UCT council ‘holding VC hostage’ by withholding investigation report, court told

The University of Cape Town’s legal battle with vice-chancellor Prof Mosa Moshabela has intensified, with his lawyers accusing the university council of effectively holding him “hostage” by failing to hand over an investigation report at the centre of his high court challenge.

According to the information received by Sunday Times, the Western Cape High Court on Tuesday was told the council and university registrar had failed to produce the record of proceedings, including the investigator’s report on which four disputed council resolutions were based, despite two deadlines having passed.

It was argued that without the record, Moshabela could not advance his review application, effectively leaving the vice-chancellor “hostage” to the council’s failure to produce it.

The council and registrar were initially required to deliver the record by August 28. It was heard in court that after the council failed to produce the required record, it was afforded a further two weeks under Rule 30A, until September 14.

The report is central to Moshabela’s application to review and set aside four resolutions adopted by the UCT council on May 30 after an investigation into complaints about his conduct.

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

He is seeking to have resolutions 3, 4, 5 and 6 set aside. The resolutions deal with concerns about his conduct, executive coaching and a 360-degree evaluation, as well as a further investigation into the Forest Hill incident.

The council has since suspended implementation of the four resolutions pending the final determination of Moshabela’s review application.

On Tuesday Graham Leslie SC, representing the council, university and council chair advocate Norman Arendse SC, opposed the matter proceeding and described Moshabela’s application as “vexatious”.

Leslie argued that the matter should be struck from the roll and that Moshabela should pay the costs of the university, council and Arendse.

He also submitted that Moshabela could bring an application to compel the respondents to produce the outstanding record.

Moshabela’s lawyers rejected this, arguing that the respondents were already obliged under the court rules to produce the record.

The court did not grant the request to strike the matter from the roll.

Moshabela’s legal team asked instead that the matter be postponed to November 20, when an application to compel production of the outstanding record is expected to be heard.

The court battle comes amid an increasingly public dispute between the vice-chancellor and the university’s governing body.

Moshabela maintains that he was not given details of the complaints against him, was denied access to the investigator’s report and was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond before the council adopted the resolutions.

Arendse has previously said the council received and considered legal advice on the proceedings and how the university should respond. He said the council adopted several resolutions intended to ensure the litigation was dealt with in an orderly, fair and legally appropriate manner.

The investigation considered 34 complaints relating to Moshabela’s conduct and interactions with members of the university community.

Moshabela’s team also raised concerns about Arendse publicly discussing aspects of the investigation during an interview with Radio 702 while, they argue, the vice-chancellor remains unable to access the report he needs to challenge the council’s decisions.

During the interview, it is believed Arendse referred to some of the complaints as involving alleged sexual misconduct.

Those familiar with the case argued that publicly referring to such allegations while Moshabela remains unable to access the underlying report had caused serious reputational harm to him professionally and personally.

They questioned why Arendse had referred publicly to the nature of some complaints without stating whether they had been put to Moshabela or what findings, if any, had been made about them.

The consequences extended beyond Moshabela’s professional standing.

“Bear in mind that the vice-chancellor is not only a distinguished academic and clinician but a husband and a father,” noted those familiar with the case.

They contrasted what they described as Moshabela’s dignified silence while pursuing the matter through the courts with Arendse’s decision to discuss aspects of the dispute publicly.

They were also critical of the council’s position that Moshabela could bring a further application to compel production of the record.

Those familiar with the case said Moshabela has been sanctioned on the strength of a report he has never seen. Even when he approached the court for relief, the council withheld the record, labelled his pursuit of his application vexatious and then invited him to launch a further application.

Moshabela, an academic and clinician scientist, took office as UCT vice-chancellor in August 2024.

The university noted developments relating to legal proceedings involving the vice-chancellor and the council.

UCT spokesperson Elijah Moholola said as this matter is before the courts, it would not be appropriate to comment on the details or merits of the case.