SMU Vice Chancellor Inquiry

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the virtual meeting, welcoming the Members, Committee support staff as well as Professor Peter Mbati, Vice Chancellor of Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University. The Committee were to be appraised by Prof Mbati on his statement responding to multiple allegations lodged against him, from his tenure as Vice Chancellor and Principal of the University of Venda.

Statement by Prof P Mbati to the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education

1. Introduction

1.1 My first submission to you, of 28/08/2020, dealt in more detail on the false allegations of sexual harassment against me by Prof Phendla (hereinafter referred to as Phendla), which were rejected by the courts. In view of the revised terms of reference, in which you have acknowledged the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature, and further changed the terms of reference to the effect that the intention of this inquiry is not to review the decisions of the courts, which confirmed that Phendla’s summary dismissal from the University of Venda (Univen) on the accounts of corruption, was procedurally and substantively fair, I am compelled to submit this supplementary statement.

1.2 In these proceedings, as per the Chairperson’s letter of 10 February 2021, I am called to respond to allegations relating to the following:

1.2.1 The failure of Univen management to implement sound financial and supply chain management processes and to properly manage the institution, including various infrastructure projects;

1.2.2 The fruitless and wasteful expenditure relating to the use of external services providers and legal consultants;

1.3 It is clear from the above that I am not called to respond to allegations of the sexual harassment and related matters. It is, however, worth noting that there have been several allegations as per testimonies presented by your witnesses, which have gone beyond the terms presented to me as per the letter of the Chairperson of 10 February 2021.

1.4 It is common knowledge that the allegations that HETN (Higher Education Transformation Network) has lodged against me to the parliamentary Portfolio Committee, and which as the Honourable Chair has constantly reminded us, form the basis of this inquiry.

1.5 It is also common knowledge that HETN similarly lodged a court application that consists of PART A and PART B, this being a Judicial Review application and an urgent interdict. This case was lodge around June 2020, challenging my appointment as Vice Chancellor at Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University (SMU) at the Gauteng Division: Pretoria under case no: 22756/20. I have opposed the urgent interdict application and it has since been dismissed and/or withdrawn by the HETN. SMU has opposed both the urgent application and the judicial review proceedings, and the judicial review case is pending at the High Court.

1.6 It appears to me, therefore, that this matter is still under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere, including before this Committee (i.e., sub judice) and that the courts should therefore be allowed to decide on the veracity of the allegations from HETN.

1.7 Dr Legoabe, at the beginning of his testimony, confirmed that Prof Phendla is a Director at HETN, the same organisation that now fiercely presents her case to the Portfolio Committee.

Before I present my evidence, it is imperative of me to highlight and record the apparent biasness and irregularities in this inquiry.

2. Apparent Biasness and Irregularities in this Inquiry

2.1 The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee has previously been on record on various media platforms, i.e. Radio 702, around September 2020 in which he has pronounced my guilt, alleging that I have never been held to account on the allegations of sexual harassment and that a cloud still hangs over my head. He questioned why I should be allowed to occupy a position of Vice Chancellor with a cloud hanging over my head.

2.2 This, I submit, was a fragrant violation of the legal prescripts of audi alteram partem of natural justice, and it immensely violated my dignity and human rights, as the Chairperson had not heard my side of the story.

2.3 In doing so, the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee, Honourable Mapulane, has demonstrated open hostility and biasness against me. For him to further proceed to chair this inquiry only leads me to conclude that the outcome of this inquiry will be unfair and is prejudged against me.

2.4 The Chairperson has, out of the more 20 000 University of Venda community, elected to call as witnesses in this matter, former employees of the University of Venda who were dismissed by the University of Venda for misconduct during my tenure as the Vice Chancellor and Principal. I will term these former employees ‘a coalition of the wounded’. Tshitereke negotiated his way out of the university pursuant to disciplinary processes that were being instituted against him for misconduct. Makhado was dismissed for misconduct by the disciplinary hearing, which dismissal was confirmed by the CCMA (Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration). I was advised that he has since abandoned his labour court review case. Nemadzivhanani was expelled from Univen following allegations of misconduct. From his own testimony in this inquiry, Nemadzivhanani won the case at the Labour appeal Court after having been out of work for a period of nine years. Manenzhe lost a case at the disciplinary hearing wherein he was the complainant. The person he was accusing was found not guilty by the disciplinary hearing and he accuses me of protecting the accused employee. The University of Venda dismissed Phendla following allegations of corruption. The Labour Appeal Court confirmed her dismissal.

2.5 The one thing that the witnesses listed above have in common, is that they are disgruntled former employees, who are all accusing me of having propagated their downfall, despite the legal processes that Univen had followed to discipline them for their misconduct. I submit that they all have a common motive to punish Mbati for their woes. They are all vengeful.

2.6 Despite the Chairperson’s repeated assurances of none interference with the matters already dealt with by labour courts, the National Prosecuting Authority and the high courts, questions have been put to the witnesses on the allegations of the sexual harassment case; the CGE (Commission for Gender Equality) investigative report which has been set aside; the Lavery Modise mediation report, which has also been reviewed and set aside, declared to be null and void and of no effect. The conduct of the inquiry is highly irregular and falls to be set aside by the High Courts.

2.7 The Chairperson is clearly the evidence leader in this inquiry (the prosecutor) and will be the judge at the end of the inquiry.

2.8 Witnesses were given a free reign to give their evidence, and their evidence was never tested by way of allowing cross examination of these witnesses. This, I submit, is highly unfair and has allowed a lot of wrong and uncontested information to influence a wrong narrative, on the basis of which the Portfolio Committee will make a finding.

2.9 This biasness is further demonstrated by the manner that the Chairperson unfairly treated those witnesses that appeared not to side with his narrative against me. Adv Eric Nemukula, the University of Venda’s Acting Director for Legal Services, who was experiencing technical difficulties with his online presentation, was berated and ridiculed; the Chairperson ultimately instructed him not to proceed with his responses. In contrast, Manenzhe, one of my accusers, who had identical challenges with connectivity and moving around his house was treated with kid gloves, and even offered resources by the Portfolio Committee to ensure that he effectively presents during the inquiry. He was called to testify the following day despite experiencing the same challenges as Adv. Nemukula. Mr Modiba, on making certain observations including the fact that I was strongly active in fund raising activities, was not believed and requested to provide evidence. When others like Tshitereke consistently lied, the Chairperson did not request for similar evidence to be provided. I have been advised, which advise I accept, that the above submissions are valid grounds for the review.

I now proceed to deal with the allegations against me. Failure to answer or deal with each and every allegation raised against me should not be construed as an admission. In actual fact, any allegation not dealt with herein should be deemed as denied.

3. Allegations of a Consensual Sexual Relationship / Sexual Harassment / Sexual Assault

3.1 The witnesses who have testified earlier herein, like the CGE officials, Mr Modise, Tshitereke were allowed to testify about the issue of sexual harassment, an issue that has already been dealt with by the courts and the NPA. It is surprising that I am not called to respond to the same. I can only assume that the reason I am not called to rebut such testimonies is because this inquiry intends, as it undertook, not to interfere with the findings of the courts. It is worth repeating that this matter was fully dealt with by the University of Venda disciplinary hearing, CCMA, labour court: Johannesburg and the Labour Appeal Court: Johannesburg. Both Phendla and I were afforded an opportunity to give evidence and were cross-examined at length. A Senior Advocate or Senior Counsel legally represented Phendla throughout the trial at the Labour Court. The CGE was present throughout the Labour Court trial with a watch brief.

