The recent decision by three traditionally Afrikaans universities – Free State, Pretoria and Stellenbosch – to give more emphasis to English as a medium of instruction and assessment has sparked an outcry by Afrikaans lobby groups, which are planning to take the matter all the way to the Constitutional Court if necessary. AfriForum has already challenged the decision in the Free State High Court where judgment has been reserved, notes a Business Day report. ‘Afrikaans has a right to survive. This ... is about the supremacy of the Constitution,’ Johan du Toit SC, representing AfriForum, argued in that matter. The report says those calling for Afrikaans universities to remain as such argue that the Constitution guarantees everyone education in their mother tongue. Their stanc e is that Afrikaans communities have a constitutional right to demand tertiary education in Afrikaans. ‘This matter is likely to go all the way to the Constitutional Court, which will need to clarify section 29 (2) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to be taught in your mother tongue,’ says Alana Bailey, the deputy CEO of AfriForum.

However, constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos offers a different opinion. The Business Day report quotes him as saying any university language policy that directly or indirectly excludes non-Afrikaans speakers (because some courses are only taught in Afrikaans) would not comply with section 29(2) of the Constitution. Section 29(2) of the Constitution states that everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions such as schools or universities, but qualifies this by stating that this can only occur ‘where that education is reasonably practicable’. De Vos says the section also states that in order to ensure effective access to, and implementation of, the right to education, the state must consider all reasonable alternatives, including single-medium institutions, but must take into account equity; practicability; and the need to redress the results of past racially discriminatory laws and practices. ‘Although the Constitutional Court has not ruled definitively on this, those who argue that the new (language) policies fall foul of section 29(2) will have an extremely difficult task to convince the Constitutional Court (that they do),’ he is quoted as saying.

Full Business Day report (subscription needed)

© Daily News