Wilgenhof - affidavit by Edwin Cameron
I, the undersigned,
Edwin Cameron
state under oath:
1. I am a retired Constitutional Court Judge and the incumbent Chancellor of Stellenbosch University. The facts deposed to in this affidavit are within my own personal knowledge and are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, both true and correct.
BACKGROUND
2. In the South African university system, including Stellenbosch (the University), the Chancellor is a titular post, nominally the highest office-bearer in (and thus the head of) the University, but without executive, decision-making or policy making powers.
3. The Chancellor's main functions are to preside at graduation ceremonies, to confer degrees, and to assist the University executive and its wider community in raising funds, enhancing the standing and reputation of the university and, when invited, to preside at lectures, other academic events, conferences and seminars.
4. While the Chancellor has no formal power, these capacities inevitably draw her or him into events in the University. They thus bring proximity to some decision making processes. They also entail a measure of close communication with the Vice-Chancellor, the Council Chair, and a wide range of others.
5. It is against this background that I tender this affidavit. I seek only to place certain facts before the Court relating to the propriety of the process that led to the Council decisions that are at issue.
6. In this, although I am a graduate of the University, and a former resident of Wilgenhof, my views on the merits of the decisions do not seem to me to be pertinent. I therefore refrain from tendering them. My purpose is to present facts within my direct knowledge that occurred in the process leading to those decisions.
THE PROCESS
7. On 13 February 2024, the Vice-Chancellor of the University, Professor Wim de Villiers (the VC), and the Rectorate (which comprises the VC and his senior executive staff), appointed a Panel to inquire into the contents of two rooms at Wilgenhof, a residence on the campus. The University also issued the Panel's terms of reference.
8. The Panel consisted of three persons: Advocate Nick De Jager (Chair), Dr Derek Swemmer (external member), and Ms Penny van der Bank.
9. A number of persons testified in person before or made submissions to the Panel.
10. The panel invited me to testify before it. I did so on Tuesday 26 March 2024.
11. On Friday, 31 May 2024, the Panel emailed what it termed its FINAL REPORT to the VC. The next day, the VC forwarded to me that message, with the Panel's FINAL REPORT, dated 31 May 2024, attached to it.
12. The Panel's main recommendation was that the University should close Wilgenhof.
However, in the final paragraph of its Report, the Panel suggested an alternative to closure. This, it said. "appeals" to it. This was not closure, but a process of campus dialogue. The paragraph read:
"517. The approach of a truly deep, carefully managed and facilitated dialogue on campus appeals to the panel as an alternative to the closure of Wilgenhof. The panel cannot comment on how long that process might take. The process would have to grapple with the difficult issues that maintain the primacy of the dominant culture at Wilgenhof, and those persons would have to be prepared not only to see their own blind spots. but also to acknowledge their privilege and make big sacrifices to engender deep and lasting change. There is also, of course, no guarantee that such a process would be successful.·
14. On Tuesday, 4 June 2024, I travelled from my home in Johannesburg to officiate at duties on campus. At the invitation of the Chairperson of Council, Dr Nicky Newton-King, I met her. We discussed the Panel's Report. Later that evening, after the duties in question, I did the same with the VC.
15. The next day and the day after, on my return to Johannesburg, I sent follow up texts about the Report to both the Council Chair and the VC.
16. The following week, on Wednesday 12 June 2024, the VC telephoned me. Since I was unable to take the call, he sent me a voice note. In it, he informed me of the Rectorate's decision, which was shortly to be announced. The Rectorate, he said, had unanimously accepted the principal recommendation of the Panel: it had decided that Wilgenhof would be closed.
17. The VC's voice note added this. The Executive Committee of Council had also met, at the same time, and agreed that Wilgenhof should be closed ("ook met hierdie besluit saamstem").
18. The VC's voice note said that an amended and redacted version of the Panel's Report would be publicly released that day. In concluding his voice note, the VC repeated this, saying "a redacted version of the Report" ('"n 'redacted' weergawe van die verslag") would be released. I attach a transcription of the voice note (EC1).
19. The University on that day released what it said was the Panel's Report. The document the University released bore the same title as the file the VC forwarded { to me on 1 June 2024, namely FINAL REPORT, though the date on it had been changed to 10 June 2024.