3.2. Irrefutable documentary evidence has been presented to this inquiry confirming that Prof Phendla was procedurally and substantively dismissed on the grounds of corruption and not on the grounds of sex as she alleged. Please refer to the following documents:

3.2.1 Deloitte forensic report of September 2010 titled: “Forensic investigation into the appointment of Clean Shop”, which recommended disciplinary action against Phendla for corruption-related misdemeanours (Appendix 1).

3.2.2 Report on the outcome of Phendla’s disciplinary hearing and subsequent sanction of dismissal for corruption dated 31 October 2011 (Appendix 2).

3.2.3 A nolle prosequi from the National Prosecuting Authority dated 10th May 2012, dismissing Phendla’s false allegations against me of sexual assault (Appendix 3).

3.2.4 University Council rejected Phendla’s appeal against the sanction of summary dismissal on the account of corruption.

3.2.5 Court order dated 30th May 2016 excising substantial sections of the CGE report that had un-procedurally and against its own rules and procedures produced a report, which was successfully challenged by UNIVEN in a court of law (Appendix 4 and Appendix 5).

3.2.6 Council statement of 11th July 2016 (Appendix 6)

3.2.7 Court order, dated 13th February 2017, reviewing, and setting aside Mr Lavery Modise’s mediation report and declaring it null and void and of no consequence (Appendix 7).

3.2.8 Judgement of the Labour court dated 12th October 2017 that confirmed that her dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair and not on the grounds of sex (Appendix 8).

3.2.9 The Labour Appeal Court judgement dated 19th February 2018, which rejected Phendla’s leave to appeal because it had no reasonable prospects of success and there was no compelling reason why it should be granted, and effectively confirming the decision of the Labour court (Appendix 9)

3.3 A wrong and misleading interpretation has been attached to the comments and/or findings and/or reasoning of Judge GN Moshoana of the Labour Court, Johannesburg, in his judgment of 12 October 2017. The misinterpretation is attached to paragraph 59 of the judgement that reads as follows: “…It may well be so that the applicant and Professor Mbati had a consensual relationship, which like many other relationships hit the rough patch….”

I submit with respect that the interpretation, which the Chairperson’s attached to the above extract is wrong in law and misleading. He consistently reads his narrative into the comments or reasoning of the judge because that is what he wants to hear. The use of the word “may” is not definitive; it only shows that there could have been or there could not have been a relationship. The word “may” only expresses a possibility, but like I said, it is not definitive, certain or without doubt. Therefore, I submit that the Chairperson should seek proper legal advice and should stop reading his narrative into the clear and unambiguous judgement of Judge Moshoana.

3.4 Judge Moshoana never concluded with certainty and without doubt that I was in a consensual relationship with Phendla.

4. Allegation: During Prof Mbati’s tenure at Univen, six infrastructure development projects with the original cost of R283.1 million were found abandoned in July 2017 visit by the DHET. The revised project cost for five of the six abandoned projects, as reported in the Univen’s May 2019 annual report, is R369.634 million.

4.1 It is important to mention that Univen had a Council approved supply chain management policy on the basis of which contractors were appointed for all infrastructure projects. The supply chain management policy was revised from time to time as the need arose for it to comply with the provision of section 217 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and other national procurement laws. The Bid Adjudication Committee (Tender Committee / BAC) was a committee of Council chaired by an external council member. The recommendations of the BAC to appoint contractors, project managers or professionals were always submitted to Council for approval.

4.2 The Executive Management’s oversight for infrastructure projects was placed in the office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor responsible for Operations (DVC: Operations). For good governance practices, the University established an Infrastructure Project Board, chaired by an external person. During my tenure, Prof Sibara, a retired bureaucrat and former Deputy Vice Chancellor of the University of Limpopo, chaired this project board. The reports of infrastructure projects from this Committee were always submitted to the following committees for further oversight: (a) Finance Committee of Council (b) Audit Committee of Council and (c) the full Council meeting.

4.3 Evidence that the Council continued to provide oversight on the major infrastructure projects can be seen from the minutes of the Joint Bid Adjudication and Finance Committee meeting held on 07 July 2017 (Appendix 10) and 11 August 2017 (Appendix 11).

4.4 On 02 November 2015, the Univen external auditors, SizweNtsalubaGobodo Systems, at the request of the University Council produced a report titled “Projects review report to those charged with governance at the University of Venda” (Appendix 12).

4.5 Flowing from the SNG report “Projects review report to those charged with governance”, the University Council instituted a Forensic Investigation to be carried out in 10 projects of the 14 projects, which included the so-called “Abandoned Projects”. The forensic report by NEXIA SAB&T dated 29 August 2016, addressed to the Chair of Council, Mr Serobi Maja, is presented as Appendix 13. The recommendations of the forensic report included among others:

4.5.1 Review of the Supply Chain Management Policy;

4.5.2 Imposing penalties to contractors who had abandoned projects;

4.5.3 Discipline University Officials who carried out variation orders without delegated authority from Council;

4.6 The University of Venda Council, on 09 September 2016, appointed a Task Team to study the SAB&T Forensic Report and to advise Council. At its meeting of 07 April 2017 EXCO received a report from the Council Task Team on the Forensic Audit (Appendix 14). Paragraph seven of the minutes of EXCO captures their report, which reads: (a) At its meeting of 09 September 2016, EXCO had appointed a Task Team to look at the forensic audit report and submit clear recommendations at its subsequent meeting of 18 November 2016. (b) The Task Team had met on 13 February 2017 at the Limpopo Gambling Board, Polokwane. (c) A follow up meeting had been held on 22 March 2017 on campus when Management presented its responses and portfolio of evidence to the recommendations and/or resolutions that the Task Team had made. (d) The Task Team had accepted Management responses and expressed that they had a better understanding following the inspection in loco tour. (e) The inspection in loco had revealed that further variations relating to items that had not been envisaged in the original plan might arise, in order to ensure that most of the facilities cited in the Forensic Audit Report would be in good working order. (f) With regard to the recommendation to institute disciplinary action against University officials named in the report, Exco recommended to Council that disciplinary action should be instituted against the named officials, as they were no longer in the employ of the University.

4.7 On 15th September 2016, the University released a communiqué addressed to the Office of Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, then Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa, whose office had received a plethora of demands to investigate alleged corruption on infrastructure projects at Univen raised by Prof Olukoga, who had been dismissed from the University for serious misconduct. The dismissal of Prof Thidziambi Phendla and other matters raised by the Higher Education Transformation Network (HETN) had also been submitted to the office of the Deputy President (Appendix 15).

