UCT academic at centre of Moshabela’s Forest Hill probe says she never complained

The University of Cape Town (UCT) academic at the centre of the so-called “Forest Hill incident” has broken her silence, saying she never complained about vice-chancellor Prof Mosa Moshabela or the wellness check at the centre of his legal battle with the university council.

Dr Zamambo Mkhize, a social scientist at UCT, says in an affidavit filed in the Western Cape high court that she believes the continued investigation into the November 2025 incident is unwarranted.

Mkhize says she never lodged a complaint, has nothing further to add after being questioned by investigators and would regard further questioning as harassment. She also believes continuing the investigation would misuse university resources.

“I am not and have never been a complainant in this matter. I have never lodged a complaint with the UCT ombud or anyone else about this matter,” she says.

“As an advocate for female autonomy, I object to having my voice silenced and disregarded by people in ostensible authority. I find this deeply offensive.”

The Forest Hill incident is one of the most contentious issues in Moshabela’s legal challenge against the UCT council.

Moshabela, who was appointed vice-chancellor for a five-year term in 2024, has approached the high court to review and set aside four resolutions adopted by council on May 30. The resolutions followed an investigation into 34 complaints about his conduct. Council decided not to institute disciplinary proceedings over those complaints but authorised a separate investigation into the Forest Hill incident.

Mkhize, cited as the 35th respondent, says she would ordinarily not become involved in litigation but felt compelled to provide her account because she feared that remaining silent could contribute to a miscarriage of justice.

The incident occurred at UCT’s Forest Hill staff residence on November 13 2025.

Mkhize says she had fallen seriously ill several days earlier and was taking strong medication that caused her to sleep for extended periods. On the evening of November 13, she left her cellphone charging on silent in the dining room and went to bed before 8pm.

She later woke to knocking and heard a man announce himself three times before entering her bedroom. The man identified himself as Grant de Monk and said he worked for Moshabela.

According to Mkhize, De Monk explained that Moshabela had sent him to check on her after her mother became concerned when repeated calls to her cellphone went unanswered.

Mkhize had previously met De Monk in January 2025 when she visited Moshabela following the publication of her first book.

She explained that she had been ill and that her phone was charging on silent in another room. De Monk offered to call an ambulance, but she declined because she was already receiving treatment. He asked her to contact her mother and said he would return the next morning, which he did.

The conduct of this investigation and its aftermath has denied my agency, my dignity and my privacy.—  Dr Zamambo Mkhize, UCT social scientist

“I thanked him for the wellness check before he left,” Mkhize says.

Her mother later confirmed that she had contacted Moshabela because she knew her daughter lived in university-controlled accommodation and believed he could arrange for someone to check on her.

Moshabela has given a similar account, saying he was out of town when Mkhize’s mother contacted him. He says he instructed De Monk, a Campus Protection Services officer who also served as his driver, to check on her welfare.

Nearly four months later, on March 2, Mkhize received a call from a woman identifying herself as an attorney from Fairbridges Attorneys, requesting a meeting. She was subsequently told Fairbridges had been appointed by UCT council to investigate a matter concerning Moshabela.

At the March 4 meeting, Mkhize says she was repeatedly asked to recount what happened on November 13. Investigators asked whether De Monk had announced himself three times before entering her bedroom, which she confirmed.

She was also asked to draw a layout of her flat, say whether anything had been stolen and provide evidence including messages and call logs.

But Mkhize says her central question remained unanswered: why was a wellness check she had never complained about being investigated?

She alleges that one panel member became “visibly agitated” when she repeatedly gave the same account and declined to characterise the incident differently.

Mkhize says she respected the investigation’s confidentiality and expected the same protection for her privacy. She later learnt from Moshabela’s founding affidavit that the Forest Hill matter had become the subject of further correspondence and investigation.

According to Moshabela’s court papers, the Forest Hill matter was not put to him during his April interview in the original investigation, though investigators had already interviewed De Monk and obtained an account implicating him before council authorised a further investigation.

Mkhize says she later discovered that details of the “incident at Forest Hill residence” appeared in correspondence sent to Moshabela and copied to his attorney. She argues that important parts of her account were omitted, including that she had already been interviewed.

She says she remains disturbed that what she regarded as a private wellness check, and about which she never complained, ultimately entered court proceedings and media reports.

“The conduct of this investigation and its aftermath has denied my agency, my dignity and my privacy,” she says.

UCT council has since suspended implementation of the four resolutions challenged by Moshabela pending the outcome of his judicial review application. Council chairperson Norman Arendse SC previously said council had received independent legal advice and would follow court processes before deciding whether to oppose the application. Council has also indicated its willingness to participate in mediation.

The Forest Hill dispute comes amid broader questions about the investigation into Moshabela.

Former UCT staff member Wina Venter, who worked at the university for 18 years, separately said she discovered that her name had allegedly been recorded as the source of a misconduct complaint against Moshabela, which she says she never made.

Venter said she was approached by Fairbridges Attorneys in March and later learnt she had been listed as the source of a complaint.

“There is one thing I know with complete certainty, because only I could know it: I made no complaint,” Venter said in August.

She said she had never complained about Moshabela to the ombud, UCT or anyone else, directly or indirectly, nor authorised anyone to complain on her behalf.

Her account and Mkhize’s affidavit raise separate but related questions about how matters involving UCT staff came to be incorporated into the vice-chancellor’s investigation and how the individuals concerned were identified.