20. Later that afternoon, at 17h05 on 12 June 2024, the Registrar's professional assistant, Ms Celeste Mockey, sent this document to me.
21. Redacting the Panel's Report had been discussed with me. The object was to protect the identify of certain individuals who had testified or made submissions to the Panel. I was asked whether my name should be redacted. I said No.
22. On receiving Ms Mockey's email, I briefly perused the attached "FINAL REPORT", to see which names had been redacted.
23. On doing so, I discovered that the final paragraph of the FINAL REPORT sent to me on 1 June 2024 had disappeared.
24. Instead, the proposal contained in that paragraph had been moved to a position earlier in the Report, but had been altered. It now indicated, not an alternative that "appealed" to the Panel, namely a "truly deep, carefully managed and facilitated dialogue", but an alternative that the Panel unequivocally rejected.
25. The Panel's Report now did so in the following terms:
"511. The panel considered various alternative courses to address the difficulties in paragraph 504 above, including
511.1. A truly deep, carefully managed and facilitated change management process at
Wrlgenhof, while using the threat of closure of Wilgenhof as something of a "stick" to facilitate real change (i.e. if the process of change fails or is not genuinely undertaken by Wrlgenhof stakeholders, the residence will be closed down). The panel cannot comment on how long that process might take. The dialogue would have to grapple with the difficult issues that maintain the primacy of the dominant culture at Wilgenhof, and members of that culture would have to be prepared not only to see their own blind spots, but also to acknowledge their privilege and make big sacrifices to engender deep and lasting change.
511.2. Engaging in an almost TRC-type, facilitated dialogue on campus in which all stakeholders of the University participate, to grapple with University-wide issues of racism, transformation, diversity, belonging and so forth, with a focus on residences. This would address issues such as "what does it mean to be the beneficiary of generational wealth and privilege?"; "what does it mean to carry a legacy of generational exclusion and marginalisation?"; and so forth.
The panel heard that there have not been sufficient opportunities to really sit down and get to know people across the racial divide, hear their experiences, with a view to transforming SU. Perhaps Wilgenhof could be closed up temporarily (for a year or more) while this continues.
511.3. Converting Wilgenhof to a CoEd residence in keeping with SU's residence strategy: some experts felt this option could be feasible, provided that female students are in the majority.
511.4. Ensuring that Wilgenhof is populated by a significant majority of black students. If this occurs, so the expert thinking went, it may create a safe space for black students to speak out and to effect real change in the residence, to break and replace the Wilgenhof culture currently in place.
511.5. Changing the name of the residence (through an inclusive process): it appears to
the panel unlikely that this would have any realistic chance of success. The Wilgenhof Association has acquired ownership of the name Wilgenhof, and if the residence continues to be used as a men's residence in the same buildings, there is no reason to think that the Nagligte will not survive and/or resurface again in future, as they have done before.
512. The panel holds the view, however, that none of the alternatives mentioned in paragraph 511 above is truly viable. Against the long history of resistance to change and reform at Wilgenhof, which has brought SU to this point, the panel recommends the permanent closure of Wilgenhof."
26. On discovering that the Panel's report had been altered, I wrote to the VC, copying the Chair of Council. asked the VC to "help me understand what happened between Saturday 1 June and this afternoon [Wednesday, 12 June)". attach a copy of this email (EC2).
27. On Thursday, 13 June 2024 the VC called me. We had a thirteen-minute long conversation. He admitted that he had intervened by writing to the Panel about the final paragraph of its Report. The VC insisted that he had merely responded to an invitation the Panel directed to the Rectorate to "provide any clarification or answer any questions" about its Report.
28. In the days that followed, I exchanged text messages with the chair of Council,
the VC as well as the immediately preceding Deputy Chair of Council, Mr Jannie Durand.
29. In these messages, I expressed the view that the public had a strong interest in knowing that the "FINAL REPORT" that served before the Rectorate and the Executive Committee of Council on 12 June 2024 differed in its recommendations from the Panel's FINAL REPORT dated 31 May 2024.
