer dat die
Goewermentskennisgewing wat voorgegee
het om die skedules te publiseer, ongeldig
was. Die applikan te het gevolglik ’n bevel
aangevra waarvolgens die Proklamasie wat
voorgegee het om die Wet in werking te
stel,113 asook die
Goewermentskennisgewing, ongeldig
verklaar word.114
58
the support of the Minister of Health
and the professional associations
most directly affected by the Act,
contending that a fundamental error
had been made, and that the entire
regulatory structure relating to
medicines and the control of
medicines had as a result been
rendered unworkable. In such
circumstances, it would be strange
indeed if a court did not have the
power to set aside a decision that is
so clearly irrational.”115

[61] That dictum pertains to the proper
approach to a review based on rationality
and the power of a court to set aside
irrational decisions. It does not support
UNISA’s approach for at least two reasons.
The first is that the comments made by this
Court in Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
must be read alongside this Court’s decision
in Simelane, which confirmed that a decision
will be irrational if the decision -maker
ignores relevant considerations and thus
arrives at a decision by way of an irrational
decision-making process. So, insofar as the
rationality leg of Afri Forum’s review is
concerned, the process by which UNISA
arrived at its decision is relevant. The
second difficulty with UNISA’s reliance on

[60] Behoudens die feit dat dit gemeensaak
geword het, of ten minste nie ernstig be twis
was op die stukke nie dat, objektief beskou,
die besluit om die Wet in werking te stel
alvorens die beheer maatreëls se raamwerk
daargestel is, berus op ’n foutiewe besluit,
het hierdie Hof beslis:

“The President’s decision to bring
the Act into oper ation in such
circumstances cannot be found to be
objectively rational on any basis
whatsoever. The fact that the
President mistakenly believed that it
was appropriate to bring the Act into
force, and acted in good faith in
doing so, does not put the matt er
beyond the reach of the Court’s
powers of review. What the
Constitution requires is that public
power vested in the Executive and
other functionaries be exercised in
an objectively rational manner. This
the President manifestly, though
through no fault of his own, failed to
do.
Rationality in this sense is a
minimum threshold requirement
applicable to the exercise of all
public power by members of the
Executive and other functionaries.
Action that fails to pass this

115 Id at paras 89-90. 115 Id in paragrawe 89-90.

59
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers is that
section 29(2) in its own terms expressly
provides that the “state ” (in this case,
UNISA)—

“must consider all reasonable
educational alternatives . . . taking
into account—
(a) equity
(b) practicability; and
(c) the need to redress the
results of past racially
discriminatory laws and
practices.”

UNISA’s suggestion that this Court should
completely ignore the fact that UNISA did
not consider re asonable practicability when
taking its decision to revise the language
policy would fly in the face of the language
of section 29(2) itself. UNISA’s
submissions in this regard are therefore
devoid of merit and the passages cited are
misconceived.

[62] In any event, an objective
consideration ex post facto bears out the
soundness of the Supreme Court of Appeal’s
findings again st UNISA. That Court
correctly held that the present situation is
distinguishable from the Gelyke Kanse and
University of the F ree State scenarios,
threshold is inconsistent with the
requirements of our Constitution,
and therefore unlawful. The setting
of this standard does not mean that
the courts can or should substitute
their opinions as to what is
appropriate, for the opinions of those
in whom the power has been vested.
As long as the purpose sought to be
achieved by the exercise of public
power is within the authority of the
functionary, and as long as the
functionary’s decision, viewed
objectively, is rational, a court
cannot interfere with the decision
simply because it disagre es with it,
or considers that the power was
exercised inappropriately. A
decision that is objectively irrational
is likely to be made only rarely but if
this does occur, a court has the
power to intervene and set aside the
irrational decision. This is su ch a
case. Indeed, no rational basis for
the decision was suggested. On the
contrary, the President himself
approached the court urgently, with
the support of the Minister of Health
and the professional associations
most directly affected by the Act,
contending that a fundamental error
had been made, and that the entire
regulatory structure relating to
medicines and the control of
medicines had as a result been
rendered unworkable. In such
60
because UNISA is uniquely a
distance-learning institution. University of
the Free State concerned parallel -medium
education that had led to racial segregation
in the lecture rooms. The University of the
Free State changed its own language policy
because “the use of Afrikaans . . .
unintentionally [became] a facilitator of
ethnic or cultural separation and racial
tension” in the lecture rooms. 116 In other
words, “the use of Afrikaans as a parallel
language of instruction unwittingly
perpetuate[d] segregation and racism”. 117.
By contrast, t here is no prospect that the
continuation of Afrikaans as a language of
teaching and learning at UNISA would
constitute a threat to racial harmony ,
precisely because at UNISA there is no
tuition in lecture r ooms. There can thus be
no apprehension of the kind of racial
segregation that arose at t he University of
the Free State – although this conclusion is
subject to the qualification I make shortly.

[63] In Gelyke Kanse , the previous
language policy created an exclusionary
hurdle, specifically for black students
studying at the Univers ity of
circumstances, it would be strange
indeed if a court did not have the
power to set aside a decision that is
so clearly irrational.”115

[61] Daardie uitspraak handel oor die
korrekte benadering ten aansien van ’n
hersiening gegrond op rasionaliteit en ’n hof
se bevoegdheid om irrasionele besluite
tersyde te stel. Dit verskaf geen steun vir
UNISA se benadering nie, vir ten minste
twee redes. Eerstens moet hierdie Hof se
opmerkings in Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers gelees word tesame met
hierdie Hof se bes lissing in Simelane, waar
dit bevestig is dat ’n besluit irrasioneel sal
wees as die besluitnemer tersaaklike
oorweginge ignoreer en sodoende tot ’n
besluit kom by wyse van ’n irrasionele
besluitnemingsproses. Dus, vir soverre dit
die rasionaliteitsaspek van AfriForum se
hersiening aanbetref, is die proses
waarvolgens UNISA tot sy besluit gekom het
inderdaad relevant. Die tweede probleem
met UNISA se steun op Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers is dat artikel 29(2) in sy eie
terme uitdruklik bepaal dat die staat (in
hierdie geval, UNISA)—


116 University of the Free State above n 5 at para 62. 116 University of the Free State n 5 hierbo in para 62.

117 Id at para 55. 117 Id in para 55.

61
Stellenbosch.118 The policy made black
students who were not conversant in
Afrikaans feel marginali sed, because they
could not understand the lectures presented
in Afrikaans . They felt stigmatised by
real-time interpretation during lectures and
these students felt excluded from other
aspects of campus life, including residence
meetings and official university events. 119
This Court identifi ed that the previous
language policy in that case created a barrier
along racial lines to full access to the
university’s learning and other
opportunities.120 In the present instance,
however, t here is no suggestion that
Afrikaans tuition will stigmatise students or
prevent students who study i n English from
full access to UNISA’s learni ng and other
opportunities. Again, there is no spectre of
possible marginalisation, stigmatisation or
exclusion, since there is no teaching that
occurs in lecture rooms. As an aside, it is
noteworthy that, as w as the case in
University of the Free State , here Afrikaans
is being abolished completely as a language
of teaching and learning . That was not the
“alle redelike onderrig alternatiewe
moet oorweeg . . . met inagneming
van—
(a) billikheid
(b) uitvoerbaarheid en
(c) die noodsaak om die
gevolge van voorheen
rasgebaseerde
diskriminerende wette en
praktyke reg te stel.”

