Pheladi Gwangwa says she was “falsely” accused of bias and ousted as deputy chair of council at the University of Cape Town, and is dragging the institution to court to overturn the decision and “vindicate the rule of law”.
Gwangwa was removed from the position by a council vote of no confidence in December.
She has submitted a 187-page affidavit to the high court in Cape Town, seeking to have the “impugned decision to remove” her and “process leading to that decision” declared procedurally unfair or unlawful.
Two months before being ousted, Gwangwa chaired a meeting after former council chairperson Babalwa Ngonyama had recused herself.
The bone of contention was the departure of former deputy vice-chancellor Lis Lange, which laid the foundation for conflict between the council and former vice-chancellor Mamokgethi Phakeng.
Phakeng had been under fire over an exodus of staff and alleged bullying at the university, leading to a probe by an independent panel headed by retired judge Lex Mpati.
Phakeng and Ngonyama reportedly “separately” told the senate that Lange’s departure was voluntary. Lange, however, disputed this version in a letter to the senate and claimed that Ngonyama had pushed her out, apparently at the behest of Phakeng.
Gwangwa said in her affidavit that she only found out about Lange’s departure in a “closed discussion”. She remembered allegations at a senate meeting about the “accuracy of feedback” Ngonyama had provided about the debacle.
Ngonyama then called a special meeting on October 6 2022, to discuss the issue but recused herself being “an interested party in the matters on the agenda”. However, she participated in the meeting as an ordinary council member.
“I thereupon took over as meeting chairperson, without objection from the registrar,” reads Gwangwa’s affidavit.
She said after the discussion, two motions were presented to council. One was council establish a “small independent panel, chaired by a retired judge or similar, but containing no council members or any person directly associated to the university”.
The second proposed council constitute an ad hoc committee comprised the HR committee of council, chair of the audit committee and the independent member of the remuneration committee. Council voted. The registrar said 14 members voted for the first motion and 14 others for the second one. Gwangwa, as chair of the meeting, had the “deliberative vote”, and it went towards the second motion.
“It was only after the votes were cast that it was questioned whether the chair of council and the vice-chancellor had participated in the vote. This became a matter of lengthy council discussion. In the end I ruled that the chair was not conflicted in this matter,” the affidavit reads.
Gwangwa received an email from the register before midnight concerning her “capacity as chair of the council meeting today”. The registrar said he only noticed after the meeting that he had erred.
“All the ballots that I received on my cellphone were received from 7.44pm to 7.59pm. A few minutes after you asked if the votes had been counted, I responded in the affirmative and informed the meeting of the outcome,” said the email.
“At that point the voting process was deemed concluded and there was no reason for me to check my phone again. However, after the meeting, as I was writing up my notes, I saw a WhatsApp that came in at 8.29pm [and therefore sometime after the voting had been completed and a result declared at the meeting], from a member who recorded his vote that would materially impact the voting result and his WhatsApp came in at the time when the voting was open ...”
Gwangwa said the outcome of the voting process became an issue. Days later, the council got a letter from lawyers representing the UCT Academics Union querying the senate’s September 30 2022 decision to select a group of senate members to deal with the Lange debacle.
The letter said the decision was procedurally flawed. Gwangwa’s letter regarding the choice of a panel to probe the issue underscored and “perpetuates the bias and conflict of interest in circumstances where a party under investigation is able to select the process and timing of investigation, the identity of the investigator and instruct the investigator”, it read.
It demanded the council hold a special meeting within five days and adopt the resolution for the appointment of an independent panel headed by a retired judge to probe concerns raised by the senate in its September 2022 meeting and “broader governance issues”, including the departure of senior executives. Gwangwa said this letter created an impression that she and Ngonyama “had some conflict of interest” — the first time an allegation of bias was made against her.
In the affidavit, Gwangwa accused the council of “falsely” accusing her of bias when she was axed. She wants the decision and the appointment of someone else in her position to be reviewed and set aside.
In a letter dated December 13 2022, acting council chair Nazeem Mohamed said after having “considered the legal opinions received, council reviewed and debated the matter of the deputy chair of council and resolved that the incumbent should vacate the position”.
Gwangwa's affidavit said: “I do not bring this application for personal gain or benefit, but to vindicate the rule of law and to ask this honourable court to scrutinise the impugned decisions in the interest of safeguarding the principle of good governance in public institutions such as UCT, in the interest of ensuring that universities remain places which accommodate a wide variety of schools of thought and ideas even at the level of governance.
“I seek a judicial review and setting aside of a decision taken by council ... to remove me from the position of deputy chairperson of UCT council, which decision I aver was unjustified and the appointment [another person] to replace me as deputy chairperson of council. I say that council removed me from my position of deputy chairperson without any empowering provision to do so.”
UCT said this week it was “open to resolving the court matter amicably”.
“UCT has noted the court matter in question and will respond accordingly through the relevant legal processes, and will reserve its rights. The university remains open to considering alternative mechanisms in an attempt to resolve the matter amicably,” said the institution.
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.