30. In addition, I considered that the public had a legitimate interest in knowing that
(a) the VC's intervention had triggered the changes; and (b) the Panel had for its part acceded to the VC's intervention.
31. On Saturday, 15 June 2024, having received no written response to my letter of 12 June 2024, I wrote to the VC. I indicated that I had been "agonising about the way forward". I then suggested that he might consider issuing a statement setting out his intervention, and acknowledging it was an error. I attach a copy of this email (EC3).
32. The next day, Sunday, 16 June 2024, the VC acknowledged receipt of my email and indicating that he had forwarded it to the University's legal division for consideration and advice. I attach a copy of this email (EC4).
33. On Thursday, 20 June 2024 I received a response from the VC. This set out the events that led to the alteration of the Panel's FINAL REPORT. Attached to the VC's reply was correspondence between the VC and the Panel's attorneys. The VC asserted that "it is clear that I did not commit an error and that it is not necessary for me to release any statement alluding to any undue intervention or conceding to any irregular actions or wrongdoing on my part."
34.1 attach a copy of the VC's letter of 20 June 2024 (EC5), as well as the attachment to that letter, consisting of email correspondence between the VC and the Panel's attorney, Mr Yaseen Cariem and the VC and the University's legal advisers (EC6).
35. On Friday, 21 June 2024 I emailed my response to the VC. I pointed out that the original concluding paragraph of the Panel's FINAL REPORT embodied a proposal for dialogue and amelioration which the Panel located conspicuously and strategically at the very end of its Report, and which it said "appeals to it".
36. Instead, responding to the VC's intervention, the Panel now excised the dialogue proposal, including it instead in a list of options that it entirely rejected.
37. I recorded that ''the sequence of trigger, cause and consequence in the alteration of the Panel's Report" seemed "unarguably clear to me". I attach a copy of my email (EC?).
38. On the same day, Friday 21 June 2024, I had a conversation with the Council Chair. She suggested that I not make public the VC's intervention in the Panel's Report, but, instead, assured me that she would take charge of the process thenceforward, which, she said, would be scrupulously fair.
39. Later that day, I forwarded my response to the VC to the Council Chair. I pointed out that "it may be difficult not to inform Council of the changes to the Panel's Report", though I was "keenly conscious" of her preserve and sole responsibilities. I attach a copy of my email (EC8).
40. On 24 June 2024, Council decided that the Rector's recommendation to close Wilgenhof warranted "further consultation and consideration", and therefore "invited all interested and affected persons and stakeholders to submit written representations" to it regarding closure or non-closure of Wilgenhof.
41. This process culminated on Monday, 16 September 2024. At its meeting on that day, Council decided to close Wilgenhof for a year, after which the residence would be reopened in a "reimagined" form, while current residents would be permitted to apply for readmission.
42. On Friday, 20 September I met the Council Chair. She informed me that neither
she nor the VC had disclosed to Council the intervention in the Panel's Report, nor that, in consequence of this, the FINAL REPORT had been amended before the Rectorate, the ExCo of Council, or Council itself, saw it.
43. In deciding on Wilgenhof, Council thus did not know that the Report before it had been altered. Nor was Council made aware of my exchanges with the VC regarding the changes.
44. The Council Chair further stated that the Executive Committee of Council had not met on Wednesday 12 June 2024 and approved the decision of the Rectorate to close Witgenhof.
45.1 responded that, since the Council Chair's account of what happened did not accord with what the VC told me in his voice note of 12 June 2024, it may be for a Court to decide the facts.
46. On Sunday, 22 September 2024 I wrote to the VC. I indicated that if the Council decision of that week resulted in litigation, I would "probably feel obliged to inform the Court of what had happened". I attach a copy of my email (EC9).
47. At that time, the VC was in New York City. He and I exchanged text messages arranging to talk when he returned later in the week.
48. Pursuant to our exchange, the VC called me on Thursday afternoon, 26 September 2024. Our conversation lasted 33 minutes. The VC told me, for the first time, that he had not acted alone in writing to the Panel querying its Report's final paragraph. He said that the Council Chair had been party to his doing so.
49. He repeated that, in approaching the Panel about its Report, he had merely been responding to the Panel's indication "that they remain at the Rectorate's disposal to provide any clarification or answer any questions in respect of the Wilgenhof Report".