4.8 As Vice Chancellor I kept the Council of the University of Venda updated on the matter of abandoned projects and other matters arising from this matter. At the Executive Committee of Council meeting of 08 September 2017 (see paragraph 3.2 of the minutes in Appendix 16) which reads: - “a) ……………. b) The University had hosted a delegation from the DHET led by Dr D Parker on 24 and 25 August 2017. Broad discussions covered financial sustainability, human resources, infrastructure and efficiency grants, academic enterprise and capacity development, governance and statutory structures, student perspectives on institutional development. In attendance during the different sessions were members of senior and executive management, the Chairperson of the Institutional Forum (IF), Mr K C Razwiedani, and the Student Representative Council (SRC). The delegation also went on a campus tour to see completed and incomplete and/or abandoned infrastructure projects.

4.9 On 07 August 2017, I wrote to the Minister of Higher Education and Training detailing the challenges we had experienced with contractors abandoning large infrastructure projects, and the corrective action that we, as a university, had taken (Appendix 17).

4.10 Further evidence of the oversight role of the Council in the management of the abandoned projects is:

4.10.1 At its meeting held on 07 July 2017, the Joint Bid Adjudication and Finance Committees (see Appendix 18) took the following decisions:

4.10.1.1 Recovery Plan and Project Financials, The Joint Bid Adjudication and Finance Committees approved in principle the recovery plan of the following projects subject to the presentation of the funding options available within and outside the University coffers and verification of the R54 million budget: a) New Male Residences b) New Female Residences c) Education Phase 2 d) Agricultural Renewal Project.

4.10.1.2 The Joint Bid Adjudication and Finance Committees resolved that urgent meetings should be arranged to deal with the following matters in their order:

4.10.1.2.1 The joint meeting of the Bid Adjudication and Finance Committees with the professional team, to take place in the evening, which will deal with the Bill of Quantities of the four incomplete projects.

4.10.1.2.2 The inspection in loco of the four projects the following morning

4.10.1.2.3 The meeting of the Joint Bid Adjudication and Finance Committees soon after the inspection in loco to deal with: a) Funding options for the four incomplete projects b) Comprehensive report on infrastructure projects.

4.10.2 At a joint meeting held on 11 August 2017, the Bid Adjudication and Finance Committees approved the release of the remaining balance of R139 million from the University Council controlled funds to fund abandoned projects (See Appendix 19, minutes of the joint meeting of the Bid Adjudication and Finance Committees of Council)

4.11 In conclusion:

4.11.1 Neither the investigative report by SNG nor the SAB&T forensic report found any wrongdoing on my part as Vice Chancellor and Principal.

4.11.2 The University had put in place policies, guidelines and mechanisms to procure contractors and to manage them.

4.11.3 For reasons pointed in the SNG and SAB&T audit reports, contractors failed to deliver on their agreed performance in delivering projects on budget and on time, leading to abandonment of projects.

4.11.4 As Vice Chancellor, I kept the office of the Minister of Higher Education and Training informed on the matter of projects abandoned by Contractors.

4.11.5 The University management and Council had already identified the serious matter of abandoned projects by contractors and had put in place mechanisms to mitigate the risks before the visit by DHET officials.

4.11.6 During a scheduled engagement with DHET officials on progress on utilisation of infrastructure funds and efficiency grants, management disclosed to the officials the challenge we were experiencing with contractors abandoning projects at Univen.

4.11.7 The narrative from the DG, therefore, that it is only when DHET officials visited the University in July 2017 that they found abandoned projects, is flawed and incorrect.

4.11.8 Finally, the University of Venda has recently received a report from Lt. Col. RD Lesufi of the Serious Corruption Investigation Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation in Polokwane signed and dated 17th Feb 2021. The report is titled “Polokwane Enquiry 04/09/2016, corruption/PFMA in connection with the investigation related to University of Venda” (Appendix 20).

4.11.8.1 Paragraph one of the report reads: During March 2016, subpoena in terms of section 205 served to the Acting Vice Chancellor, Dr Robert Luke Martin, to dispatch information with regard to the following tenders for further investigations:

4.11.8.2 In total, 17 tenders were evaluated.

4.11.8.3 Paragraph two reads: Based on the findings of the said forensic reports received from KPMG, SizweNtsalubaGobodo and affidavit deposed by Acting Vice Chancellor, there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the investigation.

4.11.8.4 Paragraph three reads: There is no reasonable grounds to believe that the offences as mentioned above were committed by officials of the University of Venda and or private individuals (service providers) and its directors where the payments were agreed upon and made, where the tender processes were not followed. Therefore, the matter is closed.

5. Allegation: in a letter to the Committee, the Dhet reported the following: “the Department became aware that in 2017 Univen, through its investment company, Univen innovative growth company (UIGC), entered into an agreement to develop student housing for 5 000 beds, staff housing for 200 staff, a hotel and roads and related infrastructure. The total estimated cost of its intended developments was R2.3 billion. Univen did not inform the Department of its intended developments or agreements with mandates provided to the UICG. Univen did not acquire ministerial approval and the UIGC had followed no proper procurement process for this project; and on 15 April 2018, the Director-General and branch: university education called for a meeting with the management of Univen to discuss the student housing project and raise their concerns about the process followed by the UIGC and Univen. The Department found that Andany Investments (PTY) LTD is the holding company, of which black capital is a subsidiary. From a presentation to the North West University, it showed that two of the directors of black capital were Prog P Mbti and Prof P Nevhutalu, the former vice-chancellor of CPUT. UIGC entered into an agreement with Andany Investments (PTY) LTD and Glad Africa Investments (PTY) LTD to create an entity called Aug Developers. UIGC owned 40% in Aug Developers as it provided university land for the project, Andany Investments owned 40% and Glad Africa 20%. The shareholders agreed that the funder to be sourced by Hillcity Advisory (Pty) Ltd would provide the initial funding. The funder sourced by Hillcity was the public investment corporation.

5.1 At the end of my term as Vice Chancellor at the University of Venda in January 2018, I was approached by Mr Lindelani Cibi to consider working for one of his companies, which was meant to target the building of infrastructure projects at institutions of higher learning. According to Mr Cibi, in view of the extensive experience I had with large infrastructure projects, this would be of value to his company. Initially I forwarded my CV to him, as he wanted to develop an advertisement brochure. However, after due consideration of this offer, including the fact that I had been offered a position to be Deputy Vice Chancellor for Academics in Botswana, I declined the offer.

5.2 It should have been a simple task for those who allege that I was a Director in any of Mr Cibi’s companies, including Black Capitol to have conducted a company search. Such a search would have revealed that this narrative was false.

5.3 The Board of the Univen Income Generating Company (UIGC) (Pty) approved the awarding of a contract to Mr Cibi for infrastructure projects; I was never a part of the Board. An external, independent, non-council individual chairs UIGC.

5.4 The University of Venda Council was in concurrence with the UIGC Board to allow Andany Pty to proceed with the infrastructure development.

5.5 The matter of UIGC seeking approval from the Department was not within my purview as Vice Chancellor but rather for the CEO of UIGC and the Chair of the Board of the UIGC.

5.6 In this regard, please find correspondence from the UIGC’s CEO, Dr John Mudau, in which he puts in clear and correct perspective the rather unfortunate allegations against me by the DHET DG (Appendix 21). Dr Mudau, the CEO of UIGC, has volunteered to testify at this inquiry should this be required of him.

