IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)                                                                                 CASE:  79041/18 Application for admission as party PHETOE ANNA SEBILWANE                                       First Intervening Party ADVOCATE ZONDEKA MAKONDO AFRICAN LAW PROJECT                                           Second Intervening Party and OTHERS                                                                    3rdto 629 Intervening Party In the matter between: SOLIDARITY                                                              Applicant And NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES, N.O                  First Respondent MINISTER OF POLICE N.O                                         Second Respondent SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE                            Third Respondent NOTICE OF MOTION APPLICATION TO INTERVENE KINDLY TAKE NOTICE that PHETOE ANNA SEBILWANE and 629others hereby apply to this Honourable Court at a date and time to be allocated by the Registrar for an order in the following terms: To the extent necessary, condoning the intervening parties’ non-compliance with the rules relating to service and time periods and dealing with this application as one of urgency in terms of Rule 6 (12) and insofar as may be necessary permitting this application to be brought on shorter notice than is provided for in Rule 6 of the Uniform Rules of Court; Granting the First to the 629 Intervening parties leave to intervene as Respondents in this matter; Granting such directions regarding the further conduct of the matter as the above Honourable Court deems appropriate; Directing any party opposing this application to pay the costs of this application; Granting further and/or alternative relief. TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the affidavit of PHETOE ANNA SEBILWANE and the annexures thereto will be used in support of this application. TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the Intervening Parties have appointed the below address of SEKATI MONYANE ATTORNEYS, PRETORIA as the address at which they will accept service of all process in these proceedings. KINDLY TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that should any party wish to oppose this application they are required:- To notify the Intervening Parties’ attorneys in writing at or before Wednesday, 16th January 2019 of their intention to oppose the application and serve an answering affidavit in support of their opposition, if any, on or before Friday, 18 January 2019. Dated at Pretoria on this14 January 2019 ______________________________________ ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENING PARTIES SEKATI MONYANE ATTORNEYS INC. 935 JAN SHOBA STREET BROOKLYN PRETORIA Docex: Tel:    (012) 460 9710/9759 Fax:  (012)460 5481 Email: info@sekatimonyane.co.za / collins@sekatimonyane.co.za File no:        Ref:   MR NDZIANE/ TO:               THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA                     GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA AND TO:       SERFONTEIN VILJOEN & SWART                     Attorneys for the Applicant                     165 Alexander Street                     Brooklyn                     TEL:    012 362 2556                     FAX:   012 362 2557                     EMAIL: fanus@svslaw.co.za                     REF:    MR SWART/MR CLAASSEN/fb/CS 0343 AND TO:       THE STATE ATTORNEY – PRETORIA Respondents’ Attorneys                     Ground Floor, Salu Building Cnr (316) Thabo Sehume & Francis Baard Street                     Private Bag X 91 Pretoria 0001 TEL: (012) 309 1552 FAX: 086 629 2761 Email: CoPedroAfonso@justice.gov.za REF: C PEDRO AFONSO/1091/2018/z30/KD AND TO:       THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES Lt Gen Khekla (Khehla) Sitole 1st Respondent 7th Floor Wachthuis 229 Pretorius Street Pretoria TEL: 012 393 2630 FAX: 012 393 4147 Email: sitole@saps.gov.za AND TO:       MINISTER OF POLICE N.O                     LT GEN BHEKI CELE                     Second Respondent                     756 – 7th Floor Wachthuis                     231 Pretorius Street                     Pretoria                     TEL: 012 393 9810                     FAX: 012393 2812                     Email: GaehlerSMK@saps.gov.za AND TO:       SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES                     Third Respondent                     7th Floor Wachthuis 229 Pretorius Street Pretoria TEL: 012 393 1000 FAX: 012 393 4147 Email: response@saps.gov.za IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)                                                             CASE:  79041/18 Application for admission as party PHETOE ANNA SEBILWANE                                       First Intervening Party ADVOCATE ZONDEKA MAKONDO AFRICAN LAW PROJECT                                           Second Intervening Party and OTHERS                                                                    3rd to 629 Intervening Party In the matter between: SOLIDARITY                                                              Applicant And NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES, N.O                  First Respondent MINISTER OF POLICE N.O                                         Second Respondent SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE                            Third Respondent AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO INTERVENE AND OPPOSING REVIEW APPLICATION I the undersigned PHETOE ANNA SEBILWANE Do hereby make oath and state:   I am the First Intervening Party in this matter, an adult female officer, of the South African Police Service (“SAPS”), presently holding the position and or police rank of Colonel, ID 631007 0673 089 age 55 years. My police number 0527678-1, residing at 46 Ormonde Gardens Trefnant Road Ormonde Ext 26 Code 2091 Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. I am a former member of Azanian Peoples Liberation Army (“APLA”) a former military wing of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (“PAC”).  During 1995 I and other members of APLA were supposed to be integrated into the South African Police Services but this did not materialise. I swear that the facts deposed to herein are, except where the context otherwise indicates, within my own personal knowledge, and are, in all material respects, true and correct.  Where the facts are not within my personal knowledge, I believe them to be true and correct. To the extent that I make submissions of a legal nature in this affidavit I do so in the strength of legal advice obtain in this regards.   PURPOSE OF THIS AFFIDAVIT This affidavit is filed in response to an application in terms of section 9 read with section 8 (1) (c) (ii) (aa) , section 8 (1) (d) of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (“PAJA”) and the Principle of legality as outlined in the rule of law as contained in section (1) (c)  of the Constitution Act 1996. Furthermore, this affidavit is filed in response to an application: in terms of Interim Constitution of South Africa 20 of 1993 section 214 – 224 read; in terms of the Republic of Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995 section 1, (c); in terms of Cabinet resolution/Minutes Integration period, in terms of Government Employees Pension Law Amendment Act 35 of 2003; in terms of Special Pensions Act 69 of 1996; in terms of SAPS Act 68 of 1995; in terms of Public Service Bargaining Council Resolution Seven of 2001; in terms of Termination of Integration Intake Act 44 of 2001; in terms of Section 8 (1) (c) of PAJA;