50. The VC now also stated that the Executive Committee of Council had not met on 12 June 2024 and approved the Rectorate's decision to close Wilgenhof. I responded, as I had to the Council Chair, that this discrepancy may be for a Court to decide.
EDWIN CAMERON
DEPONENT
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVENAMED DEPONENT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT WHICH WAS SIGNED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME AT ON THIS THE SATURDAY 25th OCTOBER 2024 AND THAT THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN GOVERNMENT NOTICE R1258 DATED 21 JULY 1972 AS AMENDED BY GOVERNMENT NOTICE R1648 DATED 19 AUGUST 1977 AND FURTHER AMENDED BY GOVERNMENT NOTICE R1428 DATED 21 JULY 1980 AND GOVERNMENT NOTICE R774 DATED 23 APRIL 1982 HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.
COMMISSIONER OF OATHS
Name: Address: Designation:
***
Wilgenhof closure EC affidavit annexure EC1:
TRANSCRIPTION OF VC'S VOICE NOTE 12 JUNE 2024 AT 13H40:
Hi Edwin, Wim hierso. Ek wou jou net 'n heads-up gegee het. Die geamendeerde, redacted verslag van die Wilgenhof paneel gaan vanmiddag vrygestel word, saam met 'n media verklaring, ook van my kant af en die Rektoraat af, dat ons die verslag ontvang het, en dat ons die hoof-aanbeveling van die paneel aanvaar; naamlik dat Wilgenhof gesluit moet word en dat dit aan die einde van 2024 sal plaasvind.
Tesame daarmee het ons ook 'n vergadering van die Uitvoerende Komitee van die Raad gehad, wat ook met hierdie besluit saamstem; en dit gaan dan dien as 'n aanbeveling aan die Raad, vir die Raad se finale besluitneming op die 24ste Junie om die implikasies van die aanbeveling van my kant af te oorweeg, sowel as 'n voorstel dat die proses moet ge'inisieer word tydens 2025 vir alternatiewe gebruike vir die Wilgenhof gebou, en dan ook die respons aan die... in terme van die ... paneel se verslag se ander aanbevelings.
So, 'n redacted weergawe van die verslag sal uitgestuur word vandag aan al die verskillende belanghebbers, insluitende ook die media, later vandag.
Mooi bly, totsiens.
***
Wilgenhof closure EC affidavit annexure EC2:
From: Edwin Cameron
Date: 12 June 2024 at 17:32:46 SAST
To: "De Villiers, WJS, Prof
Cc: Nicky Newton-King
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL: WILGENHOF PANEL - FINAL REPORT dated 31 May
2024, vs report dated 10 June 2024
Dear Wim
On 1 June 2024 you sent me a file titled FINAL REPORT of the Wilgenhof Panel. The report is dated 31 May 2024. Its final paragraph is para 517 on page 104. That contains the passage I sent to you and Nicky last week:
- The approach of a truly deep, carefully managed and facilitated dialogue on campus appeals to the panel as an alternative to the closure of Wilgenhof. The panel cannot comment on how long that process might take. The process would have to grapple with the difficult issues that maintain the primacy of the dominant culture at Wilgenhof, and those persons would have to be prepared not only to see their own blind spots, but also to acknowledge their privilege and make big sacrifices to engender deep and lasting change. There is also, of course, no guarantee that such a process would be successful.
This afternoon I received from Celeste in the Registrar's office a report dated 1O June 2024. Its main body contains 518 (not 517) paragraphs over 104 pages.
- It does not appear to contain the passage I quote above.
I would be grateful if you could help me understand what happened between Saturday 1 June and this afternoon, and, unless I am overlooking it, why the 10 June 2024 report does not contain the passage quoted.
Thank you. Edwin
***
Wilgenhof closure EC affidavit annexure EC3:
From: Edwin Cameron Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 at 10:01
Subject: Report dated 31 May vs Report dated 10 June 2024 To: Wim de Villiers
Cc: Nicky Newton-King
Good morning from Schiphol, Wim. I have been agonising about the way forward and wonder whether you would consider issuing a statement setting out your intervention, and acknowledging it was an error?