5.7 Mr Lindelani Cibi has responded to the allegations from the Committee and from the DG in as far as his companies are concerned. In this regard, please find attached the following:

5.7.1 Mr Cibi’s letter (Appendix 22), in which he mentions his meetings with the DG in which they discuss the same projects that the DG now presents to the PC;

5.7.2 CIPC Person Disclosures, which shows the companies I serve/served as a Director, further confirming I was never a Director of Andany Pty (Appendix 23);

5.7.3 Council decision of 21 April 2017 granting UIGC approval to utilise Univen land for new infrastructure projects (Appendix 24);

5.7.4 Letter of intent, Project: Build and operate privately funded new student residences by UIGC and occupancy guarantee by UNIVEN (Appendix 25);

5.7.5 Letter to the Minister of Higher Education and Training by Andany Pty on the matter of infrastructure development at UNIVEN (Appendix 26);

5.8 Concluding remarks:

5.8.1 It is my submission that the allegation by the DG that I am or was a Director of Andany Pty and/or its subsidiary companies is not true. The DG even failed to submit documentary proof to that effect, something that should have put clarity to the matter.

5.8.2 The allegations about the UIGC not informing DHET about these infrastructure projects is adequately explained by the CEO of UIGC.

5.8.3 Evidence of engagement between Andany Pty and the DG is given in Mr Cibi’s submission;

5.8.4 Mr Cibi provides the evidence of the Minister being informed of the projects to be undertaken by Andany Pty at Univen;

5.8.5 For the period that I adopted zero-tolerance against corruption at Univen, I became a target of smear campaigns perpetuated largely by individuals that had been dismissed from the University. I endured death threats, armed burglaries at my Pretoria home, where the intention was to kill me; harassment of my family through telephone threats to my wife and threatening emails threats to my wife. On several occasions I was trailed by unknown vehicles and my official university driver, Mr Takalani Mudologi, had to employ tactics he had acquired in defensive driving, to evade them. Additionally, theft of my official vehicle, attempted theft and vandalising of my personal vehicle; threatening SMSs sent to my personal phone number and a whole lot more. All these threats and heightened harassment to myself and to my family were reported to the police. Honourable Chair, I pray that this Portfolio Committee institutes another inquiry to determine the dark forces that have continued to intimidate and perpetuate fear in my life, and the reasons thereof.

6. Allegation: That I sought to review the report of the CGE) in the South Gauteng High Court but failed to set aside the recommendations of the report, only succeeded in gagging certain portions of the report

6.1 At the directive of the University of Venda Council, the CGE report was challenged in court.

6.2.1 The Chairperson of Council, in his letter to Council, dated 30 January 2015, titled “Investigative Report: Prof Phendla//University of Venda”, states as follows (see letter by Chair of Council Appendix 27):

1. I refer you to the above and advise that I am aware of the letter and annexures thereto sent by Professor Phendla, addressed to Prof Nesamvhuni and dated 29 January 2015.

3. On 21 January 2015, a letter was addressed by the University’s legal representatives to the CGE, wherein it was pointed out, among other things, that the university is concerned about the legality of the report and requires clarification of aspects thereof.

4. There are relevant documents that are in the CGE’s possession, which documents have not been provided to the university. This includes inter alia, the documents submitted by the complainant for the investigation, including the record of all text messages and telephone calls referred to in the investigative report. The University requested that these be made available.

Whether there is any formal internal remedy available to address the University’s concerns in connection with the report.

5. The investigative report appears to be very one sided and the conclusions contained therein have been reached without considering all the evidence relating to this matter. Furthermore, the CGE pronounced on issues it has no authority to pronounce or make findings on

6. As a result of the above, and should the CGE refuse to revisit its investigation, the University will take all necessary steps to ensure that the investigative report is subjected to judicial review.

7. Subsequently, following an agreement between the parties, the Court ordered CGE to excise substantial sections of its report (see court order Appendix 4).

8. The revised CGE report as per the court order is attached (Appendix 5).

9. The view that I failed to set aside the report but only succeed in only gagging certain portion of the report is incorrect and misleading for two reasons:

i. There were three Applicants who sought to review the CGE report

ii. The review process was successful because a significant portion of the report was indeed set aside as can be gleamed from the court order and the revised CGE report.

7. ALLEGATION: I attempted to improperly influence Mr Lavery Modise, as contained in paragraph 33.3 of his affidavit, in which Modise alleges “it is noteworthy to state that the applicant improperly sought to influence me to amend my report”.

7.1 I am advised, which advise I accept, that following the setting aside of the mediation reports by the High Court, further entertaining of this issue is illegal and unconstitutional; this Committee is acting ultra vires as it will be interfering with the Judiciary.

7.2 Be that as it may, I wish to state that when I finally had access to Lavery Modise’s mediation report from the University Council, weeks after the special Council meeting, paragraph eight of his report stated that I had admitted to him to have had a consensual sexual relationship with Phendla. Because Modise’s assertion was incorrect, I sent him an email requesting that he does one of the two: (a) excise this paragraph from his report or (b), he should rather say that this was his opinion (Appendix 28).

7.3 It must be pointed out that as a matter of standard practice, Modise always took notes and also recorded with a tape recorder our discussions. It was on this basis that I asked for his notes and or recordings to demonstrate that his assertion was wrong.

7.4 It was therefore puzzling and, according to me, totally out of the norm of good practice, when Modise could not provide either his notes or the voice recording to confirm or deny what I had said.

7.5 It is shocking and reflects poorly on Modise to thereafter refer to my request, to correct his report, to reflect the truthful facts to mean that I improperly sought to influence him to amend his report.

7.6 When Modise declined to amend his report to reflect the truth, and on the advice of my legal counsel, I successfully took his report to court for review.

7.7 Modise’s mediation reports that the Portfolio Committee constantly refers to in these proceedings, was reviewed and set aside; declared to be null and void and of no consequence by the High Court (see court order, Appendix 7). Modise was duly served with my review court papers and on his own volition chose not to oppose/defend his report. For this fact, this inquiry cannot accept any piece of testimony of Modise. This inquiry cannot even accept that I improperly tried to influence him and his testimony that I admitted to him that I had a consensual sexual relationship with Phendla. For this inquiry to accept such testimonies on the face of a clear Court order to the opposite, I am advised such a conduct amounts to interference by the parliamentary committee on the Judiciary.

7.8 In my view it was an exercise in futility, frivolous and malicious to invite Modise into the inquiry considering that his mediation reports have been reviewed and set aside; and declared to be null and void and of no effect by the High Court.

7.9 I submit that it is impossible to revive this dead report and anything related to what Modise did. His opinion that I conceded to a consensual sexual relationship with Phendla cannot be accepted in these proceedings because Courts have pronounced on it.

7.10 This Committee is bound by the findings of the Courts, and as an organ of state, it ought to respect and comply with Court orders. This Committee does not have any power or authority to sit and review or appeal proper Court processes and Court orders.

7.11 The way in which the mediation processes were conducted and the disclosure of such information by Modise to third parties was a flagrant disregard of mediation principles. I was advised that for such a conduct I could report Modise to the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, as his conduct was unethical and unprofessional. I, however, decided against it since he realised his own mistakes and could not defend or oppose my review application at the Venda High Court.

