Afrikaans text / The Canadian and South African legal systems established equivalent constitutional values and principles pertaining to searches conducted with or without a valid search warrant. It creates the basis for a comparative study on this particular aspect. The Supreme Court of Canada held in R v A. M 2008 S.C.C 19 random sniffer dog searches conducted without neither a reasonable suspicion nor any legislative authority on learners enrolled in public schools, is unconstitutional due to its infringement of a learner's reasonable expectation to privacy, as protected in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms. South African learners are randomly search by law enforcement officers by using sniffer dogs for purposes of detecting the possession of illegal drugs in instances without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority. The search is subsequently conducted in terms of the common law. The common law is not regarded as law of general application to limit a fundamental right in terms of the limitation clause. By taking into consideration the ratio in R v A. M (supra) the conclusion is subsequently that random sniffer dog searches conducted on learners in South African public schools, without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority, is unconstitutional which infringes section 14 of the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. / Die basis vir hierdie studie is ontleen aan die ooreenstemmende vereistes en beginsels in die Kanadese en Suid Afrikaanse reg ten aansien van deursoekings met of sonder 'n wettige lasbrief uitgevoer. In die Kanadese beslissing van R v A.M 2008 SCC 19 is die grondwetlikheid van ewekansige deursoekings met behuip van snuffelhonde op leerders sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, deur die Supreme Court of Canada as ongrondwetlik bevind aangesien 'n leerder wel oor 'n redelike verwagting op privaatheid beskik. Indien leerders sonder 'n redelike vermoede en statutere magtiging met behuip van snuffelhonde deursoek word, geskied dit ingevolge die gemenereg en dit word nie beskou as 'n algemeen geldende reg om 'n fundamentele reg kragtens die beperkingsklousule te beperk nie. Met inagneming van die ratio in R v A.M (supra) kan daar dus tot die gevolgtrekking gekom word dat ewekansige deursoekings met behulp van snuffelhonde op Suid Afrikanse leerders in die afwesigheid van 'n redelike vermoede asook sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, tans ongrondwetlike optrede daarstel wat op artikel 14 van die Grondwet van 1996 inbreuk maak. / Law (College) / LL.M.

Afrikaans text / The Canadian and South African legal systems established equivalent constitutional values and principles pertaining to searches conducted with or without a valid search warrant. It creates the basis for a comparative study on this particular aspect. The Supreme Court of Canada held in R v A. M 2008 S.C.C 19 random sniffer dog searches conducted without neither a reasonable suspicion nor any legislative authority on learners enrolled in public schools, is unconstitutional due to its infringement of a learner's reasonable expectation to privacy, as protected in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms. South African learners are randomly search by law enforcement officers by using sniffer dogs for purposes of detecting the possession of illegal drugs in instances without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority. The search is subsequently conducted in terms of the common law. The common law is not regarded as law of general application to limit a fundamental right in terms of the limitation clause. By taking into consideration the ratio in R v A. M (supra) the conclusion is subsequently that random sniffer dog searches conducted on learners in South African public schools, without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority, is unconstitutional which infringes section 14 of the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. / Die basis vir hierdie studie is ontleen aan die ooreenstemmende vereistes en beginsels in die Kanadese en Suid Afrikaanse reg ten aansien van deursoekings met of sonder 'n wettige lasbrief uitgevoer. In die Kanadese beslissing van R v A.M 2008 SCC 19 is die grondwetlikheid van ewekansige deursoekings met behuip van snuffelhonde op leerders sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, deur die Supreme Court of Canada as ongrondwetlik bevind aangesien 'n leerder wel oor 'n redelike verwagting op privaatheid beskik. Indien leerders sonder 'n redelike vermoede en statutere magtiging met behuip van snuffelhonde deursoek word, geskied dit ingevolge die gemenereg en dit word nie beskou as 'n algemeen geldende reg om 'n fundamentele reg kragtens die beperkingsklousule te beperk nie. Met inagneming van die ratio in R v A.M (supra) kan daar dus tot die gevolgtrekking gekom word dat ewekansige deursoekings met behulp van snuffelhonde op Suid Afrikanse leerders in die afwesigheid van 'n redelike vermoede asook sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, tans ongrondwetlike optrede daarstel wat op artikel 14 van die Grondwet van 1996 inbreuk maak. / Law (College) / LL.M.

Around the world, managing the behavioural rights of teachers and learners in schools remains a complex problem for all involved in the teaching and learning situation. From a legal standpoint, the crux of this study relates to why school managers and teachers feel disempowered by learners’ rights. Over and above the duty of all citizens not to infringe on other peoples’ human rights (e.g. the horizontal application of the Bill of Rights contained in Section 2 of the Constitution, SA, 1996), teachers also have a legal obligation to promote and protect learners’ rights (e.g. a vertical application of the Bill of Rights contained in Section 2 of the Constitution, SA, 1996). It is this extra mandate that results in teachers feeling disempowered by learners’ rights. Learners’ rights are protected because teachers are representative of the state and, as such, the vertical application of human rights arises where learners are protected against any possible abuse of power. Moreover, a further ‘imbalance’ is created by children’s rights (Section 28, SASA, 1996). In particular, their right to protection and to having their best interests is regarded as of paramount importance. The study examined the role of the principal, SMT, SGB and RCL in managing the behavioural rights of teachers and learners. A qualitative investigation at three public high schools in the North Metropolitan District of Cape Town was done. Data were collected by means of document analysis as well as by in-depth interviews with five teachers and five RCL members at each of the three participating schools. The findings of the study revealed that the behavioural rights of teachers and learners are managed by the school management leadership style, by the ineffective support from teacher unions, by the functionality of the SGB, by the muted voice of the RCL and in a conflicting manner by some parents. The study recommends that principals, SMTs, SGBs and RCLs be empowered in order for them to manage the behavioural rights of teachers and learners effectively. The principals, SMTs, SGBs and RCLs that adopt a democratic leadership style which favours support, collaboration and conflict resolution can thus take firm hold of a golden opportunity – the opportunity to sustain and promote the managing of the behavioural rights of teachers and learners. / Educational Leadership and Management / M. Ed. (Educational Management)