With thanks for your consideration Edwin
***
Wilgenhof closure EC affidavit annexure EC4:
From: De Villiers, WJS, Prof Date: Sun. 16 Jun 2024 at 10:01
Subject: Wim de Villiers: Report dated 31 May vs Report dated 10 June 2024 To: Edwin Cameron
Cc: Nicky Newton-King
Dear Edwin
I acknowledge receipt of your email and have forwarded it to our legal division (Neville Naidoo) for consideration and advice.
Regards Wim
***
Wilgenhof closure EC affidavit annexure EC5:
VC's covering letter of 20 June 2024 Justice Edwin Cameron
Chancellor
Stellenbosch University Per email:
Dear Edwin
WILGENHOF PANEL'S REPORT
I refer to your email dated 15 June 2024 regarding the Wilgenhof Panel's Report. You ask me to consider issuing a statement setting out my alleged intervention in the Panel's report, and acknowledging it was an error.
I must address the incorrect inference that I had intervened in the Panel's report, which resulted in the Panel materially amending their report dated 31 May 2024, and releasing an amended report dated 10 June 2024.
The purpose of this letter is to clear up any perceived misunderstanding of the matter by clarifying my interaction with the secretary of the Panel in respect of clause 517 of the Panel's report dated 31 May 2024. On 31 May 2024 I received the Panel's report from the secretary of the Panel. On 1 June 2024, I acknowledged receipt of the report
Between 3 June and 6 June 2024, the Rectorate considered and discussed the report amongst themselves and with its legal advisors.
Paragraph 517 appeared to be misplaced when considering it in conjunction with the Panel's findings, conclusions and other recommendations in the report, and particularly the preceding 6 paragraphs, in which the Panel first recorded the various alternative courses it had considered to address the difficulties identified in paragraph 504 (paragraph 511); next stated, "against the long history of resistance to change and reform at Wilgenhof, which has brought SU to this point, the panel recommends the pennanent closure of Wilgenhof' (paragraph 512); then went on to say that "taking such a decisive step would send a clear message to present and past students of SU ...'' (paragraph 513); followed by it noting that "the closure of Wilgenhof could also act as a springboard for deep and meaningful transformational engagement and conversations on campus ..." (paragraph 514).
I furnish a summary below how the amended report of 10 June 2024 came about. On 6 June 2024, the secretary of the Panel informed me that the Panel had asked him to advise that they remain at the Rectorate's disposal to provide any clarification or answer any questions in respect of the report of 31 May 2024. On the same day I wrote to the secretary, stating that paragraph 517 seems somewhat out of place, and asking the Panel to clarify whether this was indeed the intention.
In answer to my enquiry, the Panel informed me on 7 June 2024 via its secretary that
- paragraph 517 is indeed out of place, and that it should have been included in paragraph 511.1, to form part of the main alternatives the Panel had considered to address the difficulties it had identified with the Wilgenhof culture and the Nagligte ritual.
- none of the alternatives addressed in paragraph 511 and its subparagraphs, including the alternative previously set out in paragraph 517, is truly viable, and in the circumstances the Panel recommends the permanent closure of Wilgenhof.
- if it would be helpful to the Rectorate, the report could quickly and easily be amended to affect this clarification. This offer by the Panel was accepted to ensure clarity and limit misunderstanding of the Panel's recommendations contained in the report.
On 10 June 2024, I received the Panel's amended report, at first still dated 31 May 2024, but subsequently changed to 10 June 2024. The Panel also provided an explanation of the changes it had affected.
l attach the email exchange with the secretary of the Panel for your information (see annexure "A"). It is clear from this that at no stage did I intervene with the Panel's report, to supplant its views with mine. I merely requested clarification of para 517 of the initial report, as this paragraph appeared out of place, which the Panel indeed confirmed was the case. The Panel subsequently, of its own volition, corrected and submitted the corrected report.
Under these circumstances, it is clear that I did not commit an error and that it is not
necessary for me to release any statement alluding to any undue intervention or conceding to any irregular actions or wrongdoing on my part.