UNISA se suggestie dat hierdie Hof die feit
dat UNISA glad nie redelike uitvoerbaarheid
in oorweging gebring het toe die besluit
geneem is om die taalbeleid te hersien nie,
eenvoudig moet ignoreer, sal lynreg indruis
teen die taal van artikel 29(2). UNISA se
voorlegging op hierdie aspek is derhalwe
sonder enige meriete en die aangehaalde
gedeeltes is wanvoorgelig.

[62] In elk geval bevestig ’n objektiewe ex
post facto oorweging die korrektheid van die
Hoogste Hof van Appèl se bevindinge teen
UNISA. Daardie Hof het tereg bevind dat
die onderhawige situasie onderskeidbaar is
van die Gelyke Kanse en University of the
Free State scenarios, juis omrede UNISA by

118 Gelyke Kanse above n 3 at para 28. 118 Gelyke Kanse n 3 hierbo in para 28.

119 Id. 119 Id.

120 Id at para 29. 120 Id in para 29.

62
case in Gelyke Kanse, where the university
in question opted for dual medium tuition.

[64] It nonetheless bears recognition that
it is conceivable that a language policy could
affect racial tensions even in the context of
distance-learning, as in the case of UNISA.
It would be remiss not to acknowledge the
justified resentment that may be felt by
many students if t heir university adopts a
language policy that caters for only one
indigenous language. There is much to be
said for the assertion that, in the context of
South Africa ’s controversial history of
education and languages of learning, the
language policy choice of any institution of
learning does matter.
University of the Free State rightly
emphasised “the obligation of white
Afrikaans speakers to ensure that their desire
to protect their language does not
disadvantage others”.121

[65] An objective assessment of the other
issues that UNISA asks this Court to
consider (without UNISA itself having
considered them) also do not bear scrutiny.
These are considerations of cost,
demographics, a “dwindling demand” for
uitstek ’n afstandsonderrig instelling is.
University of the Free State het gehandel oor
parallel-medium onderrig wat aanleiding
gegee het tot rasseskeiding in die lesingsale.
Die Universiteit van die Vrystaat het sy eie
taalbeleid verander omrede “die gebruik van
Afrikaans . . . onopsetlik ’n fasiliteerder van
etniese of kulturele skeiding en
rassespanning” in die lesingsale geword
het.116 Met ander woorde, “die gebruik van
Afrikaans as ’n parallele onderrigtaal het
onwetend apartheid en rassisme
voort[ge]sit”.117 Daarteenoor is daar geen
vooruitsig dat die voortsetting van Afrikaans
as taal van onderrig en leer by UNISA
enigsins rasseharmonie sal bedreig nie, juis
omrede daar by UNISA geen onderrig in
lesingsale plaasvind nie. Daar kan dus
geensins enige besorgdheid wees oor die tipe
rasseskeiding wat ontstaan het by die
Universiteit van die Vrystaat nie – hierdie
gevolgtrekking is egter onderhewig aan die
kwalifikasie wat ek binnekort maak.

[63] In Gelyke Kanse het die vorige
taalbeleid ’n uitsluitingshekkie vir spesifiek
swart studente wat aan die Universiteit van
Stellenbosch gestudeer het, geskep. 118 Die
beleid het veroorsaak dat swart studente wat

121 University of the Free State above n 5 at para 87. 121 University of the Free State n 5 hierbo in para 87.

63
Afrikaans tuition, and equity. The evidence
simply does not support the various
contentions advan ced in respect of these
aspects and the Supreme Court of Appeal ’s
findings against UNISA in this re gard are
unassailable. It is not necessary to conduct
a detailed analysis of this ev idence, as the
decision in this matte r does not turn on the
evidence. A brief synopsis of the
shortcomings will suffice.

UNISA’s purported justification of
the impugned decision
Equity
[66] First, there are the equity
considerations. As the central normative
justification, UNISA asserts that it is
inequitable to continue privileging
Afrikaans as a language of teaching and
learning at the expense of the development
of African languages. But, there is an utter
dearth of evidence to show that it is tuition
in Afrikaans that has prevented the
development of African languages as
languages of higher education. There is no
evidence that the discontinuation of the one
(Afrikaans tuition) is essenti al for the
enablement of offering tuition in the other
nie met Afrikaans vertroud was nie
gemarginaliseerd gevoel het, omdat hulle nie
die lesing s wat in Afrikaans aangebied is
verstaan het nie. Hulle het gestigmatiseerd
gevoel deur die gelyktydige vertaling
gedurende lesings en hierdie studente het ook
uitgesluit gevoel van ander fasette van
kampuslewe, insluitende koshuis
vergaderings en ampteli ke
universiteitsgeleenthede.119 Hierdie Hof het
uitgewys dat die vorige taalbeleid in daardie
saak op rassegrondslag ’n grens geskep het
tot volle toegang tot universiteitsonderrig en
ander geleenthede. 120 In die onderhawige
geval, is daar egter geen sug gestie dat
Afrikaanse onderrig studente sal
stigmatiseer, of studente wat in Engels
studeer sal verhoed om volle toegang tot
UNISA se onderrig en ander geleenthede te
geniet nie. Daar is hier ook geen bedreiging
van moontlike marginalisasie, stigmatisering
en uitsluiting nie, aangesien daar geen
onderrig plaasvind in lesingsale nie. Dit is
terloops insiggewend dat, soos wat die geval
was in University of the Free State ,
Afrikaans as taal van onderrig en leer hier
geheel en al afgeskaf word. Dit was nie d ie
geval in Gelyke Kanse nie, waar
dubbelmedium onderrig gekies is.

64
official languages, other than English.122 Put
differently, there is nothing on record that
precludes UNISA from offering the benefits
of its new language policy to students whose
first language is neit her English nor
Afrikaans, even if Afrikaans were to be
retained as a language of teaching and
learning. After all, the question is not
whether it is reason ably practicable for
UNISA to offer tuition in all eleven official
languages in all its modules.123 What must
be determined instead, is whether it is
reasonably practicable to offer particular
modules in particular languages where a
demand exists for those m odules in those
languages. Since all official languages are
not spoken by the same proportion of
students, it may be reasonably practicable to
offer tuition in some official languages but
not in others.

[67] Equity considerations may well be
met through dual medium tuition, as existed
at UNISA. As this Court explicated in
University of the Free State:

[64] Dit moet desnieteenstaande in ag
geneem word dat ’n taalbeleid denkbaar
rassespanninge kan affekteer, selfs in ’n
afstandsonderrig milieu, soos in UNISA se
geval. Dit sou onverskillig we es om nie
erkenning te gee aan die geregverdigde
renons wat deur baie studente ervaar mag
word as hul universiteit ’n taalbeleid aanvaar
wat vir slegs een inheemse taal voorsiening
maak nie. Daar is veel te sê vir die aanname
dat, in die konteks van Suid -Afrika se
opspraakwekkende geskiedenis van
opvoeding en onderrigtale, die keuse van
taalbeleid van enige onderriginstelling wel
saak maak. University of the Free State het
tereg die “verpligting van wit
Afrikaanssprekendes om te verseker dat hul
begeerte om hul eie taal te beskerm nie
andere benadeel nie” benadruk.121

[65] ’n Objektiewe bepaling van die ander
oorweginge wat UNISA hierdie Hof versoek
om in aanmerking te neem (sonder dat
UNISA dit self oorweeg het) slaag ook nie
die toets nie. Dit is oorweginge van koste,
demografie en ’n “verminderde aanvraag”

122 And, even if there were, it would not be constitutional to
sacrifice one indigenous language in favour of another.
122 Selfs al was daar bewysmateriaal sou dit nie grondwetlik
wees om een inheemse taal op te offer ten gunste van ’n
ander inheemse taal nie.

