The hearings into allegations of misconduct against the vice-chancellor of the University of Cape Town (UCT), Prof Mamokgethi Phakeng, and the chair of council, Babalwa Ngonyama, will be held off campus and in camera.
This is one of the clauses in the terms of reference for a five-member independent panel that was adopted by UCT's council during a stormy meeting that ended at 1am on Tuesday.
Three retired judges were selected to serve on the panel, to be chaired by a senior retired judge.
Their names are expected to be made public only after they accept nomination.
The panel and university will ensure that no witness suffers any adverse repercussions.
— University of Cape Town
The panel has been tasked with investigating whether Phakeng and Nongyama misled faculty boards, senate and or the council concerning former deputy vice-chancellor Prof Lis Lange’s availability for a second term and the reasons she did not pursue it.
Ngonyama is said to have told a senate meeting in September that Lange, who was the deputy vice-chancellor of teaching and learning, wanted to leave for personal reasons but she strongly disputed this in a letter, insisting that Ngonyama forced her to resign.
In an official announcement, Ngonyama’s deputy, Pheladi Gwangwa, said that during a meeting between Ngonyama and Lange on January 3 to discuss the possibility of Phakeng’s reappointment as vice-chancellor, Lange “became abrasive, aggressive and abusive, making clear her own ambition to succeed Phakeng”.
The panel’s scope includes investigating all matters related to executive relationships, including the number of, and reasons for, resignations within and beyond the executive, “with due consideration of reasons for this”.
They will also speak to any current or departed staff and/or members of the current or previous councils regardless of whether they had signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) at the time they left.
The terms of reference document stated that in conducting its investigation, the panel shall not be limited in any way by any NDA signed with UCT.
“Any previous and current employee is free to raise and discuss any matters falling under these terms of reference, irrespective of having signed an NDA.
“The panel and university will ensure that no witness suffers any adverse repercussions for appearing before it or submitting evidence to it.”
The document stated that UCT shall make available a list of all senior UCT staff who left since January 2018, as well as a list of members of council from 2016.
The panel has until December 31 to prepare a report, making specific conclusions as well as recommending specific actions to be taken generally and against any specific individuals.
While the terms of reference indicate that the hearings will be held in camera, Phakeng told talk radio channel 702, last month that she will be insisting that the hearings are “live-streamed” so that “everyone can watch when I am interrogated because I think there’s a lot of mischief here”.
“I want the public to see what happens, to see whether some people are treated with kid gloves and are not asked certain questions.”
Meanwhile, the meeting got off to a rocky start after a legal opinion sought by the council found that the chair of the meeting, Gwangwa, should recuse herself from dealing with the issue of the independent panel “given the possible conflict of interest”.
The legal opinion was written by lawyer Michelle O’Sullivan. Gwangwa sought legal advice on O’ Sullivan’s legal opinion and her lawyer informed UCT’s registrar, Royston Pillay, that “it was done by counsel who does work for UCT on a regular basis and she is thus herself conflicted”.
Gwangwa’s lawyer said that the selection of the independent panel must be referred to higher education minister Blade Nzimande for action “as the environment in council has become so toxic such that our client believes there is no objectivity left”.
A motion of no confidence in Gwangwa was one of the items on the agenda but she left the meeting under protest and a new chair was subsequently elected.
A source said that several hours were then spent debating whether the meeting was a legally constituted one, with Pillay confirming that it was.
There was further drama when the chair decided to postpone the meeting just before midnight as everyone was tired. But this was put to a vote and about 16 members agreed the meeting should go ahead.
A new chair was then elected after the previous one left and the meeting continued. The terms of reference and the names of the panellists were then agreed upon.
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.