I trust that this clarifies the position. Best wishes
Prof Wim de Villiers
Rector and Vice-Chancellor
***
Wilgenhof closure EC affidavit annexure EC6:
EMAIL ANNEXURES TO VC'S LETTER OF 20 JUNE 2024 – Correspondence between Yaseen Cariem, of VOS Attorneys, attorney to the Panel, and the VC, and between the VC and the University's legal advisers:
From: Yaseen Cariem Date: Thursday, 06 June 2024 at 11:39
To: De Villiers, WJS, Prof
Subject: RE: CONFIDENTIAL: WILGENHOF PANEL - FINAL REPORT
Dear Prof de Villiers, We refer to our email dated 31 May 2024. The panel has asked me to advise that they remain at the Rectorate's disposal to provide any clarification or answer any questions in respect of the Wilgenhof Report, distributed on 31 May 2024, at your convenience. Kind regards YASEEN CARIEM
From: De Villiers, WJS, ProfSent: Thursday, June 6, 2024 16:52
To: Yaseen Cariem Cc: Retief, Ronel, Dr
Subject: Wim de Villiers: CONFIDENTIAL: WILGENHOF PANEL - FINAL REPORT
Dear Mr. Cariem Thank you for your email - we appreciate the opportunity. We do indeed have a question - the final paragraph, par 517 - seems somewhat out of place. Could the panel please clarify whether this was indeed the intention? Regards Wim de Villiers
From: Yaseen Cariem Date: Friday, 07 June 2024 at 07:41 To: De Villiers, WJS, Prof Cc: Retief, Ronel, Dr Subject: Re: Wim de Villiers: CONFIDENTIAL: WILGENHOF PANEL - FINAL REPORT
Dear Prof de Villiers, Thank you for your email received late yesterday afternoon, in which you raise a point of clarification for the panel regarding paragraph 517 of the Report. I have referred your email to the panel and they have responded with the following clarification.
The final paragraph of the Report (para 517) is indeed out of place.
Paragraph 517 should not be a separate paragraph on its own. It should form part and parcel of paragraph 511.1.
Paragraph 511 sets out the main alternatives that the panel considered to address the difficulties it had identified with the Wilgenhof culture and the Nagligte ritual.
The panel holds the view, however, that none of the alternatives mentioned in paragraph 511 (including paragraph 517, which should form part thereof) is truly viable.
In the circumstances the panel recommends the permanent closure of Wilgenhof.
If it would be helpful to the Rectorate, the Report could quickly and easily be amended to effect this clarification.
The Report would be amended by:
(1) deleting paragraph 517; and
(2) replacing the existing paragraphs 511 and 512 with the following (the footnotes are not included for now, but are retained as per the Report):
"511. The panel considered various alternative courses to address the difficulties in paragraph 504 above, including
511.1. A truly deep, carefully managed and facilitated change management process at Wilgenhof, while using the threat of closure of Wilgenhof as something of a "stick" to facilitate real change (i.e. if the process of change fails or is not genuinely undertaken by Wilgenhof stakeholders, the residence will be closed down). The panel cannot comment on how long that process might take. The dialogue would have to grapple with the difficult issues that maintain the primacy of the dominant culture at Wilgenhof, and members of that culture would have to be prepared not only to see their own blind spots, but also to acknowledge their privilege and make big sacrifices to engender deep and lasting change.
511.2. Engaging in an almost TRC-type, facilitated dialogue on campus in which all stakeholders of the University participate, to grapple with University-wide issues of racism, transformation, diversity, belonging and so forth, with a focus on residences. This would address issues such as "what does it mean to be the beneficiary of generational wealth and privilege?"; "what does it mean to carry a legacy of generational exclusion and marginalisation?"; and so forth. The panel heard that there have not been sufficient opportunities to really sit down and get to know people across the racial divide, hear their experiences, with a view to transforming SU. Perhaps Wilgenhof could be closed up temporarily (for a year or more) while this continues.
511.3. Converting Wilgenhof to a CoEd residence in keeping with SU's residence strategy: some experts felt this option could be feasible, provided that female students are in the majority.
511.4. Ensuring that Wilgenhof is populated by a significant majority of black students. If this occurs, so the expert thinking went, it may create a safe space for black students to speak out and to effect real change in the residence, to break and replace the Wilgenhof culture currently in place.