7.12 Lastly, I wish to state that the Venda High court had jurisdiction to entertain the review case. It was therefore not compulsory for me to take the matter to the South Gauteng High Court, as the chairperson seemed to question my action of reviewing the case at the Venda High Court.

8. Allegation: There is a pending fraud case against me at one of the South African high courts as alleged by higher education transformation network.

8.1 I do not have a pending case of fraud against me in my individual capacity as alleged by HETN. The tendency by this inquiry has always been to accept wild and unsubstantiated allegations from witnesses and it never demands proof from the one who makes the allegations. I am advised that considering the fact that I am not allowed to test the evidence of the Chairperson’s witnesses by way of cross examination, the Chairperson ought not to randomly accept evidence that is not unsubstantiated.

8.2 I consulted with my legal counsel who confirmed that no such court matter was ever brought to our attention by HETN. In fact, the HETN has brought about two court cases against me in my capacity as the VC of Univen and has lost all such cases. The HETN currently owes the University of Venda legal costs and have been hiding from the Sheriff who is supposed to serve them with documents.

8.3 Dr Legoabe of HETN testified on 17th February 2021 in this inquiry that a whistle-blower had reported to the police and a case of fraud had been opened against me. This Committee ought to have asked him to provide the SAPS case number, investigating officer’s name, the name of the Police station where these charges have been laid against me and finally the current state of such cases. This will enable the inquiry to know of the existence of such cases.

8.4 I submit that the inquiry fails to ask such questions because they are just out on a smear campaign against me, as evidenced by the Chairperson’s media allegations on Radio 702 around September 2020.

8.5 Honourable Chair, the University of Venda has recently received a report from Lt. Col. RD Lesufi of the Serious Corruption Investigation Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation in Polokwane signed on 17th Feb 2021. The report is titled “Polokwane Enquiry 04/09/2016, corruption/PFMA in connection with the investigation related to University of Venda (Appendix 20).

- Paragraph one of the report reads: “During March 2016, subpoena in terms of section 205 served to the Acting Vice Chancellor Dr Robert Luke Martin to dispatch information with regard to the following tenders for further investigations”:

- In total, 17 tenders were evaluated.

- Paragraph three reads: “There is no reasonable grounds to believe that the offences as mentioned above were committed by officials of the University of Venda and/or private individuals (service providers) and its directors, where the payments were agreed upon and made, where the tender processes were not followed. Therefore, the matter is closed”.

8.6 Honourable Chairperson, it has always been my submission that corruption is evil, and those who fight corruption must know that they will be hounded and vilified for the rest of their lives. I am a living example of somebody who has been harassed, intimidated, and threatened with death for tackling corruption head-on whilst the Vice Chancellor at the University of Venda. The scars I bear today are a reminder that indeed corruption is evil. Honourable Chair when I write my book, these are things that will be included in it.

9. In Dr Legoabe’s testimony, he asserts that Nehawu’s name must not be used as the catalyst that led to the forensic investigation that led to the dismissal of Prof Phendla.

9.1 I must first start by applauding the leadership of the Univen branch of Nehawu and the Univen SRC for their strong abhorrence of corruption and malfeasance that had taken deep roots at the institution.

9.2 In my first meeting with the Nehawu executive, soon after assuming my position as VC in 2008, the Nehawu leadership was deeply concerned how the university had been “hijacked” by a few powerful individuals, who worked in cahoots with some external individuals to bleed the university resources through corrupt and irregular tender practices. This can be confirmed by talking to the two Chairpersons that I worked with, Mr Muloiwa and Mr Mutoti, as well as Mrs Maluleke, a member of the Executive of the Joint Structures.

9.3 Univen was poorly resourced with old, dilapidated infrastructure when I joined in 2008. Some even referred to it as a glorified high school.

9.4 The majority of the University community, particularly labour and the SRC, pleaded with me to tackle corruption head-on and ensure that we grow the institution.

9.5 I heeded that call because corruption is a cancer in our societies that must not be tolerated and must be vigorously shunned and defeated every time it rears its ugly head. I am sure, Honourable Chair, you agree with me that corruption is the leading contributor to the ills in our society and the main reason for the collapse of many world economies. We have witnessed the devastating impact corruption continues to have on the lives of ordinary South Africans. I am sure that you further agree that perpetrators must be held to account.

9.6 Appendix 29 is the MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) signed on 14 April 2010 between Univen Management and Nehawu. Mr Lulamile Sotaka, the National 1st Deputy President at Nehawu, represented Nehawu.

9.7 Paragraph two titled “Allegations of corruption” reads as follows:

“2.1 The parties agree that an independent forensic auditor agreeable between the parties will be appointed to probe all allegations of corruption within two weeks from the date of signing the agreement.

2.2 The union will provide evidence of corruption to the forensic auditors and thereafter the necessary disciplinary steps, e.g.: suspension will be taken by the University against those who will be implicated in terms of university rules and regulations.

2.3 The laws of the country and university rules and regulations will be applied to all staff members of the university without exception at all times.”

9.8 Appendix 30 and Appendix 31 are additional desperate voices from student leadership, letters from the ANC Youth League received on 16 November 2011 requesting for a commission of inquiry on rampant corrupt activities in Univen

9.9 Thereafter, Deloitte was appointed to do the forensic investigation that ultimately fingered senior executives, such as Prof Phendla and Mr Nemadzivhanani, for disciplinary action.

9.10 It is unfortunate that Dr Legoabe has lied to this Committee that the Deloitte Forensic report was rescinded. The Honourable Chair should direct Dr Legoabe to provide evidence to substantiate this inaccurate claim.

9.11 Dr Legoabe paints a fabricated and totally false picture of the Univen workplace environment that is unrecognisable by those of us who lived and worked at Univen.

9.12 The Portfolio Committee must be cautious that the chorus from the “coalition of the wounded”, a few individuals who were dismissed from Univen following due processes for malfeasance, serious transgressions and acts of criminality, whom the Committee has selected as their witnesses, are not given a platform and to pretend to represent the views of the majority of staff and students of the University of Venda. The vast majority of the Univen stakeholders are proud of the immense work that my management, the University Council and the office of the Minister of Higher Education and Training did to transform Univen into the great university it is today.

9.13 During my tenure as VC, Univen was ranked at the bottom of all the South African Universities. By 2017 Univen had moved to number 14 (middle of the park) in ranking. In 2020, the new and current Univen Vice Chancellor published how proud he was that Univen had been ranked among the top 100 Universities in the world (Appendix 37).

9.14 It would have been impossible to achieve these accolades in 2020 if, during my tenure, we had not laid a strong foundation with a focus on quality, financial sustainability and the academic enterprise of the University. This inquiry must therefore reject the narrative of the “coalition of the wounded” - who the Committee has called as its witnesses herein, who describe my leadership as ruthless, incompetent, reckless, disastrous, etc.