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case Number: 75657/2016 DATE:  12/10/2016   DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE     (1)     REPORTABLE: YES/NO.     (2)     OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO.   (3)     REVISED.           DATE     SIGNATURE   In the matter between: MOGODI MATSHIDISO                                                            1ST APPLICANT MOKWENA JEANETTE                                                            2ND APPLICANT SETSIBA MAMPOTSE CONSTANCE                                         3RD APPLICANT MBATHA THULISILE GLENDAR                                                4TH APPLICANT MATLOU MAMOJA TSOALEDI                                                  5TH APPLICANT MONEOANG SIPHO MPHO                                                      6TH APPLICANT MACHETE MEMORY                                                               7TH APPLICANT MAVHUNGU MATODZI                                                            8TH APPLICANT ADV ZONDEKA MAKONDO AFRICAN LAW PROJECT                                                        9TH APPLICANT And THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA                                                             1ST RESPONDENT MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION                                     2ND RESPONDENT CHAIRPERSON COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION                                                                      3RD RESPONDENT CHAIRPERSON OF UNIVERSITIES OF SOUTH AFRICA                                                                  4TH RESPONDENT VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO NO                                                                5TH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Fabricius J, 1. This is an urgent application set down for hearing on 4 October 2016. It was heard on 6 October 2016. The issues involved, whether express or implied, are of such importance that I deem it important to deal with the proper context in some detail. 2. The relief initially sought was the following: “Pending the outcome of the relief sought in PART B. PART A: Declaring the decision of the Second Respondent of the 20th September 2016 of recommending increase of universities fees taken therein to be unlawful administrative action and unconstitutional. Reversing and/or setting aside the decision of the Second Respondent recommending that universities fees be increased between 2% to 8% before the Commission of Inquiry into Higher Education and Training (“the Fees Commission”) has finalised its report and presented it to the First Respondent. Directing that the decision made by the First Respondent of 0% increase on student fees stand until such time that the First Respondent has received a final report from the Commission of Inquiry into Higher Education and Training (“the Fees Commission”). Declaring that the Respondents’ action(s) are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 7 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. Declaring that the Respondents’ action(s) are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 28 (1) (f) (ii) of the Constitution. Declaring that the Respondents’ action(s) are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 29 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. Declaring First and Second Respondents’ decision or failure to take such decision to declare any fees increase before the final Report of Commission of Inquiry into Higher Education and Training (“the Fees Commission”) to be procedurally unfair, and materially influenced by an error of law. Declaring First and Second Respondents’ decision or failure to take such decision to patiently await the final report and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Higher Education and Training (“the Fees Commission”) to be procedurally unfair, and materially influenced by an error of law. Alternatively, directing the First, Second and Third Respondents to urgently sit and consider the 0% fee increment pending the finalisation of the final report: Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Higher Education and Training (“the Fees Commission”). Directing that the cost of relief sought in Part A to be of public interest and as a result the cost of relief sought in Part A be borne by the First and Second Respondents.” PART B: This part was formulated on the basis of a review application relating to the alleged decision of the Second Respondent referred to in par. 2 of the prayers. 3. The deponent to the Founding Affidavit avers that she is acting in her own interest, in the interest of fellow students and also in the public interest in terms of the provisions of Section 38 (a), (c) and (d) of the Constitution. Confirmatory affidavits were only filed by the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Applicants. 4. The purpose of this application was said to be the following: “The purpose of this application, first is to seek an order declaring the recommendations of fees increment, made by the Minister of Higher Education on 19 September 2016 to be an unfair administrative action that adversely affect poor students and the public at large. Secondly, seeking an order declaring that the Applicants have not been given the opportunity to make any representation to the Commission thus the Minister of Higher Education has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 4 of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 and further failed to apply the principles of the audi alterem partem rule. Thirdly, seeking an order directing that the 2015 decision of the First Respondent of 0% increase continues until such time the First Respondent has been handed the final commission report and the opportunity to apply his mind on the said final report. Fourthly, seeking and order declaring the recommendations of the Minister of Higher Education to be in conflict with Section 28 (1) (f) (ii) of the Constitution. Fifthly, seeking an order declaring that the First and Second Respondents are in contravention of the provisions of Section 29 (1) (b) and (2) (c) of the Constitution. Sixthly, seeking an order declaring that education is a fundamental right enshrined in Section 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, that in terms of section 7 (2) the State must respect, protect, promote and fulfil these rights as there is no limitation that exists in terms of Section 36 of the Constitution. Alternatively, seeking an order compelling the Second Respondent to comply with the decision issued by the First Respondent on 23 October 2015 of 0% fee increment until such time as the Commission has concluded its business and gave its final report to the First Respondent and the First Respondent applied his mind on the recommendations contained in the report. Furthermore, is to seek an interim order compelling the Second Respondent to withdraw his recommendation for fee increase for year 2017 until such time the Commission