511.5. Changing the name of the residence (through an inclusive process): it appears to the panel unlikely that this would have any realistic chance of success. The Wilgenhof Association has acquired ownership of the name Wilgenhof, and if the residence continues to be used as a men's residence in the same buildings, there is no reason to think that the Nagligte will not survive and/or resurface again in future, as they have done before.
512. The panel holds the view, however, that none of the alternatives mentioned in paragraph 511 above is truly viable. Against the long history of resistance to change and reform at Wilgenhof, which has brought SU to this point, the panel recommends the permanent closure of Wilgenhof."
This is manifestly an issue of importance, and the panel does not wish to be misunderstood. Thank you for raising this issue with the panel.
Kind regards YASEEN CARIEM
From: De Villiers, WJS, Prof
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2024 8:31:09 AM
To: Naidoo, N, Mr Cc: Retief, Ronel, Dr
Subject: Wim de Villiers: CONFIDENTIAL: WILGENHOF PANEL - FINAL
REPORT
Dear Neville
Please see Mr. Cariem's reply below in response to my query yesterday afternoon. I'd appreciate a chat with you as soon as convenient to determine the best way forward. Regards Prof. Wim
Naidoo, N,
Mr Wing, Charmaine
Lorinda van Niekerk
Fwd: Wim de Villiers: CONFIDENTIAL: WILGENHOF PANEL - FINAL
REPORT Friday, 07 June 2024 09:11:09
Dear Charmaine and Lorinda I am to discuss this with the rectorate asap yet bringing it to your notice. Best Neville
***
Wilgenhof closure EC affidavit annexure EC7:
From: Edwin Cameron Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 16:38
Subject: Wilgenhofs Panel's Report dated 31 May vs 10 June 2024: Response to Rector's letter of 20 June 2024
To: Joyce, Maretha
De Villiers, WJS, Prof
Cc: Maretha Joyce
Dear Wim
Thank you for your letter of yesterday. It arrived as we were about to board the day flight from Amsterdam; hence the delay.
1. You confirm that in response to an email from the Panel's attorney advising that "they remain at the Rectorate's disposal to provide any clarification or answer any questions" on the Report, you stated that "the final paragraph, par 517 - seems somewhat out of place" and asked the Panel to "please clarify whether this was indeed the intention".
2. That paragraph embodied a proposal for dialogue and amelioration, which, the Panel recorded, "appeals" to it as an alternative to closure. The Panel located this option conspicuously and strategically as the very last paragraph of its Report.
3. In response to your intervention, the Panel however now excised the dialogue proposal.
4. Instead, that paragraph, denuded of its appeal to the Panel, was included elsewhere, in a list of options the Panel entirely rejected.
5. For the archive, rather than to pick a fight with you, let me say only that the sequence of trigger, cause and consequence in the alteration of the Panel's Report seems unarguably clear to me.
6. What is new to me however is how astonishing the conduct of the Panel was.
7. On 31 May 2024, it sent you a FINAL REPORT. That Report remained "Final" only until you queried its last paragraph.
8. Then the Panel, with what seems almost flippant haste, within 24 hours entirely changed the tenor and content of its Report. Now there was no alternative to closure. There was no path to dialogue and amelioration. Only erasure.
9. If the last paragraph was a mistake, as the Panel claimed to you in its message of Friday 7 June 2024 why was it in the Report at all? And why was it so conspicuously placed? And why did the Panel say the alternative "appeals" to it?
10. This seems to suggest an insouciant, even reckless, approach on the part of a Panel that was entrusted with duties affecting issues of grave importance to the University.
I don't know where to go from here, Wim. Council must surely be informed of the Panel's change of mind, and what triggered it. I hope that we can find an appropriate way forward.
Sincerely Edwin
***
Wilgenhof closure EC affidavit annexure EC8:
From: Edwin Cameron Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 16:42
Subject: To Wim: Wilgenhofs Panel's Report dated 31 May vs 10 June 2024:
Response to Rector's letter of 20 June 2024
To: Nicky Newton-King
Nicky, many thanks for our chat. I look forward to taking these issues further on Wednesday afternoon, after the arbitration appeal.