123 The evidence is that out of a total of 2 300 modules on
offer at UNISA, around 300 modules were offered in
Afrikaans.
123 Die bewysmateriaal dui aan dat uit die totaal van 2 300
modules wat UNISA aanbied, omtrent 300 modules in
Afrikaans aangebied word.

65
“At a conceptual level, dual medium
institutions might well exist without
necessarily nurturing or
perpetuating unfair advantage or
racial discrimination and its
exceedingly harmful tendencies.
When that is so, then the right to be
taught in a language of choice could
be effectively accessible and
implemented. . . . Where the
enjoyment of the right to be
instructed in an official language of
choice is achievable without
undermining any constitutional
aspiration or value, then the equity
test might well have been met.”124

Cost
[68] UNISA also cited cost as a
consideration for why it is not reasonably
practicable to continue with Afrikaans as a
language of learning and tuition. It contends
that the monetary savings that could be
generated by using English only could be
spent on developing the other official
languages. Cost is a legitimate
consideration in this enquiry. 125 But,
crucially, this aspect was not discussed at all
vir Afrikaanse onderrig en leer. Die
bewysmateriaal bied net eenvoudig geen
steun vir die verskeie aannames wat
voorgehou is ten aansien van hierdie aspekte
nie, en die Hoogste Hof van Appèl se
bevindinge teen UNISA in hierdie verband is
onaanvegbaar. Dit is nie nodig om ’n
breedvoerige ontleding van hierdie
bewysmateriaal te onderneem nie, aangesien
die beslissing in hierdie saak nie wentel
rondom die bewysmateriaal nie. ’n Kort
opsomming van die tekortkominge sal
genoegsaam wees.

UNISA se gepoogde regverdiging van
die bestrede besluit
Billikheid
[66] Daar is eerstens die
billikheidsoorwegings. As kern normatiewe
regverdiging benadruk UNISA dat dit
onbillik is om voort te gaan met die
bevoorregting van Afrikaans as taal van
onderrig en leer ten koste van die
ontwikkeling van ander Afrikatale. Daar is
egter ’n totale gebrek aan enige

124 University of the Free State above n 5 at paras 51-2. 124 University of the Free State n 5 hierbo in
paragrawe 51-2.

125 In Gelyke Kanse above n 3 this Court held at para 32 that
“[i]n almost any conceivable issue of institutional
management, whether in a profit -driven or no -profit
enterprise, cost is an inevitable consideration”.
125 In Gelyke Kanse n 3 hierbo het hierdie Hof verklaar in
para 32 dat: “[i] n byna elke denkbare aspek van
institusionele bestuur, hetsy in ’n winsgedrewe of nie -
winsgedrewe onderneming, is koste ’n onvermydelike
oorweging”.

66
at meetings of the SLC, Senate or Council.
There is no indication at all that UNISA ever
assessed the commercial viability of
approximately 300 modules offered in
Afrikaans as compared to the commercial
viability of the total of appr oximately 2 300
modules offered in English. Nowhere in the
papers is there any evidence of these cost
considerations by the SLC, Senate or
Council.

[69] Cross-subsidisation of the low
demand modules by high demand modules
was not considered at all. Instead, in this
Court, UNISA vigorously contends that “to
demand that a post -apartheid university
continues to subsidis e the beneficiaries of
historical racial privilege at the expense of
the broader student population” would be
“fundamentally at odds with the ethos of our
Constitution”. Firstly, that contention
represents a skewed reflection of Afrikaans
speakers in this country, an aspect that has
been extensively addressed earlier in this
judgment. Secondly, it is a bald assertion
without any substantiating evidence . It
stands in stark contrast to the type of
evidence adduced in Gelyke Kanse where a
“careful study” conducted by the University
of Stellenbosch, demonstrated that tuition in
Afrikaans detracts from the development of
bewysmateriaal wat daarop dui dat dit
onderrig in Afrikaans is wat die ontwikkeling
van ander Afrikatale as tale van hoër
opvoedkunde kniehalter. Daar is geen
bewysmateriaal dat die beëindig ing van die
een (Afrikaanse onderrig) wesenlik
noodsaaklik is vir die moontlikmaking van
onderrig in die ander amptelike tale, buiten
Engels, nie.122 Anders gestel – daar is niks
op rekord wat UNISA daarvan weerhou om
die voordele van die nuwe taalbeleid aan te
bied aan studente wie se eerste taal nog
Engels, nog Afrikaans is nie, selfs al word
Afrikaans behou as taal van onderrig en leer.
Die vraag is per slot van sake nie of dit
redelik uitvoerbaar is vir UNISA om
onderrig in al die modules aan te bied in al
elf amptelike tale nie.123 Wat eerder bepaling
verg, is of dit redelik uitvoerbaar is om
bepaalde modules in bepaalde tale aan te bied
waar daar ’n vraag bestaan vir daardie
modules in daardie tale. Aangesien nie alle
amptelike tale deur dieselfde verhouding
studente gepraat word nie, mag dit wel
redelik uitvoerbaar wees om onderrig aan te
bied in sommige amptelike tale, maar nie in
ander nie.

[67] Daar mag wel moontlik aan
billikheidsoorwegings voldoen word deur
dubbelmedium onderrig, soos wat by UNISA
67
the other official African languages as
languages of higher education and was
therefore not reasonably practicable.126 And
thirdly, it is utte rly insensitive to our
constitutional commitment to build “a
historic bridge between the past of a deeply
divided society characteri sed by strife,
conflict, untold suffering and injustice and a
future founded on the recognition of human
rights, democracy and peaceful co-existence
and development opportunities for all South
Africans, irrespective of colo ur, race, class,
belief or sex”.127

[70] Many of the contentions advanced in
UNISA’s written submissions in this Court
are not supported by any evidence on the
record. Some of these contentions are:
(a) that there is hardly any
demand for the teaching of
bestaan het. Soos hierdie Hof uiteengesit het
in University of the Free State:

“At a conceptual level, dual medium
institutions might well exist without
necessarily nurturing or perpetuating
unfair advantage or racial
discrimination and its exceedingly
harmful tendencies. When that is so,
then the right to be taught in a
language of choice could be
effectively accessible and
implemented . . . Where the
enjoyment of the right to be
instructed in an official language of
choice is achievable without
undermining any constitutional
aspiration or value, then the equity
test might well have been met.”124


126 Gelyke Kanse n 3 above at para 31 where the Co urt
noted:
“The University determined by careful
study that the cost of immediately
changing to fully parallel-medium tuition
would total about R640 million in
infrastructure (including additional
classrooms), plus about R78 million each
year thereafter fo r additional personnel
costs. This would entail a 20% increase
in fees, an additional R8 100 on top of the
approximately R40 000 per year students
on average pay now.”
126 Gelyke Kanse n 3 hierbo in para 31 waar die Hof die
volgende opgemerk het:
“The University determined by careful
study that the cost of immediately
changing to fully parallel medium tuition
would total about R640 million in
infrastructure (including additional
classrooms), plus about R78 million each
year thereafter for additional per sonnel
costs. This would entail a 20% increase
in fees, an additional R8 100 on top of the
approximately R40 000 per year students
on average pay now.”

127 Mureinik, citing the post -amble to the Constitution,
entitled “National Unity and Reconciliation”, in Mureinik “A
Bridge to Where - Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights ”
(1994) 10 SAJHR 31 at 31.
127 Mureinik haal die Bylae van die Grondwet genaamd
“Nasionale eenheid en Versoening” aan, in Mureinik “A
Bridge to Where - Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights”
(1994) 10 SAJHR 31 op 31.

