Unisa council hits back at report, says administrator is ‘not warranted’

Unisa’s council believes the appointment of an administrator “is not warranted at this moment” and has requested higher education minister Blade Nzimande give it six months to implement “self-correcting measures”. 

These suggestions are contained in a 35-page “draft final response” to independent assessor Prof Themba Mosia’s report into the affairs of the embattled institution. 

Mosia made 26 recommendations to Nzimande in a 309-page report, which was handed to him last month, including that Unisa be placed under administration and the council and management be relieved of their duties. 

Mosia indicated in his report that his assessment revealed “a cauldron of instability characterised by a culture of fear, intimidation and bullying, instances of maladministration, financial irregularities, human resource failures, poor student services, academic malpractices and questionable management and council decisions”.  

His report was also scathing of vice-chancellor Prof Puleng LenkaBula, stating: “There is a tendency on the part of the VC to blame subordinates for governance failures rather than taking responsibility herself as an ethical leader should.”  

Nzimande wrote to the council on May 12 and gave it 10 days to respond to Mosia’s report. 

In a document outlining the council’s response, which TimesLIVE Premium has seen, it stated that while the assessor made certain observations about management failures, “these matters do not warrant a full administration”. 

“They can be addressed through the development of a comprehensive corrective action plan coupled with strategies aimed at building unity and cohesion within Mancom [management committee].” 

In a blistering attack on Mosia’s report, the council stated in its response that, in terms of evidence, the report appears to have “deliberately” undermined and excluded crucial pieces of evidence. 

“The biggest and major weakness of the report is that it does not use the well-known assessment and evaluation indicators used in the higher education system.

Unisa holds strongly that several aspects of procedural fairness were either ignored or violated by the assessor.

—  Unisa's response

“For example, the institutional audits that are periodically conducted by the Council on Higher Education (CHE), have 16 indicators against which universities are assessed and they are sound and accepted across the sector.” 

The council said the latest draft institutional audit report on Unisa, which was released in November, showed that Unisa passed 10 of the indicators and the rest of the six were not adverse findings but “aspects that require improvements”.  

“In this regard, the university is ready to work with CHE on the mandatory Institutional Improvement Plan.” 

The council’s response stated that “in as much as Unisa is faced with notable governance and operational challenges, it is, however, far from collapsing or being a university in chaos”. 

“Therefore, while the minister may, in terms of the HEA [Higher Education Act], have the power to dissolve the council, the allegations made against any of the university officials will have to be tested through relevant internal processes designed for such purposes or through the legal systems of our country.” 

The council’s response stated that Unisa “has a challenge” with many of the findings and conclusions made in Mosia’s report. These included: 

• the report’s overreach on allegations directed at individuals, including senior managers, without the observance of the principles of procedural fairness, that is fair administration of justice; 
• the report seems to make findings or conclusions that impugn the human dignity and the professional standing of individuals in the university. The report would have been more helpful if the assessor was able to confirm if the allegations existed, document them and recommend a separate process to deal with them;   
• Unisa finds it odd and incomprehensible that the report confirms that the university is financially sustainable, yet it goes on to make adverse findings and far-reaching recommendations. Some of the findings and recommendations send the message that the university has completely collapsed and has no leadership; 
• due to the quality, writing style and lack of proper numbering, it is difficult to identify how many findings have been made against Unisa and specific individuals or portfolios and which ones are adverse or important for a well-considered response; and 
• it is difficult to tell which aspects are opinions, facts or findings, especially in the main body of the report, and this reality makes it difficult for Unisa to know whether all findings have been responded to.  

The council said that Mosia’s report does not use scientific methods and data such as the annual performance plan, benchmarking, research and rankings to do the assessment.  

“In the instance that they are used, they are deployed recklessly and in a meaningless way.

“Unisa holds strongly that several aspects of procedural fairness were either ignored or violated by the assessor. Though the assessor is empowered to determine the format and procedure of the assessment, including how information will be gathered, nobody exercising public power can ignore the provisions of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Act 3 of 2000 as amended.” 

Council’s response stated that while the assessor created an opportunity for all to be heard, “it would have been best if the assessor provided the interviewees with a set of questions prior to engaging with them rather than providing questions at the time of the interview”.  

It stated that the approach created problems as it did not accommodate the possibility for the interviewees to bring along supporting documents. 

“There are a number of apparent inaccuracies which could have been resolved by way of the assessor providing the draft report to Unisa and requesting inputs towards correcting such inaccuracies.

We told the assessor that after he is done, there will be intimidation, bullying and the targeting of people. I was always a target for telling the truth.

—  Prof Steward Mothata, suspended registrar

“This process is very common in the manner in which the CHE conducts its audits to ensure the accuracy of information before making conclusions.” 

It stated that this has “regrettably not happened, an omission that has resulted in some of the statements being entirely misplaced and/or misinterpreted while some findings based were on incorrect evidence”. 

The council said when LenkaBula presented evidence of a culture of intimidation and violence in the form of a sworn statement to the assessor, “she was simply ignored in a context where violence and gender-based violence is endemic in our society”. 

“The assessor reports on the renovations at Cloghereen [the official residence of the vice-chancellor], which basically presents the VC in a negative light and proceeds to make erroneous conclusions while ignoring the submitted report which reveals that there was an irregular inflation of prices in excess of R400, 000.” 

According to the council’s response, “the main achievements of Unisa, especially in the last three years, are minimised and/or ignored”.  

“That too, demonstrates bias and the lack of professionalism in the methodology and the assessment of evidence at the disposal of the assessor. 

“While the appointment of the assessor is the minister’s prerogative, Unisa wonders whether the assessor did declare conflict of interest in the sense that he has either previously worked with or hired some of the managers that he stood to assess.” 

The council also requested Nzimande to appoint a forensic firm to investigate the “corrupt networks”, as “no proof of such is contained in the assessor’s report”. 

Mosia's office referred media queries to the higher education department.

Higher education spokesperson, Ishmael Mnisi, said Nzimande had not yet received the response from Unisa’s council.

Unisa council chair James Maboa said: “It is unfortunate that the report has leaked, but we will not be commenting on it.” 

On Monday, the university was left reeling after LenkaBula placed registrar Prof Steward Mothata on precautionary suspension.   

In a three-page letter, LenkaBula informed him that he breached policies and procedures “in serious allegations of misconduct” including breaching confidentiality, gross abuse of office, gross dishonesty and gross insubordination and “giving and making false or damaging statements in the execution of his duties and/or in public”.  

Mothata told TimesLIVE Premium: “We told the assessor that after he is done, there will be intimidation, bullying and the targeting of people. I was always a target for telling the truth. I was suspended for telling the truth.”