9.15. A detailed look at my CV (Appendix 32) will confirm that I have the requisite qualifications, skills, and experience to be a Vice Chancellor. I wish to highlight a few areas in my CV to debunk the myth that I am not qualified:

Professional and Academic Qualifications:

1997: Advanced Studies in Protozoan Diseases. Research Centre for Protozoan Molecular Immunology, Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Japan, 05 November 1996 - 07 September 1997

1994: Doctor of Philosophy (Parasitology). Kenyatta University

Some Board memberships:

2018 – present: Chairperson of the Ruforum TAGDev Steering Committee. Where we provide funding for postgraduate students from South Africa and the rest of the continent

2016 – 2018: Member of the Council of the University of Swaziland 25.

2010 – 2017: Chairperson of the Limpopo Province Premier’s Employment Growth and Development Advisory Council – Skills for the Economy Technical Working Group.

2014 – 2017: Chair of the HESA Higher Education Leadership and Management programme.

2014 – 2017: Executive Board Member of the Association of African Universities

2014 – 2017: Executive Board member of the Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture.

10. Allegations on foreign students versus local students

10.1 The allegations by Dr Legoabe in this respect are denied in their entirety. Dr Legoabe should produce evidence that the number of international students at UNIVEN were not in line with SADC (Southern African Development Community) protocol as it relates to the number of international students in tertiary institutions, which all public higher educations use as the benchmark. Dr Legoabe should further demonstrate the demographics and enrolments of students at UNIVEN deviated significantly from other South African universities.

10.2 Mr Nemadzivhanani, the Registrar of UNIVEN at the time, has testified in this inquiry of the MoU that existed between UNIVEN and the government of Zimbabwe, and that indeed he and Mrs Shirley Mabusela and Mr Shumani Ravhuazwo, who were Chair and Deputy Chair of Council at the time, went to visit the then President of Zimbabwe, the late Hon President Mugabe. Other MoU’s or agreements were signed with governments of Botswana and Swaziland and students coming to UNIVEN, and other South African universities were enrolled on the basis of inter-government agreements. All the above agreements were concluded before I joined UNIVEN as Vice Chancellor.

10.3 To misguide this inquiry that somehow Mbati had a deliberate agenda to displace local South African Students with foreign students is a cheap shot, simply because I am a naturalised South African citizen of Kenyan descent.

10.4 On the matter of a presumed increase of foreign staff under my watch, Dr Legoabe should back this information with evidence and provide statistics with the profile of staff from the period 2006-2018.

10.5 On the complaints raised by students on the challenges they experienced as far as the work-study programme was concerned, the DVC: Academics, Prof Jan Crafford, regularly updated management and the University Council on the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Balintulo report. The work-study programme was a university initiative that was started before I joined UNIVEN and was never under the direct supervision of the Vice Chancellor but rather of the Registrar, Mr Nemadzivhanani.

10.6 The allegation that accommodation preference was given to foreign students over South African students is very weak at best, and only seeks to discredit a University that was genuinely grappling with accommodation challenges for ALL its students, at undergraduate and post graduate levels. This challenge remains true in the South African higher education sector. In any case, there was clear policy that guided the allocation of student accommodation, which policy was under the direct executive supervision of the Registrar Mr Nemadzivhanani.

11. University recruitment policy

11.1 Allegation that the recruitment policy under my tenure was in some way deliberately crafted to disadvantage South African citizens from being appointed is not only disingenuous but downright mischievous. Mr Manenzhe gushed before this inquiry about how he developed excellent policies within the HR directorate. This inquiry should put this question back to him on the veracity of this allegation and why under his watch as Director HR citizens could have been disadvantaged over foreigners.

11.2 In any case, the recruitment of staff was always done in a transparent manner, with duly constituted panels and depending on the level of appointment, was Chaired by the VC, DVCs or Registrar. For senior appointments, an external expert was always invited to be part of the panel. Labour was always represented in these interview panels. All appointments were against an approved university structure or organogram.

12. On the matter of the Balintulo Report

12.1 Prof Balintulo, Adv. Ramashia and Ms F Ndou (Attorney of Law) conducted an in-depth investigation commissioned by the Vice Chancellor following the grievance by some students on the perceived inequities in resourcing of international students vis-à-vis South African students (see Balintulo Report Appendix 35)

12.2 The recommendations of the report, which were balanced, progressive and forward looking were adopted and implemented under the executive oversight of the DVC Academic Prof Jan Crafford.

12.3 The report weaves through the history of UNIVEN as an HDI, its unique challenges with regard to resourcing and infrastructure, and the explosion of growth in terms of research and post graduate studies, and the tensions these created in as far as post graduate students were concerned.

12.4 On page six, paragraph three, the Balintulo report quotes the VC Prof Mbati: “The solution, as articulated, lies in focusing on increasing the number of senior academics and established researchers, and simultaneously enlarging the professoriate with entry-level positions. Accordingly, these will be drawn largely from our internal efforts of ‘growing the next generation of academics’ project with UNIVEN trained Master’s and Doctoral graduates. The benchmark is to achieve a 70% target of academics with PhDs by 2030 as envisioned in the National Development Plan.”

12.5 During the tenure 2008-2017, we had an exponential growth in Master’s and doctoral graduates, many of our staff getting postgraduate degrees, improving their research profile and rising through the ranks of senior lecturer and the professoriate.

12.6 Page 11, paragraph four reads: The 2015 enrolments of Master’s and Doctoral degrees evince the following breakdown: Headcount of 790, with 580 Masters and 210 Doctoral candidates. Of these, 630 (79.75%) were South African nationals, disaggregated into 481 (82.93%) Masters and 149 (70.95%) Doctoral.

12.7 Of the total cohort of Master’s and Doctoral enrolments: 108 (13.67%), i.e. 63 (10.86%) Masters and 45 (21.43%) Doctorals were from Zimbabwe.

12.8 Nigerians 26 (3.29%), 7 (3.33%) Doctoral and 19 (3.28%) Masters. I leave you honourable members to decide whether the alarmist statistics given by Dr Legoabe, Phendla’s co-director in HETN, were factual or not.

12.9 Para four on page 14: “In light of the above, it may not be unreasonable to suggest that UNIVEN, to some extent, is a victim of her own success in attracting increased numbers of postgraduate students mainly through the work-study Programme, which has led to overstretched capacity to some degree. In large measure, there is a sense in which the conflicts that are manifesting themselves in the national versus international cleavage are a by-product and unintended consequence of this success.”

12.10 Paragraph four, page 20 reads: “Following receipt of a memorandum served on its Vice Chancellor and Senior Management, the Vice Chancellor appointed a committee of three persons to investigate grievances raised in the memorandum…”

12.11 Para six, page 20 reads: “It is commendable that instead of digging its head in the sand, or even challenging the legitimacy of the memorandum by claiming that the authors thereof did not follow a legitimate grievance procedure, the University management decided to launch an independent investigation into the substance of allegations contained in the memorandum of grievances.

12.12 The following excerpt from the letters of appointment of respective members of the investigating team, succinctly articulates the terms of reference and powers of the committee. It reads in part as follows:

“4.1 To investigate challenges allegedly faced by South African post-graduate students in the University of Venda. The details of your scope of work are as per the attached memorandum received from the aggrieved students, and further inputs from University Management.

4.2 Once you are done with your investigation, to provide a report with recommendations to the office of the Vice Chancellor and Principal on the findings.