68
Life Sciences modules in
Afrikaans;
(b) that UNISA will incur
substantial cost when
translating all tuition material
from English to Afrikaans;
and
(c) that there is no capacity for the
reconfiguration of its online
learning and teaching
environment to duplicate sites,
so that there are both English
and Afrikaans sites available
in modules where Afrikaans
online tuition has been
discontinued since 2016.

[71] Moreover, U NISA is clearly wrong
when it contends that its old language policy
requires it to ensure that, in every course, it
has academics able to teach in Afrikaans and
to assess essays and examinations in
Afrikaans. It is common cause on the papers
that tuition would only be offered in
Afrikaans in circumstances where there is
adequate demand for it, and that only some
300 out of 2 300 modules were being offered
in Afrikaans in 2016. That was what the
former language policy entailed and that is
all that was requ ired by a reversion to that
Koste
[68] UNISA het ook koste as ’n oorweging
voorgehou waarom dit nie redelik
uitvoerbaar is om voort te gaan met
Afrikaans as taal van onderrig en leer nie.
Dit voer aan dat die geldelike besparings wat
gegenereer kan word deur slegs Engels te
gebruik op die ontwikkeling van die ander
amptelike tale bestee kan word. Koste is
inderdaad ’n geldige oorweging in die
onderhawige ondersoek. 125 Maar, van
wesenlike belang, is die feit dat hierdie aspek
glad nie bespreek is tydens vergaderings van
die STK, die Senaat of die Raad nie. Daar is
geen aanduiding hoegenaamd dat UNISA
ooit die kommersiële vatbaarheid van die
aanbied van ongeveer 300 mo dules in
Afrikaans vergelyk het met die aanbied van
ongeveer 2300 modules in Engels nie.
Nêrens in die stukke is daar enige
bewysmateriaal van hierdie
kosteoorweginge deur die STK, die Senaat of
die Raad nie.

[69] Die kruis -subsidiëring van die lae
aanvraag m odules deur die hoë aanvraag
modules is glad nie oorweeg nie. In hierdie
Hof het UNISA eerder heftig betoog dat “om
daarop aan te dring dat ’n post -apartheid
universiteit voortgaan met die subsidiëring
69
policy, as ordered by the Supreme Court of
Appeal.

The dwindling demand for
Afrikaans
[72] In respect of the alleged dwindling
demand for Afrikaans tuition, the record
produced in terms of rule 53 relating to
requests to discontinue tuition in Afrikaans
modules does not evince a material decrease
in demand for Afrikaans . AfriForum cited
extensive figures in this regard, but it is not
necessary to delve into the minutiae. It
would suffice to note that the numbers show
very significant demand for
distance-learning tuition in Afrikaans,
representing a portion of the approximately
24 000 students who elected to study a total
of almost 100 000 modules in Afrikaans in
2016. There is merit in Afri Forum’s
contentions that, if th ere had truly been a
marked decline in demand for tuition in
Afrikaans between 2012 and 2016, UNISA
could simply have provided documentary
evidence drawn from UNISA’s computer
system showing the year -on-year decline.
That, it failed to do.

van die begunstigdes van geskiedkundige
rasse bevoorr egting ten koste van die breër
studentegemeenskap” “wesenlik teenstrydig
sal wees met die etos van ons Grondwet ”.
Daardie aanname is eerstens ’n verwronge
weergawe van Afrikaanssprekendes in
hierdie land, ’n aspek wat alreeds
breedvoerig hierin behandel i s. Dit is
tweedens ’n blote aanname sonder enige
ondersteunende bewysmateriaal. Dit is in
skrille kontras met die tipe bewysmateriaal
wat in Gelyke Kanse aangebied is, waar ’n
“uitvoerige studie” onderneem is deur die
Universiteit van Stellenbosch, wat d aarop
gedui het dat onderrig in Afrikaans afbreuk
doen aan die ontwikkeling van die ander
nege amptelike Afrikatale as tale van hoër
onderrig en derhalwe nie redelik uitvoerbaar
is nie.126 En derdens is dit uiters onsensitief
tot ons grondwetlike verbinte nis om “’n
geskiedkundige brug te bou tussen die
verlede van ’n erg verdeelde samelewing wat
gekenmerk is deur twis, konflik, ongekende
lyding en onreg en ’n toekoms gevestig op
die erkenning van menseregte, demokrasie
en vreedsame naasbestaan en die
ontwikkeling van geleenthede vir alle
Suid-Afrikaners, ongeag kleur, ras, klas,
geloof of geslag”.127

70
Demographics
[73] Lastly, in respect of demographics,
UNISA outlined statistics in its answering
affidavit and in its reasons for the impugned
decision. The statistics relate to:
(a) the percentage of UNISA
students who indicated that
Afrikaans was their home
language (8.6% in 2015, 8.7%
in 2016 and an estimated 7.3%
at some u nspecified time in
the future);
(b) the percentage of UNISA
students who registered for
modules in Afrikaans (0.6% in
2015 and 0.3% in 2016, but
subsequently amended to 2%
in 2015 and 1% in 2016); and
(c) the percentage of UNISA
students who registered for at
least one module in Afrikaans
(5.3% in 2015 and 5.1% in
2016).

[74] Mark Twain skeptically said that
“facts are stubborn things, but statistics are
pliable”.128 AfriForum persuasively
counters UNISA ’s statistics by
demonstrating that:
[70] Verskeie van die submissies
voorgehou in UNISA se skriftelike
betoogshoofde in hierdie Hof word nie
ondersteun deur enige bewysmateriaal op die
rekord nie. Sommige van hierdie submissies
is:
(a) die aanbied van
Lewenswetenskappe modules
in Afrikaans waarvoor daar
beswaarlik enige vraag is;
(b) die koste van vertaling van alle
onderrigmateriaal in
Afrikaans; en
(c) die herkonfigurasie van aanlyn
onderrig en leer omgewing ten
einde webwerwe te dupliseer
sodat daar beide Engelse en
Afrikaanse webwerwe
beskikbaar is in modules waar
Afrikaanse aanlyn onderrig
sedert 2016 gestaak is.

[71] Boonop is UNISA klaarblyklik
verkeerd in die betoog dat die ou taalbeleid
vereis dat UNISA moet verseker dat daar in
elke kursus akademici beskikbaar is wat
onderrig in Afrikaans kan aanbied en wat
werkstukke en eksamens in Afrikaans kan
assesseer. Dit is gemeensaak op die stukke
dat onderrig in Afrikaans slegs aangebied
sou word in oms tandighede waar daar
71
(a) the table on which the figures
in (b) in the preceding
paragraph are based does not
show the number of students
taking modules in Afrikaans at
all, but merely the alleged
number of modules taken in
English. This means that the
total number of students
cannot be discerned from the
table at all; and
(b) the table employed in (a) in the
preceding paragraph, relating
to Afrikaans home language
students, is based on
erroneous figures and
therefore cannot be relied
upon at all.

[75] Overall, Afri Forum pertinently
disputes the statistics relied on by UNISA
and comprehensively explains why the
statistics did not appear to be plausible or
correct. In this regard, it adduced the
evidence and accompanying figures of
Professors Smit and Potgieter. UNISA did
not engage at all with these figures, let alone
challenge them.
voldoende aanvraag daarvoor is, en dat slegs
sowat 300 uit 2 300 modules gedurende 2016
in Afrikaans aangebied is. Dit was wat die
vorige taalbeleid behels het en dit is al wat
vereis is deur ’n terugkeer na daardie beleid,
soos gelas deur die Hoogste Hof van Appèl.

