On Tuesday 14th of January, Wynand Boshof released a statement on behalf of the Vryheidsfront Plus, affirming their opposition to the BELA Act. This comes three weeks after President Cyril Ramaphosa and DA Minister of Basic Education Siviwe Gwarube announced that the BELA Act would be fully implemented, declaring that the coalition had agreed not to send it back to Parliament.

The VF+ has denied this, and called for the proclamation’s revocation, arguing it contradicts recommendations from NEDLAC discussed in the coalition.

The controversy centres on sections 4 and 5 of the BELA Act, which address language and admission policies, stripping the powers to determine these policies from the school governing bodies (committees composed of representatives of the parents at the schools) and giving them to the Ministry.

In their full position paper, the party reiterates that placing the power to determine essential policies for schools in the hands of the executive is a red-line issue, raising questions about their continued participation in the coalition.

‍

The dispute

These provisions had been deferred in September 2024 to allow for further consultation. Among the consultative efforts was an agreement brokered at Nedlac between AfriForum, Solidarity, and the Presidency. But the President later distanced himself from this accord.

However, even if a consensus is reached at NEDLAC, agreement reached at this forum are not legally binding, but instead refer Acts back to Parliament, where the ultimate authority lies in legislation.

In order to deal more smoothly with this issue and avoid splits in the coalition, the parties to the coalition set up the Clearing House Mechanism, a small committee representing the various parties to the coalition, to allow for rapid dispute resolution. The committee convened to deal with the disagreements over the Act, led by Deputy Minister Andries Nel (ANC), and comprising Dr Cornelius Mulder (VF+), Brett Herron (GOOD), Hellen Zille (DA) and Mdumiseni Ntuli (ANC).

This team proposed a compromise: implement the less contentious aspects of the Act immediately while continuing dialogue on the divisive provisions. Two pathways were suggested—either set a fixed timeline for implementation or extend discussions before determining a deadline.

Despite this, the President chose an alternative route, proclaiming the Act in its entirety. This move effectively bypassed GNU recommendations and granted Minister Gwarube authority to draft norms and regulations for enforcement. Gwarube and the DA have since suspended criticism of the Act, and of the ANC’s performance in basic education, and released a statement celebrating the full implementation of the Act.

The VF+ has opposed this approach, viewing it as a departure from constitutional protections for mother-tongue education and single-medium schools under Section 29(2). While the same section includes articles which allow these rights to be suspended if they are inconvenient, or if doing so will aid “redress”, the VF+ hopes to challenge the Act.

They have announced their intention to engage with AfriForum and Solidarity to explore legal avenues and strategies for safeguarding Afrikaans as a medium of instruction, and seek dialogue with the Minister to influence the development of norms and standards for the Act’s implementation. If necessary, the FF Plus may resort to legal action to contest the proclamation.

‍

The full position of the VF+

The party has also released a comprehensive position paper (available here in Afrikaans).

The report highlights the function of schools, not simply as an instrument for the servicing of economic demand for skills, but as an instrument of the survival of civilisation itself, and the life of the communities and families that comprise it, and their traditional continuity.

It proceeds to outline the disruptive effect that modern mass industrial society has on traditional communities, through the state and centralized mass education. Centralized states tend to impose uniform schooling systems, whereas federal or multicultural states often allow diversity in language, culture, and curricula.

They lean on international norms to justify the need for a decentralised and community-facing language and education policy. They outline the history of errors in South Africa’s past, in suppressing Afrikaans, in underserving African communities, and in its multiple attempts to socially engineer a new sort of person in the South African citizen, whether under British, Afrikaner, or now, black majority rule.

They praised post-apartheid reforms in 1996 legally recognized independent and public schools while allowing for homeschooling, noting that, despite these changes, integrating previously segregated systems remains challenging, with inequality persisting.

They conclude in demanding that communities have a right to schools that represent the cultures they wish to preserve, and cite Section 29 of the Constitution, as will as several international treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The statement declares that Afrikaans schools play a vital role in preserving traditions, values, and indigenous knowledge. This right aligns with constitutional and international provisions and is not exclusionary.

‍

The party reiterated the statement that this process is a “red line”, raising hopes for some that the party may leave the GNU and potentially become a significant challenge to the DA in the coming local elections.

But the legal processes have not yet been completely exhausted, leaving a long period of insecurity for VF+ supporters as they wait for a decision.

‍