5. For purposes of investigation, you are permitted:

1. To direct or summon any person to appear before you at such a time and place as may be determined by yourselves.

2. To order any person to be present at the place where such investigation is being conducted:

3. To give evidence thereat; and

4. To produce any document or information that may be deemed necessary for the proper disposal of the investigation.

5. If you are concerned about any aspect of your investigation, the propriety of the investigation, any procedural steps or rights as investigators, you are urged to consult the Director Legal Services or his delegate.

6. All investigating information obtained by you, shall remain confidential and not be disclosed to any third party except to the Director Legal Services or his delegate.”

The Vice Chancellor and Principal, Prof Peter Mbati, signed the said letters of appointment.

12.13 Process Findings:

Shortly after the grievance was served on the Vice Chancellor, some members of the Postgraduate Committee submitted a disclaimer dissociating themselves from the meeting. They argued that the Postgraduate Committee had not convened it, adding that one Ms Mulalo Nefale, the Project Officer, had been responsible for convening it.

It was clear during our investigation that Ms Nefale is well known to the international academic community and that she is generally spoken of in implausible terms. The significance of this observation lies in the fact that some international senior academics cited her perceived egregious personality and unfettered influence as the basis for dismissing the legitimacy of the grievances submitted by National Postgraduate students.

Some international academics described her as a bitter student with scores to settle, claiming that she was responsible for mobilising the majority of national students to rise against the international university community without a just cause. Many believe that Prof Mafunisa, a national academic who allegedly also had an axe to grind, boosted her ‘campaign’.

The investigating team has taken note of Ms Nefale’s alleged unflattering conduct, as well as her alleged abrasive style of handling conflict. The investigating team has also taken note of adverse views that some of the international academics hold of Prof Mafunisa.

The Director of HR, who sat in all interviews, facilitated the matter of appointment of staff. The recommendations of the interview and who has been appointed would be presented by Mr Manenzhe HR: Director, recommended by the DVC Operations and signed off by Prof Mbati. The report would be presented to the HR Committee of Council for approval, and thereafter submitted to the University Council for ratification by the University Council.

It has to be appreciated that historically black universities, inclusive of Univen, always struggled to attract South African local talent for senior and professoriate positions. When I joined Univen, I instructed Mr Manenzhe that our adverts should be carefully crafted to read Univen ‘appointments were guided by employment equity targets’ and that ‘people with disabilities and women were especially encouraged to apply’. The university always provided annual reports to the Department of Labour on our employment equity profiles, with improvement plans on targets to meet the University’s equity targets. We created an employment equity forum, which was chaired by Mr Manenzhe. Mr Manenzhe provided reports to the senior management committee, Council and to the Department of Labour, for monitoring.

It is instructive that HETN appears to throw aspersions on my leadership but does not provide any data to confirm that it was during my tenure there was an unfair proliferation of employment of foreign staff. As the Committee has done with other witnesses, such as when it asked Mr Modiba to show Members evidence about his assertion that during my term I embarked on major fundraising efforts, you too should have asked Dr Legoabe and the other hostile witnesses to provide evidence when they make these unsubstantiated allegations. He who alleges must prove.

12.14 Emeritus Professors:

12.14.1 You heard from Mr Manenzhe’s testimony on 19 February 2021 that he was the primary developer of HR policies on various HR matters, including the appointment and remuneration of staff. He crowed before this inquiry on how he did an excellent job as Director HR for the 25 odd years he stayed in this same position. Similarly, the crafting of the policy on the appointment of emeritus professors was championed by Mr Manenzhe as Director HR. Primarily embedded in the process was the express requirement that Deans of Schools would motivate for the appointment of Emeritus professors. Such motivation would have to enjoy the support of Senate and only thereafter would it be submitted to the HR committee of Council and to Council for approval.

12.14.2 Attached is an example of a motivation from Prof Phendla who was the then Dean of Education motivating for the appointment of Prof Bayona as an Emeritus Professor. Her email is copied to among others the DVC: Academic, Prof Xikombiso Mbhenyane, and to my Personal Assistant, Mrs Esther Munano (Appendix 36).

12.14.3 Mr Manenzhe, as Director Human Resources, championed the development of the process in the appointment of emeritus professors and he facilitated their appointments. For him to suddenly disown his own, delegated responsibilities as Director HR soon after joining forces with the coalition of the wounded raises serious doubts about his credibility and intentions.

12.14.4 It is untrue that none South Africans were never appointed as Emeritus Professors. Prof Ralushai, a distinguished scholar in the humanities, was appointed an Emeritus Professor. Prof Philip Kutame’s attempt was frustrated within the School of Education where Prof Phendla served as a Dean. Prof Kutame complained to me that the School of Education had unreasonably blocked his application. University records would establish that Prof Mbati never had a hand in the appointment of Emeritus Professors, other than ensuring that the university policies and procedures were adhered to as was required of him as Vice Chancellor and Principal.

13. Allegations of corruption in the appointment of Cornerstone and procurement of Microsoft

Procurement of goods and services were done according to the university supply chain management processes. Neither the internal audit, external audit nor the University legal department flagged impropriety in the appointment of Cornerstone. If this had been the case, those implicated would have been required to account.

14. forgery and corruption charges laid against Prof Mbati

There has been no finalisation and that these matters were transferred from SAPS to the Hawks. I was surprised to learn that I had been reported to the Hawks for allegations of embezzlement, forgery and corruption as testified by Dr Legoabe who we learnt is also co-director in HETN with Prof Phendla. The Committee should demand proof of these allegations as it did with Modiba of the SRC.

This process has unfairly afforded people to come and attack my reputation and there is nothing, which can be done against them, despite the unsubstantiated and malicious attack on me because of the parliamentary privilege accorded to them by the Constitution.

Nonetheless, the university has recently received a report from Lt. Col RD Lesufi of the Serious Corruption Investigation Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation in Polokwane signed and dated 17th Feb 2021 (Appendix 20). The report titled “Polokwane Enquiry 04/09/2016, corruption/PFMA in connection with the investigation related to University of Venda” clears me of these wicked, nefarious, vexatious allegations against me by people who have made it their lifetime project to destroy me for simply doing my job as Vice Chancellor and Principle at Univen by adopting a zero-tolerance approach to corruption. I repeat, corruption is evil and those that are brave to tackle it must be ready for the wicked fight back. I have scars to prove this, and its scars I shall wear with pride for the rest of my life.

15. Mbati worked against the interests of South Africans due to the internationalization policy. I am not sure what Dr Legoabe’s real intent with this allegation is meant to elicit. This inquiry should be made aware that even before I joined Univen, there were pockets of internationalisation, but which were haphazard in their very nature. Univen did not have a structured published strategic plan when I joined in 2008. Indeed, in the first strategic plan for the Univen for 2009-2013, a strategic objective on internationalisation was embedded in the new strategy document. The crafting of the strategic plan was a combined team effort of the senior and executive management team, labour and SRC. Experts were further invited to add value to these strategic planning sessions. Finally, the University Council would adopt the strategic plan with its clearly defined KPAs (key performance areas), KPIs (key performance indicators) and targets. This inquiry should familiarise itself with the Annual Reports of the University of Venda in which detailed reports on the activities emanating from the strategic objective on internationalisation from 2008–2021 are presented. These outputs will confirm that contrary to the allegations from Dr Legoabe, this objective immensely assisted Univen to establish its footprint the SADC (Southern African Development Community) region, on the African continent and also as a global player in the higher education space. Interesting, this particular strategic objective is one of the major reasons Univen is today among the top 100 universities (Appendix 37).

