SMU Vice Chancellor inquiry: postponed

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed everyone present and noted that the Committee was scheduled to deal with the oversight enquiry regarding the appointment of Prof Mbati as the Vice Chancellor of Sefako Makgatho University and other related matters. The Committee has been in touch with various persons and stakeholders to prepare for this enquiry. The Committee received correspondence from all the individuals that were going to participate as well as the institutions. Some of the individuals and stakeholders have submitted their statements and submissions, but others have communicated that they would not make it and sent apologies.

The management team met to prepare for today’s meeting and prepared a programme for this week. The Committee was scheduled to meet today, tomorrow and Friday. The persons invited and institutions were scheduled to come in and provide oral evidence.

Yesterday morning, the Committee received correspondence from the attorneys of Prof Mbati threatening an urgent application to interdict this enquiry. The Committee met with legal services from Parliament to respond to Prof Mbati’s lawyers.

Later in the afternoon the Committee received another letter from Bowman and Gilfillan representing the University of Venda and its Council. They threatened to go to court to stop the enquiry.

There were two matters raised in the letter, the first one was that some of the matters that the Committee sought to deal with were already dealt with in Court and the Committee cannot venture into that space. The second matter was about both Prof Mbati and the University as well as the affected stakeholders to not participate in the enquiry. 

The Committee responded that Parliament respected the separation of powers and that its mandate is to conduct oversight over the Executive and all organs in the State. This initiative was not established to arrive to a conclusion of who was guilty or not, but to ensure that the processes in question were followed and the policies were implemented properly. The Committee did not intend on reviewing matters that were already concluded by the court.

The Committee is interested to know whether the appropriations it granted were spent accordingly and that the policies that govern the institution were implemented effectively. The Committee responded in this fashion and also clarified that Prof Mbati and the University were not going to be called. However, they did appear on the programme and the Committee did so only to afford the Professor and the University to come in the end and furnish responses to all the matters that would have been raised.

The former Chairperson of the University of Venda Council submitted a statement and said that she did not think it was necessary for her to participate. The Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on Human Resources also submitted a statement and indicated that he or she would not participate in the enquiry.

After meeting with the Parliamentary Legal Services, it was suggested that the Committee afforded the legal services some time and opportunity to deal with the legal matters and put the enquiry on hold for now.

Things were proceeding smoothly with Prof Mbati and the University until yesterday when the Committee received the correspondence from their attorneys. Our understanding of this enquiry is different from their understanding. There were also allegations regarding infrastructure project and the Committee needs to ascertain whether the funding for that infrastructure was utilised properly because it has been an ongoing project for a long time.

The proceedings of the enquiry would then be suspended at this current juncture until all the legal matters were dealt with. The Committee will have to get to the bottom of the issues that were raised. Parliament is empowered by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa to conduct oversight.

He appealed to Members to note their questions and they will get an opportunity to ask their questions during oral evidence. From the correspondence, it appears that there will be no engagements from the oral evidence that was scheduled during the enquiry. 

From the beginning of this process the Committee requested support from Legal Services and from inception it has been granted. It has been extremely helpful and the Committee is grateful for it.

Mr T Letsie (ANC) also thanked the Legal Services for the support that has been provided to the Members. Be as it may, it is extremely disappointing that the Committee received the correspondence from Prof Mbati and the University’s attorneys at the last minute.

The postponement of this enquiry does not mean it is denied. However, this is a gargantuan disrespect and inconsideration of Parliament’s time. This time could have been used for something else.

He wondered whether the Department exercised sufficient oversight over the institution.

Mr B Nodada (DA) suggested that the correspondence from the attorneys of Prof Mbati should be shared with all the Members. We should allow Legal Services to do the work it set out to do and sort out any legal ambiguities that may exist between the parties. However, the Committee should continue doing its job in probing whatever needs to be investigated pertaining to this matter, because at the end of the day it is mandated to conduct oversight of the institution.

Mr N Mkhatshwa (ANC) indicated that she was very disappointed by the actions of Prof Mbati and the University of Venda for hindering the process at the very last minute when the parties had previously agreed to participate in this process.

The Committee is within its functions to roll out the enquiry and enforce accountability. People must be reminded that the Committee cannot allow a situation where these matters are not ventilated and resolved.

The Chairperson said that he shared the concerns of Members. There was no hint from Prof Mbati that he would want to interdict the process; the same for the University. Both parties had been cooperating since the beginning and were granted extensions by the Committee when requested. If the Committee was made aware of this eventuality, it would have prepared for it. Any interactions with the Legal Services today may not be finalised pronto to have a meeting the next day or this week.

“We are the lawmakers and we are also compelled to act within the bounds of the laws. We have been elected by the people of South Africa to come to Parliament to ensure that the Constitution is implemented. We hold public officials and public representatives accountable. The University of Venda is a public institution and Parliament has the right to ask the Council about actions taken pertaining to certain matters.

We need to ask them about the money that was spent and how it was spent. We will also ask the Council whether its policies effectively”.

Another matter is the cost of legal fees, but this needs to be validated. There was an allegation of R13 million spent on a matter by Prof Mbati. We are not yet aware whether these allegations were true or not but we will ask these questions.

This process will resume once all legal discussions have been concluded by the Legal Services. No amount of pressure or bullying will deter the Committee from performing its responsibilities.

The meeting was adjourned.