Gauteng principal fired for stealing school funds to buy TV, laptop, and projector

By Zanele Mokoena

A former Gauteng school principal who used public money meant for learners to buy himself a television, laptop, and projector has lost his bid to overturn his dismissal. The Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) has upheld the decision of the Gauteng Department of Education, sending a clear message that the theft of black children's educational resources will not be tolerated.

Senior ELRC arbitrator Coen Havenga ruled that the dismissal of P Bango was both substantively and procedurally fair. Bango had been employed by the department since April 2013 and served as principal of Northview High School before being demoted to deputy principal following a separate arbitration. His final dismissal came after evidence of serious financial misconduct while he was acting principal.

What did the principal do with the money?

The department charged Bango with four counts of misconduct under the Employment of Educators Act. The charges included using school funds to purchase goods worth R23,497 from Makro for his personal use, paying R1,396 towards a television licence with school money, failing to provide supporting documents for R16,770.57 in school expenditure, and authorising cash withdrawals and 'cash send' transactions totalling R25,280 while the school's bank card was in his possession.

The evidence came largely from the school's administrative officer, Pamela Ditodi. She testified that she accompanied Bango to Makro after two laptops previously purchased by the school had been returned, leaving a credit on the school's account. According to Ditodi, Bango took a television, laptop, and projector before using school funds to complete the purchase. When the cashier requested a valid television licence to process the television purchase, Bango asked to use Ditodi's licence. The cashier discovered it was in arrears by R1,396, which Bango then paid using school funds.

Ditodi told the arbitrator she never requested that her television licence be paid and derived no benefit from the payment. She also alleged that after leaving the store, Bango arranged for the television to be transported to an address she believed was his home rather than the school. The television, laptop, and projector were never recorded in the school's asset register, and equipment later shown during an inspection did not match the serial numbers and barcodes of the items purchased at Makro.

How did the department investigate?

The department's investigator, Mario Mandlazi, told the arbitration that Bango had been given an opportunity to explain the allegations during the investigation but failed to provide a substantive response. Repeated visits to the school yielded no evidence that the purchased items had been properly recorded or accounted for. The school's records revealed cash withdrawals and electronic cash transfers that contravened departmental financial policies.

What was the principal's defence?

In his defence, Bango denied every allegation. He maintained that the television, projector, and laptop had always been intended for school use and claimed they had been delivered directly to the school after leaving Makro. He insisted that the transaction amounted to an exchange rather than a new purchase because previously declined laptops had been returned. He also argued that there had been no functioning asset register at the school at the time and suggested that Ditodi and the former school governing body chairperson had fabricated the allegations against him after disagreements over procurement decisions.

Witnesses called by Bango testified that they had seen the equipment at the school and that the television had been used during Grade 8 orientation and other school events. However, several also acknowledged that the purchases had never been reported to the school governing body as required.

Why did the arbitrator reject his version?

After considering the evidence, Havenga rejected Bango's version, describing him as an evasive witness whose allegations of a conspiracy against him were unsupported by credible evidence. The arbitrator found that the claim that the Makro transaction was merely an exchange was a 'feeble attempt' to justify his failure to comply with established financial procedures. Even if the equipment discovered at the school was the same equipment purchased from Makro, this did not excuse Bango's failure to follow the financial control measures prescribed by departmental policy, the South African Schools Act, and the Employment of Educators Act.

Havenga concluded that the department had proved on a balance of probabilities that Bango committed all four acts of misconduct. He held that the evidence showed Bango had disregarded financial management rules governing public funds and that his actions constituted serious misconduct.

What does this mean for accountability in our schools?

In assessing the appropriate sanction, the arbitrator emphasised that Bango occupied a senior position of trust and was responsible for safeguarding public funds intended for the education of learners. He found that the misuse and mismanagement of school finances undermined the department's ability to fulfil its constitutional and statutory obligations and that dismissal served as an appropriate deterrent given the prevalence of similar financial misconduct cases within the department. The award also noted that Bango showed little remorse and continued to justify his conduct throughout the proceedings, leaving the arbitrator satisfied that the trust relationship between him and the department had broken down irretrievably. Long service and a previously clean disciplinary record could not outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct.

Because Bango had not challenged the procedural fairness of his dismissal, the arbitrator found that aspect to be fair as well before dismissing his application in its entirety.

This case is a reminder that the struggle for true liberation includes holding those in power accountable, especially when they steal from the very institutions meant to uplift our communities. The children of Northview High School deserved better. The system, however flawed, has spoken: no one is above the law, and the funds meant for black education must be protected.