UCT Council suspends implementation of four resolutions at centre of Moshabela court battle

The University of Cape Town (UCT) council has suspended the implementation of four resolutions challenged by vice-chancellor Prof Mosa Moshabela, pending the final determination of his judicial review application before the Western Cape high court.

The decision was taken at a special council meeting on Saturday to consider matters arising from legal proceedings instituted by Moshabela, who is seeking the review and setting aside of four resolutions adopted by council on May 30, as well as other related matters.

Moshabela is challenging resolutions three, four, five and six, which concern allegations about his conduct, executive coaching and an annual structured 360-degree evaluation, as well as a further investigation into the Forest Hill incident.

In a 64-page affidavit filed in the high court last week, Moshabela argued that a complaints-based investigation approved by council was progressively altered, leaving him without an opportunity to respond to allegations before decisions concerning his conduct were taken.

UCT council chairperson Norman Arendse said council had received and considered independent legal advice on the court proceedings and the appropriate manner in which the university should respond.

“Council resolved to follow the preliminary processes prescribed by the rules of court and to await Moshabela’s supplementation of his papers in terms of the rules before deciding whether or not to oppose the review proceedings,” Arendse said.

“Council also confirmed its willingness to participate in mediation in an effort to resolve the dispute. It also resolved to suspend the implementation of the four resolutions which the VC has impugned, pending the final determination of the judicial review proceedings by the high court.”

Arendse said council recognised the considerable public and university community interest in the matter but had a responsibility to protect the integrity of the ongoing legal proceedings and respect the rights of all those involved.

This included UCT officers and institutions, as well as the Office of the Ombud, whose confidentiality protections, he said, were essential to its functioning.

The process that followed was undertaken on independent legal advice and was designed to ensure independence, appropriate confidentiality and fairness to all persons affected.—  UCT council chairperson Norman Arendse

UCT said the ombud operates independently and separately from council. While the ombud accounts to council annually and reports, for administrative purposes, to the council chairperson or a designated council member, the office’s independence and confidentiality are fundamental to its role.

Staff and students must be able to approach the ombud in confidence, UCT said, meaning details of concerns raised and the identities of those approaching the office are not ordinarily disclosed to the chairperson or council.

Arendse said that when concerns relating to the vice-chancellor required council’s attention, the ombud alerted him, in his capacity as council chairperson, to the existence and seriousness of those concerns without compromising their confidentiality.

“I sought independent legal advice and thereafter placed the matter before council and informed the VC,” he said.

“The process that followed was undertaken on independent legal advice and was designed to ensure independence, appropriate confidentiality and fairness to all persons affected.”

Council said the dispute involved difficult and sensitive issues that went beyond the individuals concerned and raised broader questions about the university’s ability to discharge its governance responsibilities independently, fairly and without fear or favour.

“Council’s responsibility is neither to shield any individual office-bearer from legitimate scrutiny nor to assume wrongdoing merely because an allegation has been made,” it said.

“Its responsibility is to act in the best interests of the university.”

Council said that required it to respond appropriately when serious concerns were brought to its attention while ensuring fairness, confidentiality and respect for the rights and dignity of everyone affected.

“The fact that council acts when serious concerns are brought to its attention should never be understood as council having predetermined the truth of those concerns,” it said.

“Equally, council would not properly discharge its governance responsibilities if it simply ignored serious matters because they were difficult or sensitive.”

It added: “The VC is entitled to fairness, dignity and due process. Those who approach the ombud are equally entitled to the protection that legitimately attaches to that process. These principles are not mutually exclusive.”

The suspension of the four resolutions means that their implementation will remain on hold while Moshabela’s review proceedings run their course.