FOUR pupils, two boys and two girls, who were expelled from Nyahuni Adventist High School for allegedly engaging in sexual activities, are challenging the headmaster’s decision at the High Court.
The quartet that is sitting for Advanced Level final examinations, argued that the expulsion was driven by malice on the part of the headmaster who took the hard stance without any proof that they became intimate.
It was the school’s allegation that the two brothers who stayed with the matron, a relative, spent a night in the house with the girls that had sneaked out of the boarding school’s hostels.
The headmaster Mr Sheckleton Makamba assumed that the four could have indulged in sexual activities before expelling them.
 |
| Punani Accused Pupils Sue Head Over Expulsion |
The pupils’ lawyer Mr Charles Nyika of Nyika, Kanengoni and Partners indicated in the papers filed of record that the girls were prepared to undergo some medical examination to prove their innocence.
A fortnight ago, High Court Judge Justice Charles Hungwe, ordered the school to allow the pupils back into the school and boarding premises pending determination of the propriety of the headmaster’s decision to expel them.
“It is ordered that pending the determination of the present application on November 11 2015, the respondents be and are hereby directed to permit the applicants to resume their normal enrolment at Nyahuni Adventist High School, including admission into the boarding facilities and sitting for their 2015 final examinations,” the judge ruled.
The headmaster, Minister of Primary and Secondary Education and the provincial education director for Mashonaland East were listed as respondents while the parents represented their children as applicants.
According to a founding affidavit by one of the girls’ parents, the provincial education director stopped the parents from taking their daughters for medical examination.
“I, together with second applicant (another parent) advised the provincial education director that we were prepared to have the children taken for medical examination, but he indicated that it was no longer necessary as the Ministry had not ratified the actions by the third respondent (headmaster),” he said.
The parent said the headmaster personally phoned him informing him of the expulsion and the reasons thereof.
“On or around the 18th of September 2015, I received a telephone call from the third respondent (headmaster) advising that he had suspended my child, together with four other students on charges of engaging in sexual activities at the school.
“I immediately advised the school that they could not suspend the children without having advised us and/or constituting a proper disciplinary hearing,” he said.
It is the parents’ argument that there was no proof that the children engaged in sexual activities and that the visit by the two girls to the matron’s house did not warrant expulsion.
“It is important to have this Honourable Court take note that the 2nd applicant’s children (two boys and a girl) stay within the perimeters of the girls’ hostels, as the mother is a matron at the school, and it is an arrangement that the school ratified and therefore cannot turn around and say the visit by the children is not sanctioned. They are friends,” a parent said.
The headmaster reportedly denied the children access to the school and boarding facilities to an extent that they were living on food from well-wishers.
It was also argued that the school head’s decision was tantamount to an abuse of authority and denying the children their right to education.
“The third respondent is abusing our children and this is tantamount to abusing his office and the likelihood that they are going to fail is very high as they have been traumatised, and have been denied their basic right to education,” said a parent.
In his opposing papers, the headmaster Mr Makamba dismissed the bulk of the contents of the founding affidavit as false.
Instead, he said the boys and the two girls were lovers and that the matron’s house was out of bounds for the girls who were boarders.
“The girls (names withheld) are borders at the school. The matron’s house is out of bounds to them.
“X (boy) had a love affair with Y (girl), though the boy denied it.
“J (another girl) had a love relationship with K (another boy), who initially denied but subsequently admitted to it.
“The girls called the boys’ sister ‘auntie’ and the matron called them varoora,” said the headmaster.
The headmaster said the expulsion was proper and that the court must make a decision that is in the best interest of the majority of the pupils at the school.
