The University of Cape Town (UCT) council faced a quandary at its late-night meeting this week when it decided on the future of vice-chancellor professor Mamokgethi Phakeng.
The council had received a legal opinion that there was a “strong” prima facie case against Phakeng. However, the evidence was untested and could plunge the institution into a protracted and messy legal battle that could end up in the Constitutional Court.
On Tuesday night, the council and the embattled vice-chancellor reached an exit settlement.
Phakeng, whose second term was set to end in 2028, will walk away with a golden R12m handshake.
She is under fire over an exodus of staff and alleged bullying at the university. An inquiry, headed by retired judge Lex Mpati, was commissioned to look into her alleged misconduct regarding the departure of former deputy vice-chancellor Lis Lange.
According to media reports, Phakeng and UCT council chair Babalwa Ngonyama “separately” told the senate that Lange's departure was voluntary.
Lange, however, disputed this version in a letter to the senate. She claimed Ngonyama had pushed her out of her position, apparently at the behest of Phakeng.
Three insiders told the Sunday Times the council had sought a legal opinion from retired judge Dennis Davis and respected law professor Halton Cheadle.
One of the insiders said Davis and Cheadle advised the council that “there was a very strong prima facie case against the vice-chancellor”.
The insider said this was “based on evidence provided to them by the university, which means they had not heard her version”.
The council chose [to settle] and that’s where we stand. It wasn’t as if [Davis and Cheadle] said to the council ‘you have to settle because you have a weak case’. The advice given was to consider the advantages of a clean break as opposed to lengthy litigation
— UCT insider
“They said, ‘We can give you a strong prima facie case but we can’t give you guarantees.’ They said the institution would be entitled to suspend her and set up the judicial committee as a disciplinary body to determine, after listening to her, whether she should be dismissed or not.
“It had nothing to do with the strength of the case. The question was: do you want to go that route, which is complex and could result in various reviews and litigation? Do you want to have a clean break between the vice-chancellor and the university?”
Another insider said the legal experts advised the council to “either go the disciplinary route or the settlement route”.
“They chose the settlement route. The advice was about a prima facie case and that prima facie case wasn’t guaranteed, as strong as it was,” this source said.
“The danger of that disciplinary hearing was how much harm that would bring to both parties.
“The council chose [to settle] and that’s where we stand. It wasn’t as if [Davis and Cheadle] said to the council, ‘You have to settle because you have a weak case.’ The advice given was to consider the advantages of a clean break as opposed to lengthy litigation.”
Ngonyama confirmed Phakeng’s departure in a statement sent on Friday to the executive, senate, staff and students.
She said the vice-chancellor “will take early retirement from the position of vice-chancellor with effect from March 3”.
“The university has reached an agreement with Prof Phakeng, which requires any public announcements and press statements to be mutually agreed to between Prof Phakeng and the university.
"Unfortunately, despite our best endeavours, we have not been able to reach an agreement as yet and as such, no public statement can be issued regarding Prof Phakeng’s departure and we urge you to keep this communication confidential,” the statement read.
Ngonyama said the investigation panel would continue its work “without specifically considering or investigating the conduct of the vice-chancellor”.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.