Former UCT staffer calls for probe following ‘fabricated’ complaint against VC

A former University of Cape Town staff member has called for an independent investigation after discovering that her name had allegedly been recorded as the source of a misconduct complaint against vice-chancellor Prof Mosa Moshabela — a complaint she says she never made.

Moshabela has asked the Western Cape High Court to order the UCT council to cancel four resolutions he says were imposed on him unfairly following an investigation into 34 alleged complaints from staff and students about his behaviour.

But Wilna Venter, who spent 18 years at the university, said she was shocked when Fairbridges Attorneys approached her in March and she learnt that she had been listed as the source of one of the complaints against Moshabela.

In a statement, Venter said she had never lodged a complaint against Moshabela with UCT’s ombud’s office, the university, or anyone else, either directly or indirectly.

Venter said she had never authorised anyone to lodge a complaint on her behalf and had never been unhappy with Moshabela’s conduct towards her or anyone else.

“Any record that says otherwise is false, and I ask that it be corrected and withdrawn,” she said.

Her account potentially adds weight to concerns raised separately by seven UCT council members, who alleged in an August 8 letter that some complaints investigated against Moshabela had been fabricated, that some purported complainants did not exist and that people recorded as complainants had denied lodging complaints.

These allegations have not been independently established, and the investigators’ report has not been made public.

Venter called for an independent investigation into how complaints against Moshabela were “solicited, gathered, recorded and attributed, by whom, and on whose instructions”, saying she would make herself available to such an inquiry.

She also spoke strongly in support of Moshabela, describing him, based on her dealings with him, as a leader of “exceptional ability, of integrity, and of conviction”.

Meanwhile, lawyers acting for Moshabela have stepped up pressure on the university to answer claims that some complaints against him were fabricated and that people recorded as complainants either did not exist or denied ever lodging complaints.

In a series of letters to UCT’s lawyers, seen by the Sunday Times, lawyers representing Moshabela in his personal capacity demanded to know whether the university disputes an account by seven members of its council about the findings of the investigation into Moshabela.

The lawyers have also demanded access to the investigators’ report and the preservation of documents potentially relevant to further litigation, while indicating that Moshabela could pursue civil action if allegations were falsely attributed to people who never made them.

The legal salvo follows a letter written earlier this month by council members Ezra Davids, Brian Kantor, Tom Moultrie, Jacques Rousseau, Marlon Parker, Kessler Perumalsamy and Kelly Phelps. The letter is addressed to council chair Norman Arendse, the interim registrar and fellow council members.

In it, the seven members alleged that an independent investigation had found that 34 complaints against Moshabela — including, they said, serious allegations such as sexual harassment — were without merit.

“The independent investigation revealed that certain of the complaints put forward by the ombud were fabricated,” they wrote.

They further claimed that investigators had indicated that their findings concerning the ombud were serious enough for disciplinary action to be considered.

Moshabela’s lawyers said he had not seen the investigators’ report and therefore could not allege that any complaint had been fabricated, that a complainant did not exist or that anyone had acted improperly.

Instead, his lawyers said they were recording the claims made by the seven council members and that if those accounts proved correct, Moshabela could pursue civil remedies against those responsible because he would have suffered ”grave injury to his dignity, his good name and his professional standing”.

The letter was prompted by the postponement of a special council meeting scheduled for August 8 to continue discussions on the investigators’ report concerning Moshabela and the ombud.

The seven council members criticised what they described as a delay of more than a month in completing discussions about the ombud and warned that the handling of the matter had placed UCT at legal and reputational risk.

They also raised broader concerns about the relationship between Moshabela and the council, alleging that since at least March 2025, the council had obstructed the vice-chancellor in carrying out his executive functions and delayed the launch of his strategic plan.

The council members further alleged that correspondence sent by Moshabela’s legal representatives to council had not reached them. “We were kept in the dark,” they wrote.

They said they had seen correspondence between Moshabela’s lawyers and the council for the first time when it was included in his high court application.

The seven called for the council to urgently address what they described as “critical lapses in governance” so members could fulfil their fiduciary duties and protect the university’s reputation.

The council has in the meantime suspended implementation of the four resolutions challenged by Moshabela pending the outcome of his high court review. Among them was that the vice-chancellor undergo annual performance reviews.

Arendse said the council would await Moshabela’s supplementary papers before deciding whether to oppose the application. The council has also indicated its willingness to participate in mediation.

Arendse defended the process followed after concerns about Moshabela were brought to his attention, saying the ombud had alerted him to their existence and seriousness without compromising confidentiality.

“I sought independent legal advice and thereafter placed the matter before council and informed the vice-chancellor,” 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.”

UCT said the ombud operated independently from the council and that confidentiality was fundamental to the office.