Die kwynende vraag vir
Afrikaans
[72] Ten aansien van die beweerde
kwynende vraag vir Afrikaans, toon die
rekord wat voorgelê is ingevolge Reël 53 ten
opsigte van versoeke om onderrig in
Afrikaanse modules te staak, geensins ’n
wesenlike afname in die aanvraag vir
Afrikaans nie. AfriForum het uitvoerige
syfers in hierdie verband aangehaal, maar dit
is nie nodig om in fynere besonderhede in te
gaan nie. Dit sal voldoende wees om daarop
te let dat die getalle opmerklik
noemenswaardige aanvraag vir
afstandsonderrig in Afrikaans aandui,
verteenwoordigend van die gedeelte van die
nagenoeg 24 000 studente wat in 2016
verkies het om ’n totaal van bykans 100 000
modules in Afrikaanse te studeer. Daar is
heelwat te sê vir AfriForum se betoog dat,
indien daar werklik ’n noemenswaardige

128 Twain “Quotable Quote” Goodreads (2021), available at
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/100106-facts-are-
stubborn-things-but-statistics-are-pliable.
128 Twain “Quotable Quote” Goodreads (2021), beskikbaar
by https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/100106-facts-are-
stubborn-things-but-statistics-are-pliable.

72

[76] To compound matters further, these
figures, alleged by UNISA to have formed
the basis for the adoption of the new
language policy, were not even placed
before the Se nate and the Council at the
meetings where the resolutions were taken to
adopt the new language policy. UNISA
admits this. 129 And t he Supreme Court of
Appeal correctly found that to be the case.130
This approach is plainly destructive of the
case sought to be advanced on these figures
by UNISA. One fails to see why the SLC
would see no need for the Senate an d
Council to have regard to these important
numbers. The figures resoundingly speak of
the students who would be affected by the
far-reaching decisions of the Senate and the
Council, in determining whether it was
reasonably practicable to retain Afrikaans as
a language of teaching and learning . The
omission to place the statistics , which
founded the recommendati on to remove
Afrikaans as a language of teaching and
learning, before the Senate and Council, is a
afname vir Afrikaanse onderrig was tussen
2012 en 2016, UNISA eenvoudig
dokumentêre bewysmateriaal vanaf sy
rekenaarstelsel kon voorlê om die jaar -op-
jaar afname aan te toon. UNISA het versuim
om dit te doen.

Demografie
[73] Laastens, ten aansien van demografie,
het UNISA in sy antwoordende
eedsverklaring statistieke uiteengesit, asook
sy redes vir die bestrede besluit. Die
statistieke het betrekking op:
(a) die persentasie van UNISA
studente wat aangedui het dat
Afrikaans hul huistaal is (8.6%
in 2015, 8.7% in 2016 en ’n
geraamde 7.3% op ’n
ongespesifiseerde datum
iewers in die toekoms);
(b) die persentasie van UNISA
studente wat geregistreer het
vir modules in Afrikaans
(0.6% in 2015 en 0.3% in

129 It was stated that “ [i]t was not necessary . . . for Senate
and Council to have the exact figures and percentages
before them on 30 March 2016 and 28 April 20 16
respectively when UNISA’s new language policy was
adopted to know that the demand for Afrikaans tuition has
dwindled to the extent that it had”.
129 Dit was verklaar dat “[i]t was not necessary . . . for Senate
and Council to have the exact figures and percentages
before them on 30 March 2016 and 28 April 2016
respectively when UNISA’s new language policy was
adopted to know that the demand for Afrikaans tuition has
dwindled to the extent that it had”.

130 Supreme Court of Appeal judgment above n 83 at
para 41.
130 Hoogste Hof van Appèl uitspraak n 83 hierbo in para 41.

73
further fatal shortcoming in UNISA’s case.
The Supreme Court of Appeal,
notwithstanding its finding that these
demographical statistics had not been placed
before the Senate and Council, went furthe r
to consider those figures 131 and found that
they did not meet the reasonable
practicability test in section 29(2). 132 Both
those findings are unassailable.

[77] An important consideration is that at
the time of the impugned decision,
Afrikaans tuition was available to UNISA
students for some modules. UNISA bears a
negative burden of establishing appropriate
justification for why the right to receive
education in the language of one’s choice,
Afrikaans, should be removed. This is
because “when a learner al ready enjoys the
benefit of being taught in an official
language of choice, the [s]tate bears the
negative duty no t to take away or diminish
the right without appropriate
justification”.133 To establish that
2016, maar daarna gewysig tot
2% in 2015 en 1% in 2016); en
(c) die persentasie van UNISA
studente wat vir ten minste een
module in Afrikaans
geregistreer het (5.3% in 2015
en 5.1% in 2016).

[74] Mark Twain het skepties opgemerk
“feite is hardkoppige dinge, maar statistieke
is buigbaar”. 128 AfriForum het op
oortuigende wyse UNISA se statistieke
weerlê deur aan te toon dat:
(a) die tabel waarop die syfers in
(b) in die voorafgaande
paragraaf gegrond is, glad nie
die aantal studente aantoon wat
modules in Afr ikaans neem
nie, maar bloot die beweerde
aantal modules wat in Engels
geneem is. Dit beteken dat die
totale getal studente glad nie
uit die tabel bepaal kan word
nie; en

131 Id at paras 39-40. 131 Id in paragrawe 39-40.

132 Id at para 45. 132 Id in para 45.

133 Ermelo above n 84 at para 52. See also: Mazibuko v City
of Johannesburg [2009] ZACC 28 ; 2010 (4) SA 1 (CC) ;
2010 (3) BCLR 239 (CC) at para 47, where this Court held:
“Traditionally, constitutional rights
(especially civil and political rights) are
understood as imposing an obligation
upon the [s]tate to refrain from interfering
with the exerc ise of the right by citizens
133 Ermelo n 84 hierbo in para 52. Sien ook: Mazibuko v
City of Johannesburg [2009] ZACC 28; 2010 (4) SA 1
(CC); 2010 (3) BCLR 239 (CC) in para 47, waar hierdie Hof
verklaar:
“Traditionally, constitutional rights
(especially civil and political rights) are
understood as imposing an obligation
upon the State to refrain from interfering
74
appropriate justification, UNISA is
constrained to demonstrate that it would not
be “reasonably practicable” to continue with
Afrikaans as a language of learning and
tuition, or put differently, that it is not
reasonably capable of doing so. To give
meaningful effect to the right in
section 29(2), all r easonable educational
alternatives had to be taken into account and
considerations of equity, practicability and
the need to redress the consequences of our
apartheid past, must feature prominently.
For the reasons set out, UNISA failed to do
so.

[78] To summ arise: UNISA patently
misconstrued the applicability of the
provisions of section 29(2) to it as an organ
of state. This resulted in it s failure to have
regard to the considerations listed in
section 29(2) when the impugned decision
was taken. UNISA failed to put up evidence
in support of its averment that it had taken
into account these considerations. In any
event, an objective assessment of the factors
(b) die tabel aangewend in (a) in
die voorafgaande paragraaf
wat betrekking het op
Afrikaanse huistaal studente,
gebaseer is op foutiewe syfers
en gevolglik glad nie op
gesteun kan word nie.

[75] As geheel, het AfriForum pertinent
die statistieke waarop UNISA steun, betwis
en het breedvoerig verduidelik waarom die
statistieke nie aanneemlik of korrek blyk te
wees nie. In hierdie verband het dit die
getuienis en gepaardgaande syfers van
Professore Smit en Potgieter aangebied.
UNISA het glad nie hierdie syfers
aangespreek nie, en dit nog minder betwis.