It occurred to me only later that it may be difficult not to inform Council of the changes to the Panel's Report, though I am keenly conscious of your preserve and sole responsibilities here.
Edwin
***
Wilgenhof closure EC affidavit annexure EC9:
From: Edwin Cameron< >
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2024 5:10 AM
To: De Villiers, WJS, Prof
Subject: Op 'n persoonlike noot
Beste Wim
Ek skryf persoonlik om jou te laat weet dat indien Maandag se Raadsbesluit op litigasie uitloop, ek waarskynlik genoop sal voel om 'n eedsverklaring in te dien.
Oaarin sal ek die gebeure uiteensit tussen Vrydagaand 31 Mei 2024, toe die Wilgenhof-Paneel se FINAL REPORT jou bereik het, en Woensdag 12 Junie, toe jy my ingelig het dat die Rektoraat besluit het om Wilgenhof te sluit, en dat 'n gewysigde "FINAL REPORT" vrygestel word.
Verder dat jou voicernail daardie dag verstrek het dat die Uitvoerende Komitee van
die Raad ook besluit het dat Wilgenhof gesluit word (wat ek vergeet het, totdat ek hierdie week weer daarna geluister het, maar wat Nicky nooit aan my genoem het nie). (Nicky het Vrydag ontken dat ExCo so besluit het, wat strydig is met jou voicemail, 'n transkripsie waarvan ek beskikbaar sal stel).
Nicky het ook Vrydag vir die eerste keer bevestig dat jy en sy nie die Raad oor die
wysiging van die Paneel se verslag, of my en jou botsing daaroor, ingelig het nie. Ek sal my eie gevolgtrekking uiteensit dat die Raad dus 'n "poisoned chalice" ontvang het, wat latere prosesse besoedel het, waarin Raadslede van die valse geloof uitgegaan het dat 'n onafhanklike Paneel onomwonde en sander voorwaarde of voorbehoud of alternatief sluiting aanbeveel het.
Dit help nie dat ek my intense spyt hieroor uitspreek nie, en miskien is dit ook nie van pas nie, maar dis vir my uiters smartvol.
Ek kon nie vroeer 'n aanduiding hiervan met jou of Nicky deel nie. omdat dit vertolk sou kon word dat ek die Raad probeer beinvloed. My hoop was egter nog altyd, en bly steeds, dat 'n billike, waardige en eerbare kompromie gevind kan word, wat nie tans die geval is nie.
My gesprekke Vrydag met Nicky en met Stan (wat my gekontak het nadat ek vir
Nicky gese het ek sou graag met horn gesels) het my effens hoopvol gestem dat die deur hiervoor nog oop is.
Steeds met goeie wense
DEPONENT'S TRANSLATION:
Dear Wim
I write personally to let you know that if Monday's decision by Council results in litigation, I will probably feel obliged to submit an affidavit.
In it, I will set out the events between Friday evening 31 May 2024, when the
Wilgenhof Panel's FINAL REPORT reached you, and Wednesday 12 June, when you informed me that the Rectorate had decided to close Wilgenhof, and that an amended "FINAL REPORT' would be released.
Further that your voicemail of that day disclosed that the Executive Committee of Council also decided that Wilgenhof must be closed (which I had forgotten, until I listened again this week to it, but which Nicky never mentioned to me). (Nicky denied on Friday that ExCo had decided this, which conflicts with your voicemail, a transcription of which I will make available.)
Nicky also confirmed on Friday for the first time that you and she did not inform
Council about the amendment of the Panel's report, or your and my clash about it. will set out my own conclusion that Council thus received a "poisoned chalice", which tainted later processes, in which Council members proceeded from the false belief that an independent Panel unequivocally and without condition or reservation or alternative recommended closure.
It does no good for me to express my intense regret about this, and perhaps it isn't
even appropriate, but this causes me enormous grief.
I could not share an earlier indication of this with you or Nicky, because it could be interpreted as trying to influence Council. My hope however has always been, and still is, that a fair, dignified and honourable compromise can be found, which is not at present the case.
My conversations on Friday with Nicky and with Stan (who contacted me after I told
Nicky I would like to talk with him) have instilled slight hope in me that the door remains open for this.
With continuing good wishes Edwin
ENDS
