‘Clemency’ for Fallist lawbreakers at the University of Cape Town (UCT): restorative justice or a timeout between illegal acts?

Fallism is a uniquely South African term describing loosely structured “Movements” aimed at radically and rapidly transforming tertiary education and educational institutions. Decolonization (once loosely described as transformation) is, primarily, an African-sourced process promoted by Fallists to effect this transformation, focusing on colonial symbolism, institutional demographics and hierarchical structure, student fees, government financial support and curricula sensu lato.  

Sadly, some Fallists have chosen to use unlawful violent and destructive strategies to achieve decolonization.  The actions of these lawbreakers have massively and negatively impacted institutions and their communities.

The UCT Executive has recently released a form granting clemency for Fallist-related acts of violence to all those who sign it. All but one of a bunch of lawbreaking Fallist students have apparently signed it. Clemency is leniency or mercy in relation to some punitive judgement/sentence/penalty. But, what are the fines and/or jail-time that are to be reduced or ameliorated?

In reality, the contentious form allows for conditional amnesty – a decision not to punish an offender subject to her/him giving (and living up to) some undertakings. In this case, the applicants undertake not to break the law again while continuing to protest.

This form is, in reality, a blatant attempt to reinforce unsubstantiated accusations by Fallists and their supporters that UCT is a monolithic colonialist, sexist and racist institution and that the various Fallist movements have some meaningful philosophy and coherent structure. 

Let’s look at some of the form’s wording

The form refers to ‘power wielding’. Who “wield[s] the power” at UCT, the management or vulgar, lecture-theatre-invading Fallist lawbreakers who patrol the campus bearing sticks, stones and firebombs?

The form mentions ‘philosophy’, but Fallists have yet to provide information on “the philosophy of the [any Fallist] Movement” or demonstrate how it “encouraged” anything other than “wanton acts of [illegal intimidation], violence and destruction”. 

Other than “demands” to:

1. remove putatively “painful” symbols and components of curricula,

2. massively admit/promote students based on questionable academic achievement,

3. admit students and hire/fire staff based on identity-related demographics,

4. eliminate fees,

they have yet to offer constructive alternatives.

It emphasizes feelings of “marginalization, exclusion, pain and suffering”, but provides neither substantive evidence of the sources and individuals responsible for their generation nor a justification for illegal acts of intimidation, violent assault and property destruction by Fallists as “means of [their] expression”?

It ‘distances’ “undisciplined [Fallist] elements perpetrating violence, destruction and mayhem” on the one hand, but calls them to be relieved of accounting for their acts on the other.

The Fallist applicants now “acknowledge that violence does not advance our cause and only serves to discredit it”. But, given the reality of multiply-amnestied offenders, is this epiphany nothing more than a ruse to allow the lawbreakers to make another attempt to resume ad infinitum academic careers unsuccessfully undertaken to date or, worse still, to give them more opportunities to break the law?

In the form, the Fallist lawbreakers state that they “do not condone such [their] conduct”. But, why did they break the law in the first/multiple instance[s]?

The form mentions, but does not identify, unfair/unjust elements in UCT’s longstanding “code of conduct and disciplinary procedures that should be subject to further engagement and adjustment”.

It suggests that the UCT “management [has] not be[en] even handed” and that there are members of the UCT Community “who provoke and threaten us”. Once and for all, please identify the ‘odd-handed’ instances and ‘provoking persons’. Maybe this will be revealed to the Internal Reconciliation and Transformation Commission, which will also be dealing with ‘clemency’-related matters.

The form asserts that there are “deep divisions that exist within the university community”. Other than those created by lawbreakers between students and staff and their lecture theatres, libraries, offices and laboratories, what are they?

Perhaps most importantly, the ‘clemency’ applicants express “deep regret”. But, this does not constitute restorative justice.

Restorative justice requires victims and offenders mediating a restitution agreement to the satisfaction of each, as well as involving the community [in this case UCT’s unconsulted “silenced majority”]. Victims must be allowed take an active role in the process, and offenders must take meaningful responsibility (apologize not just express “regret”) and undertake to avoid future offenses.

Several of those seeking clemency/amnesty are indeed multiple offenders who have been pardoned/not-punished over and over. For example, after defacing Rhodes’ statue with human excrement, Chumani Maxwele is alleged to have assaulted two woman (one while he was absent from classes and protesting violently in Johannesburg), burnt valuable and irreplaceable university property and invaded and disrupted the AGM of the UCT Convocation. 

I was at the Convocation AGM and saw/heard him commit these acts (including defaming me as a “known racist“).   Others present saw him being “consoled” afterwards by VC Price. Moreover, this founding Fallist has repeatedly (I hear eight times) evaded “subjecting himself to a just, fair and reasonable disciplinary process” within UCT relating to the first assault that was, in fact, perpetrated on UCT’s Upper Campus.   

Indeed, Maxwele accused the first allegedly assaulted woman of racism and she was required by the UCT Executive (and willingly subjected herself) to undergo adjudication. She was vindicated of these charges unconditionally. 

I understand that this alleged victim has heard nothing for months from the UCT Academics Union, the UCT Executive or Ombudsman. 

Where is her justice – restorative, punitive, social or otherwise?  Yet multiply-amnestied Maxwele walks free.

Let me close by saying that I believe that most of UCT’s “silenced majority” would support granting conditional amnesty to lawbreaking Fallists if they fulfilled their commitments not to reoffend and, especially, if they focused on their studies and were awarded degrees.  I do not believe that they support allowing lawbreaking Fallists (or those who do not unreservedly condemn lawbreaking as means to their end) to negotiate UCT’s future.