[76] Om sake te vererger, is hierdie syfers,
wat UNISA beweer die basis vorm van die
aanvaarding van die nuwe taalbeleid, nooit
eers voor die Senaat en die Raad geplaas by
die vergaderings waar die resolusies
aangeneem is om die nuwe taalbeleid te
aanvaar nie. UNISA erken dit. 129 En die

(the so -called negative obligation or the
duty to respect). As this court has held,
most notably perhaps in Jaftha v
Schoeman, social and economic rights are
no different. The [s]tate bears a duty to
refrain from interfering with social and
economic rights just as it does with civil
and political rights.”
with the exercise of the right by citizens
(the so -called negative obligation or the
duty to r espect). As this court has held,
most notably perhaps in Jaftha v
Schoeman, social and economic rights are
no different. The State bears a duty to
refrain from interfering with social and
economic rights just as it does with civil
and political rights.”

75
that UNISA asks this Court to take into
account (without UNISA itself having
considered them), does not bear out its case
that it was not reasonably practicable for
UNISA to continue to offer tuition in
Afrikaans. UNISA’s decision in 2016 to
adopt the new language policy, and
discontinue Afrikaans as a language of
learning and teaching, therefore contravened
section 29(2) of the Constitution, rendering
that decision invalid. The Supreme Court of
Appeal was correct in setting aside the 2016
decision to adopt a new language policy.
This is dispositive of the case, although the
question whether UNISA’s decision
complied with procedural requirements will
bear some consideration when the remedy is
discussed. What then, must be done about
UNISA’s failure to comply with
section 29(2) since it changed its language
policy in 2016?

Remedy
[79] The relevan t terms of the Supreme
Court of Appeal’s order have been set out.134
This Court issue d directions, calling for
submissions regarding the practicalities of
implementing the Supreme Court of
Appeal’s order. UNISA’s response was
Hoogste Hof van Appèl het tereg bevind dat
dit wel die geval is.130 Hierdie benadering is
onteenseglik vernietigend van die saak wat
UNISA probeer uitmaak op grond van
hierdie syfers. Dit is geheel en al onduidelik
waarom die STK nie die nodigheid gesien het
dat die Senaat en die Raad insae moet lewer
in hierdie belangrike syfers nie. Die syfers
spreek boekdele aangaande die studente wat
geraak sou word deur die verreikende
besluite van die Senaat en die Raad, om te
bepaal of dit redelik uitvoerbaar was om
Afrikaans te behou as ’n taal van onderrig en
leer. Die versuim om die statistieke
onderliggend aan die aanbeveling om
Afrikaans te verwyder as taal van onderrig en
leer voor die Senaat en die Raad te plaas, is
’n verdere noodlottige tekortkoming in
UNISA se saak. Die Hoogste Hof van Appèl
het, nieteenstaande sy bevinding dat hierdie
demografiese statistieke nie voor die Senaat
en die Raad geplaas is nie, verder gegaan om
oorweging te skenk aan die syfers 131 en het
bevind dat dit nie voldoen aan die redelik
uitvoerbaarheidstoets in artikel 29(2) nie. 132
Beide hierdie bevindinge is onaanvegbaar.

[77] ’n Belangrike oorweging is dat
Afrikaanse onderrig ten tyde van die bestrede

134 See [16]. 134 Sien [16].

76
somewhat disappointing in res pect of the
detail provided. UNISA points out that
five years have now elapsed since the
decision to abolish Afrikaans as a language
of teaching and learning. The order requires
UNISA to continue to offer all modules in
Afrikaans that were available in Afrikaans in
2016. UNISA emphasises that there have
been numerous curriculum changes during
the past five years. Courses and course
materials have changed and there may also
no longer be a demand for some of the
courses.

[80] There is some merit in these
submissions. But the contention , that the
order requires UNISA to move beyond the
status quo as it prevailed in 2016, is
fallacious. All that is required in terms of the
order, is for UNISA to reinstate those
Afrikaans modules that were still on offer at
that time. It does not require the university
to reinstate Afrikaans modules that had
already been d iscontinued under the
Guidelines.

[81] There can be no quarrel with
AfriForum’s submissions that the
Constitution requires that t he consequences
of constitutional invalidity be corrected or
reversed where it can no longer be
besluit beskikbaar was aan UNISA studente
vir sommige modules. UNISA dra ’n
negatiewe las om behoorlik te regverdig
waarom die reg tot onderrig in jou taalkeuse,
Afrikaans, verwyder behoort te word. Dit is
die geval omrede “wanneer ’n leerder alreeds
die voordeel geniet om in ’n amptelike taal
van keuse onderrig te word, die staat die
negatiewe verpligting het om nie daardie reg
weg te neem of te verminder sonder
behoorlike regverdiging nie”. 133 Ten einde
daardie behoorlike regverdiging te bewys,
word daar van UNISA verwag om aan te
toon dat dit nie “redelik uitvoerbaar” sal
wees om voort te gaan met Afrikaans as taal
van onderrig en leer, of anders gestel, dat dit
nie redelik in staat is om so te doen nie. Ten
einde betekenisvolle effek te gee aan die reg
in artikel 29(2), moet alle redelike
opvoedkundige alternatiewe in aanmerking
geneem word en oorweginge van billikheid,
uitvoerbaarheid en die noodsaak om die
gevolge van ons apartheid verlede reg te stel,
moet ’n prominente rol speel . Vir die redes
alreeds uiteengesit, het UNISA versuim om
dit te doen.

[78] Om op te som: UNISA het ooglopend
die t oepaslikheid van die bepalings van
artikel 29(2) op dit, as staatsorgaan,
misverstaan. Dit het aanleiding gegee tot die
77
prevented,135 and that where constitutional
rights are violated, as is the case here, the
relief must effectively vindicate those
rights.136 But for an order to be effective, it
must be reasonably capable of
implementation. It cannot be seriously
disputed that , as UNISA points out, it will
have to prepare comprehensive measures to
reinstate the relevant Afrikaans modules.
And those measures must self -evidently be
implemented at the beginning of an
academic year. This would require an
assessment of personnel and information
technology infrastructure adaptations and
related costs, translation and printing costs
and budget re -assessments – in the face of
substantial cutbacks in tertiary education
funding by government.

[82] UNISA’s case is that if, after re -
assessing its budget and the requirements of
the judgment (on the assumption that this
appeal on the merits is dismissed), it
concludes that it is reasonably practicable to
reinstate the 2010 language policy Afrikaans
modules, the requisite personnel recruitment
versuim om ag te slaan op die oorweginge
vervat in artikel 29(2) toe die bestrede besluit
geneem is. UNISA het versuim om enige
bewysmateriaal voor te hou ter
ondersteuning van die bewering dat dit wel
hierdie oorweginge in ag geneem het. In elk
geval steun die objektiewe evaluering van
die feite wat UNISA hierdie Hof versoek om
in aanmerking te neem (sonder dat UNISA
self dit oorweeg h et), nie sy saak dat dit nie
redelik uitvoerbaar was vir UNISA om voort
te gaan met onderrig in Afrikaans nie.
UNISA se besluit in 2016 om die nuwe
taalbeleid te aanvaar, en om Afrikaans as taal
van onderrig en leer te staak, het derhalwe
artikel 29(2) va n die Grondwet oortree, wat
daardie besluit ongeldig maak. Die Hoogste
Hof van Appèl het tereg die 2016 besluit om
’n nuwe taalbeleid te aanvaar tersyde gestel.
Dit is deurslaggewend in hierdie saak,
alhoewel die vraag of UNISA se besluit
voldoen aan prosedurele vereistes weliswaar
oorweging sal moet geniet wanneer die
remedie bespreek word. Wat moet dan nou
gedoen word met UNISA se versuim om te

135 AfriForum cites Allpay Consolidated Invest ment
Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer, South African
Social Security Agency [2013] ZACC 42; 2014 (4) SA 179
(CC); 2014 (1) BCLR 1 (CC) at para 29.
135 AfriForum verwys n a Allpay Consolidated Investment
Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer, South African
Social Security Agency [2013] ZACC 42; 2014 (4) SA 179
(CC); 2014 (1) BCLR 1 (CC) in para 29.

