UCT complaint mystery deepens

A third person has come forward to deny ever having lodged a complaint against embattled University of Cape Town (UCT) vice-chancellor Mosa Moshabela.

Jeff Murugan, a former UCT executive, has asked the university registrar to investigate how he became associated with an alleged complaint against Moshabela and how the matter reached the university council. Murugan has offered to testify under oath and has asked that the full council hear his concerns.

His claims add another twist to the legal battle between Moshabela and the UCT council, and follow separate denials and questions raised by two other people about complaints or concerns attributed to them during processes involving the vice-chancellor.

Former UCT staff member Wilna Venter has stated that she learnt only when approached by investigators that she had allegedly been identified as the source of a complaint against Moshabela. She has denied ever making a complaint.

This week Zamambo Mkhize, a UCT social scientist, filed an affidavit in the Western Cape High Court saying she had also never complained about the vice-chancellor. Her alleged complaint detailed how Moshabela had asked a campus security officer to use a master key to gain access to her residence to check on her after receiving a call from her mother raising concern about her daughter, who had been unwell.

Mkhize later thanked the security officer for checking on her and regarded the incident as a private matter.

Moshabela — who was appointed vice-chancellor for a five-year term in 2024 — has approached the Western Cape High Court seeking to review and set aside four resolutions adopted by the council on May 30.

I responded that this was completely false and that I have never had any one-on-one interactions with the ombud or anyone from the office of the ombud

—  Jeff Murugan, a former UCT executive

The resolutions followed an investigation into 34 complaints concerning his conduct. The council decided that disciplinary proceedings should not be instituted against him over those complaints but authorised further steps, including an investigation into the incident involving Mkhize.

Moshabela is challenging those decisions.

In an e-mail seen by the Sunday Times, Murugan said he was contacted by Fairbridges Attorneys in March and asked to verify information that he had approached the UCT ombud to lodge a complaint against Moshabela.

Murugan said he immediately denied doing so.

“I responded that this was completely false and that I have never had any one-on-one interactions with the ombud or anyone from the office of the ombud,” he said.

Murugan said he subsequently agreed to meet investigators on March 13 to put his version on record.

During that meeting, he said, investigators told him they had received information from the ombud indicating that she had met him when he visited her office and had subsequently approached him about speaking to investigators.

Murugan said neither encounter had taken place.

“After a lengthy conversation with the investigators, I was asked if I would like to remain anonymous. I declined and insisted that — given the egregious nature of the fabrication of the allegation and the seniority of my former position in the executive — my name be made explicit in the report,” he said.

“I was assured that this would be the case.”

Murugan said he was frustrated and angry that he had been represented in this manner.

“I am therefore writing to ask for an impartial investigation into the actions and motives of the ombud, anyone who may have assisted her and how it came to be considered at council. I will readily provide testimony under oath,” he wrote.

The denials have intensified scrutiny of how complaints and concerns about Moshabela were gathered, attributed and ultimately placed before the university’s governance structures — questions that now form part of the wider dispute playing out in court.

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

—  Norman Arendse, council chair

The Sunday Times sent questions to UCT about the allegations concerning the ombud and the university’s processes.

UCT spokesperson Elijah Moholola said the university would not comment on the details because the dispute between Moshabela and the council was before the courts.

In an earlier statement, council chair Norman Arendse said the council’s role was neither to protect an office bearer from legitimate scrutiny nor to assume wrongdoing merely because an allegation had been made.

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

He said the council had sought independent legal advice and used independent external professionals in an effort to safeguard the fairness and integrity of the process.

Education expert Prof Mary Metcalfe said the latest developments reinforced concerns about the prolonged governance dispute at UCT and called for an independent process to establish what had happened.

“This would best be done by an independent assessor appointed by the minister of higher education, which the law allows him to do,” she said.

Metcalfe said the continuing dispute was damaging to the institution and needed to be resolved urgently.

Higher education minister Buti Manamela said he has spoken to both Arendse and the Moshabela. He has asked for a report from the council to establish a clear understanding of the issues.