Statement issued by concerned members of the UCT Council 7 October 2022

We, the undersigned, wish to place on record our concern with events that transpired at a Special Meeting of the University of Cape Town (UCT) Council on 6 October. In particular, we seek to dissociate ourselves publicly from a decision of Council that was based on a flawed voting process, and which is unlikely to stand up to legal scrutiny.

In taking the unusual step of releasing this dissenting statement, we are guided solely by our fiduciary responsibility to uphold the integrity of the institution, as well as the duty of care we owe to the broader university community.

The proceedings of the Senate meeting of 30 September, which were widely reported on in the press, raised issues of grave concern around good governance, past and pending exits of several senior executives, and the proper functioning of Council in the execution of its mandate. During the Senate meeting, several allegations were made about the conduct of the Chair of Council in the chain of events that led to Associate Professor Lis Lange's departure from her position as Deputy Vice Chancellor: Teaching and Learning. The circumstances surrounding Prof Lange's departure remain a matter of dispute, the subject of conflicting versions.

As the highest decision-making authority of the university, it behoves Council to get to the bottom of these matters – to address them with the utmost seriousness and resolve – in a manner that promotes the dignity of the institution. Many of these governance issues have been festering since before the fallout from the departure of the former UCT Ombud, Zetu Makamandela-Mguqulwa. For this reason, a number of the signatories to this letter have repeatedly requested – over a period of several months – for a Special Meeting of Council to be convened, at which these and other pressing concerns would be fully ventilated. These requests have been systematically thwarted.

At the Special Meeting of Council on 6 October, which was called by the Chair of Council, the signatories to this statement supported a motion to establish an independent panel, headed by a retired judge or someone of similar stature, to probe the allegations and concerns raised by members of Senate at the meeting held on 30 September, as well as the broader issues listed above.

Some 14 Council members (of the 28 who cast their ballot) voted in favour of the aforementioned motion. However, another (alternative) motion was proposed, and it was voted upon at the same time. This motion called for an internal investigation, spearheaded by a subcommittee of Council, to look into governance and procedural matters relating to the Senate meeting of 30 September. The alternative motion also garnered 14 votes. In other words, there was no consensus in Council on how the matter should be handled. The Deputy Chair of Council (who was chairing the meeting) cast the deciding vote in favour of the second motion.

In our opinion, there are a number of procedural problems with the way in which the vote unfolded. The Chair of Council did not recuse herself from the vote despite considered advice to do so, her obvious conflict of interest, and the potential risk to the University.