136 Reliance is placed on Steenkamp N.O. v Provincial
Tender Board, Eastern Cape [2006] ZACC 16; 2007 (3) SA
121 (CC); 2007 (3) BCLR 300 (CC) at para 29.
136 Daar word gesteun op Steenkamp N.O. v Provincial
Tender Board, Eastern Cape [2006] ZACC 16; 2007 (3) SA
121 (CC); 2007 (3) BCLR 300 (CC) in para 29.

78
and information technology infrastructure
changes must be timeously effected in order
to re -introduce Afrikaans as a primary
language of teaching and learning at the
commencement of an academic year. But,
on the other hand, contends UNISA, if after
this exercise it becomes evident that it is not
reasonably practicable to reinstitute the 2010
language policy, it will have to re -design a
new constitutionally compl iant policy and
implement that new policy with the
necessary personnel and infrastructure
changes at the beginning of an academic
year.

[83] The changes postulated by UNISA,
on either scenario, are self -evidently
far-reaching and will consume substantial
time. The estimate of a six -month planning
period for implementation prior to the start
of an academic year is not unreasonable.
UNISA is a very large organi sation. The
order of the Supreme Court of Appeal, that
this Court is endorsing, is far -reaching. A
pragmatic and effective order must
reasonably enable UNISA to navigate
properly on the course it chooses. And it is
not for this Court to order what it should do.
It may insist on a language policy that
jettisons Afrikaans as a language of teaching
and learning, after complying with all the
voldoen aan artikel 29(2) met die
verandering van sy taalbeleid in 2016?

Remedie
[79] Die tersaaklike bepalings van die
Hoogste Hof van App èl se bevel is alreeds
uiteengesit.134 Hierdie hof het skriftelike
voorleggings aangevra aangaande die
praktiese uitvoerbaarheid van die Hoogste
Hof van Appèl se bevel. UNISA se reaksie
was ietwat teleurstellend ten opsigte van die
gegewens wat verskaf is. UNISA wys
daarop dat daar nou alreeds vyf jaar verstryk
het sedert die besluit om weg te doen met
Afrikaans as taal van onderrig en leer. Die
bevel vereis van UNISA om alle modules
wat in 2016 in Afrikaans beskikbaar was aan
te bied in daardie taal. UNISA beklemtoon
dat daar verskeie kurrikulum veranderinge
plaasgevind het gedurende die afgelope vyf
jaar. Kursusse en kursus materiaal het
verander en daar mag verder moontlik ook
geen aanvraag meer wees vir sommige van
die kursusse nie.

[80] Daar is meriete in hierdie submissies.
Die betoog dat die bevel van UNISA vereis
om verder te gaan as die status quo soos dit
in 2016 bestaan het, is egter onontvanklik.
Al wat ingevolge daardie bevel vereis word,
79
constitutional and legal precepts, or decide
to properly reinstate the status quo as it
prevailed in 2016 before the impugned
language policy was adopted. In any case, it
is not for this Court to order what it should
do – to act appropriately. Any attempt to be
prescriptive as to the choice UNISA makes
will be tantamount to judicial overreach,
bearing in mind that, as stated, UNISA is an
organ of state.

[84] Courts must remain within the
bounds the Constitution sets for them. 137 In
Glenister, this Court stated that:

“In our constitutional democracy,
the courts are the ultimate guardians
of the Constitution. They not only
have the right to intervene in order
to prevent the viola tion of the
Constitution, they also have the duty
to do so. It is in the performance of
this role that courts are more likely
to confront the question of whether
to venture into the domain of other
branches of government and the
extent of such interventio n. It is a
necessary component of the
doctrine of separation of powers
is vir UNISA om die Afrikaanse modules wat
op daardie stadium steeds aangebied was,
weer in te stel. Dit vereis nie van UNISA om
Afrikaanse modules wat alreeds ingevolge
die Riglyne gestaak is, weer in te stel nie.

[81] Daar kan nie gekibbel word met
AfriForum se submissies dat die Gro ndwet
vereis dat die gevolge van grondwetlike
ongeldigheid gekorrigeer of omver gewerp
word waar dit nie meer verhoed kan word
nie,135 en dat waar grondwetlike regte
geskend word, soos wat hier die geval is, die
remedie effektiewelik daardie regte moet
bekragtig.136 Maar alvorens ’n bevel
effektief kan wees, moet dit geredelikerwys
vatbaar wees vir implementering. Dit kan
nie ernstig betwis word dat, soos UNISA
uitwys, dit omvattende maatreëls sal moet
voorberei ten einde die tersaaklike
Afrikaanse modules terug te plaas. Daardie
maatreëls moet vanselfsprekend ingestel
word by die aanvang van ‘n akademiese jaar.
Dit sal ’n evaluasie van personeel en
inligtingstegnologie infrastruktuur
aanpassings en aanverwante kostes, vertaling
en drukwerk kostes en her-evaluasies van die

137 Mwelase v Dir ector-General, Department of Rural
Development and Land Reform [2019] ZACC 30; 2019 (6)
SA 597 (CC); 2019 (11) BCLR 1358 (CC) at paras 50 -3,
where this Court cited Glenister v President of the Republic
of South Africa [2008] ZACC 19; 2009 (1) SA 287 (CC);
2009 (2) BCLR 136 (CC) at para 21.
137 Mwelase v Director -General, Department of Rural
Development and Land Reform [2019] ZACC 30; 2019 (6)
SA 597 (CC); 2019 (11) BCLR 1358 (CC) in paragrawe
50-3, waar hierdie Hof Glenister v President of the Republic
of South Africa [2008] ZACC 19; 2009 (1) SA 287 (CC);
2009 (2) BCLR 136 (CC) in para 21 aangehaal het.

80
that courts have a constitutional
obligation to ensure that the
exercise of power by other branches
of government occurs within
constitutional bounds. But even in
these circumstances, courts must
observe the limits of their
powers.”138

[85] In this instance, UNISA as an organ
of state must be afforded the deference to do
the necessary feasibility investigations, take
the decision it regards as most reasonably
practicable and implement the required
changes. If its decision is to design a new
language policy, it must self -evidently
comply with section 29(2). But there is a
further caveat. UNISA plainly failed to
follow its own internal processes when it
took the impugned decision. So, for
example:
(a) Senate failed to comply with
its Rule 11.1, by sending out
the draft language policy late
to members of the Senate;139
and
(b) The resolution regarding
language policy was not
begroting verg, in ’n milieu van omvattende
besnoeings in die regering se befondsing van
tersiêre onderwys.

[82] UNISA se saak is dat indien, na her -
evaluering van sy begroting en die vereistes
van hierdie uitspraak (op die veronderstelling
dat die appèl misluk op die meriete), dit tot
die slotsom kom dat dit redelik uitvoerbaar is
om die pre-2016 beleid (dus die 2010 beleid)
se Afrikaanse modules weer in te stel, die
nodige personeel werwing en
inligtingstegnologie i nfrastruktuur
veranderinge tydig verrig moet word om
Afrikaans as primêre taal van onderrig en
leer terug te plaas teen die aanvang van ’n
akademiese jaar. Maar aan die ander kant,
betoog UNISA, sou dit na hierdie oefening
blyk dat dit nie redelik uitvoer baar wees om
die 2010 taalbeleid weer in te stel nie, dit ’n
nuwe beleid wat aan die Grondwet voldoen
sal moet herontwerp en daardie nuwe beleid
met die nodige personeel en infrastruktuur
veranderinge by die aanvang van ’n nuwe
akademiese jaar sal moet implementeer.


138 Glenister id at para 33. 138 Glenister id in para 33.

139 Rule 11.1 of the Senate Rules provides that the agenda
and all related documents of each meeting must be
submitted to the members of Senate five working days
before the meeting.
139 Reël 11.1 van die Senaat Reëls bepaal dat die agenda en
alle verwante dokumente van elke vergadering voorgelê
moet word vir die lede van die Senaa t binne vyf werks dae
voor die vergadering.

81
adopted by a show of hands at
the meeting of the Senate.
This constitutes
non-compliance with Rule
13.1.140

[86] The Senate Rules were plainly not
complied with when the resolution to
recommend a new language policy was
taken. This invalidated the resolution of
Senate, and it had a domino effect on the
validity of the resolutio n of Council , since
section 27(2) of the Act provides that
Council must determine a language polic y
“with the concurrence of the Senate”.
UNISA will no doubt be mindful of these
shortcomings if it chooses to fashion a new
language policy.

[87] Having regard to the constraints
placed on this Court in respect of the
principles of the separation of powers , a
suspended order is called for here.

[88] The following order is made:
1. Leave to appeal is granted.
[83] Die veranderinge wat UNISA
voorhou, is op iedere scenario
vanselfsprekend verreikend en sal
aansienlike tyd in beslag neem. Die raming
van ’n ses -maande beplanningsperiode vir
implementering voor die aanvang van ’n
akademiese jaar is nie onredelik nie. UNISA
is ’n baie groot instansie. Die bevel van die
Hoogste Hof van Appèl wat hierdie Hof nou
bekragtig is verreikend. ’n Pragmatiese en
effektiewe bevel moet redelikerwys vir
UNISA in staat stel om behoorlik te navigeer
op die roete wat dit kies. En dit is nie vir
hierdie Hof om voor te skryf wat UNISA
moet doen nie – om behoorlik op te tree as
dit aandring op ’n taalbeleid wat Afrikaans
laat vaar as taal van onderrig en leer nadat dit
voldoen het aan al die grondwetlike en
regsvoorskrifte, of om die status quo soos dit
was in 2016 voordat die bestrede taalbeleid
aangeneem is, weer in te stel. Enige poging
om voorskriftelik te wees ten aansien van
UNISA se keuse sal neerkom op geregtelike
oorskryding, inaggenome die feit dat, soos
aangedui, UNISA ’n staatsorgaan is.


140 Rule 13.1 of the Senate Rules provides that, unless
provided otherwise by the rules, resolutions of the Senate
and its Committees are adopted by a majority of the
members present and a show of hands.
140 Reël 13.1 van die Sena at Reëls bepaal dat, tensy geen
ander voorsiening in die reëls gemaak word nie, die
resolusie van die Senaat en die Komitees aanvaar word deur
’n meerderheid van die lede teenwoordig deur die opsteek
van hande.

82
2. Save as set out below, the
appeal is dismissed.
3. The order of the Supreme
Court of Appeal is suspended
until the commencement of
the University of South
Africa’s 2023 academic year.
4. In the event that the University
of South Africa decides to
continue with the language
policy ad opted in 2016, the
requirements of section 29(2)
of the Constitution must be
complied with.
5. If, by the commencement of
the 2023 academic year, the
University of South Africa
decides to adopt an entirely
new language policy, the order
of the Supreme Cour t of
Appeal, save for the costs
order, will fall away.
6. The University of South
Africa must pay Afri Forum’s
costs in this Court, including
the costs of two counsel.


[84] Howe moet binne die grense bly wat
die Grondwet vir hulle stel. 137 In Glenister,
het hierdie Hof verklaar dat:

“In our constitutional democracy,
the courts are the ultimate guardians
of the Constitution. They not only
have the right to intervene in order to
prevent the violation of the
Constitution, they also have the duty
to do so. It is in the performance of
this role that courts are more likely
to confront the question of whether
to venture into the domain of other
branches of government and the
extent of such intervention. It is a
necessary component of the doctrine
of separation of powers that courts
have a constitutional obligation to
ensure that the exercise of power by
other branches of government occurs
within constit utional bounds. But
even in these circumstances, courts
must observe the limits of their
powers.”138

[85] In hierdie geval moet UNISA, as ’n
staatsorgaan, die verskuldigde eerbied
betoon word om die nodige
vatbaarheidsondersoeke te doen, die besluit
te neem w at dit as die mees redelik
uitvoerbaar beskou, en die vereiste
veranderinge te implementeer. As UNISA
besluit om ’n nuwe taalbeleid te ontwerp,
83
moet dit uiteraard voldoen aan artikel 29(2).
Maar daar is ’n verdere voorbehoud. UNISA
het klaarblyklik vers uim om sy eie interne
prosesse te volg toe dit die bestrede besluit
geneem het. Byvoorbeeld:
(a) Die Senaat het versuim om te
voldoen aan Reël 11.1, deur
die konsepbeleid laat uit te
stuur aan lede van die
Senaat;139
(b) Die resolusie aangaande
taalbeleid was nie aanvaar deur
die opsteek van hande by die
Senaatsvergadering nie. Dit
kom neer op nie -voldoening
aan Reël 13.1.1.140

[86] Daar was onteenseglik geen
voldoening aan die Senaat se Reëls toe die
resolusie aanvaar is om ’n nuwe taalbeleid
aan te beveel n ie. Dit het die Senaat se
resolusie ongeldig gemaak, en het ’n domino
effek gehad op die geldigheid van die Raad
se resolusie, aangesien artikel 27(2) van die
Wet op Hoër Onderwys bepaal dat die Raad
’n taalbeleid moet neerlê “met die
samestemming van die Senaat”. UNISA sal
ongetwyfeld bewus wees van hierdie
tekortkominge as dit besluit om ’n nuwe
taalbeleid te skep.

84
[87] Inaggenome die beperkinge op
hierdie Hof ingevolge die beginsels van die
skeiding van magte, is ’n opskortingsbevel
hier aangewese.

[88] Die volgende bevel word uitgereik:
1. Verlof tot appèl word
toegestaan.
2. Behalwe soos hieronder
uiteengesit, word die appèl van
die hand gewys.
3. Die bevel van die Hoogste Hof
van Appèl word opgeskort tot
die aanvang van die
Universiteit van Suid-Afrika se
2023 akademiese jaar.
4. Indien die Universiteit van Suid-
Afrika besluit om voort te gaan
met die taalbeleid wat in 2016
aanvaar is, moet die vereistes
van artikel 29(2) van die
Grondwet nagekom word.
5. Indien, teen die aanvang van die
2023 akademiese jaar, die
Universiteit van Suid -Afrika
besluit om ‘n heeltemal nuwe
taalbeleid te aanvaar, sal die
bevel van die Hoogste Hof van
Appèl, behalwe vir die
kostebevel, wegval.
85
6. Die Universiteit van Suid-Afrika
moet AfriForum se koste in
hierdie Hof betaal, insluitende
die koste van twee advokate.



For the Applicants/Vir die Applikante:



For the Respondent/Vir die Respondent:
M Chaskalson SC and/en CP Wesley
instructed by Motalane Incorporated/ in
opdrag van Motalane Ingelyf

A Cockrell SC and/en A D’Oliveira
instructed by Hurter Spies
Incorporated/in opdrag van Hurter Spies
Ingelyf