16. Testimony by Dr Tshitereka

16.1 Dr Tshitereke gave an overly exaggerated account of his importance as a Director in the Office of the Vice Chancellor, which is totally out of quilt with his job description. He was never a member of Council or its subcommittees; he only attended on my request when there was a matter that he needed to report or account, as requested by the Vice Chancellor. The inquiry ought to have asked him to produce his job description to confirm whether his span of control was as important as he falsely projects.

16.2 He was an incompetent, lazy member of my senior management team, totally unable to conduct basic tasks that were meant to largely support the voluminous administrative workload in the Vice Chancellor’s office. Basically, he was out of his depths as a senior manager within the higher education space. He was not a team player, always projecting himself as superior to those in similar ranks to him, and totally disregarding assignments that I would present to him and other colleagues. For example, when I asked him to work with the Director Communications and Marketing, and the Director International Relations in drafting the University annual report, he was incapable of rising to this task, as it required deep and serious analysis of past reports and to synthesise these into a coherent and accurate reflection of the performance of the preceding year. Out of exasperation and his constant nagging, his two senior colleges simply let him be and completed the task on their own. Tshitereke always pulled rank on his senior and executive management colleagues, and was reported to have even sat in lecture halls to assess lecturers. For somebody who was never an academic, I found such behaviour insulting to our senior academics. When he was questioned, he claimed that it was on my instruction, which was obviously a lie.

16.3 I was disappointed in his performance because while he is able to convince you in an interview that he has potential, his actual work output was way below par, shabby and added no value. Due to his poor performance, lack of respect, insubordination and inability to perform to the rigor and quality expected of the position of Director Office of the Vice Chancellor, he parted ways with the University. His exit was done procedurally and in terms of the laws of the country and the Labour Relations Act. I certainly would never recommend him for a position of leadership in any organisation.

16.4 The same document that Dr Tshitereke says I shared with him, my response to the CGE, categorically denies any form of relationship or sexual harassment, or assault as alleged by Phendla. It is absurd that I would then confide in him facts that I deny in my submission. At most, this is a laughable allegation and must be seen for what it is – a caucused strategy with my accusers or what I term as the coalition of the wounded, to discredit me. Dr Tshitereke was my subordinate and not my friend by any stretch of the imagination and it is therefore absurd and unbelievable that I would have shared such information with him.

16.5 I deny the allegation that I was anxious to go to the commission of gender equality workshop. Again, this is a convenient statement of lies by Tshitereke to give effect to his intention to discredit me at this inquiry. As he correctly alluded, I was inundated with many office demands and meetings. It is not unusual for the Vice Chancellor to delegate to other members of the executive, particularly the Deputy Vice Chancellors to perform university duties on behalf of the Vice Chancellor. Later when I learnt that it was mandatory for Vice Chancellors to attend, I happily obliged.

16.6 I deny the allegation that I concurred with Tshitereke’s ill-conceived plan to settle with Phendla. Dr Tshitereke’s statement is in direct conflict and contradictory from that of Adv Edward Lambani, the former Director of legal services and the current Registrar of Univen. Adv Lambani correctly indicated that this never an instruction or an idea from me, but rather from him as the Director and Head of the Legal Services Department. As a matter of fact, even on the matters of settlement for Mr Nemadzivhanani, I never participated, as this would have been a conflict of interest on my part, considering that as the Accounting Officer I had signed their letters of dismissal.

16.7 I deny the allegation that Council could not have cleared Mbati. Only HR has the requisite mandate to have implemented its sexual harassment policy. Dr Tshitereke once again exposes his lack of understanding of the Higher Education Act, the role of Council and the role assigned to the Director HR, and the delegation of authority framework. Mr Manenzhe put this matter to rest by contradicting Dr Tshitereke’s unfounded statement and confirming that indeed that Council had the mandate to deal with Phendla’s allegation of sexual harassment against the Vice Chancellor.

16.8 I deny the allegations about telephone calls to Phendla. The Labour Court took these false allegations into consideration in reaching a determination that Phendla’s dismissal was not on the account of sex. But rather, that her dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair on account of her corrupt conduct.

16.9 I deny the allegation that I asked him to link to serve as the link with internal and external auditors. This is a lie. The ToRs for both internal and external audit are clear and I therefore could not have been delegated to Dr Tshitereke my functions as VC. I am the one who gave Dr Tshitereke the first draft report from the external auditors that had raised concerns about a number of infrastructure projects. His brief was to read the draft report and to thereafter brief me on areas that would require my attention. It would be a derelict of duty if a Vice Chancellor were to delegate his responsibilities on oversight to a junior such as a Director in the Office of the Vice Chancellor. I always directly engaged with both the internal and external auditors, after which they would, independently submit their reports to the Audit and Risk Committee of Council.

16.10 I deny the allegation that I did not consider his report on the alleged anomalies with infrastructure projects. Dr Tshitereke was not a member of the Infrastructure Project Monitoring committee (also called the Project Board). He approached me and requested whether I could allow him sit in the project board because he was of the view that he could add value to these meetings. I consented and requested the DVC Operations Dr Zaaiman to allow him to sit in project board meetings. His role was to actively participate and to contribute to the effective functioning of the project board and to raise his concerns there for noting and action.

16.11 I learnt from Dr Zaaiman the DVC Operations that indeed the concerns that Dr Tshitereke was raising had been raised in the project board, and that appropriate interventions, including reporting to the Legal Department, to the Audit and Risk Committee and to the Finance Committee of Council had been effected. It is therefore disingenuous on the part of Dr Tshitereke to paint a false picture that I was either condoning corruption or that I was turning a blind eye to serious allegations of corruption and mismanagement of project.

16.12 I deny the allegations that I did not take appropriate steps to deal with water shortages and fixing boreholes. It is either Dr Tshitereke did not pay attention to the reports presented in senior management committee meetings, or has suddenly developed selective amnesia, or maybe even both. Extensive work was done in rebuilding our boreholes on campus and water was directed into newly constructed water tanks. This was done to mitigate the risk of water shortages on campus. This was a decision taken at the Executive Management Committee and was implemented under the executive oversight of the DVC: Operations, Dr Jannie Zaaiman.

16.13 I deny the allegations that I dismantled internal audit. Hon. Chairperson, please request Dr Tshitereke to provide evidence to back up this wild and false allegation.

16.14 I deny the allegation that the VC removed the position of Director Office of the Vice Chancellor from the structure. The matter of the review of the senior management structure was an instruction from the HR Committee of Council. The proposals of the revised structure were presented to the Executive Management Committee of Council, Senior Management Committee, Labour, Institutional Forum, Senate and finally to Council. By the time I left Univen in January 2018 the structure had not been finalised. All these different bodies referred to above informed the changes to the structure.

17. Testimony by Mr Manenzhe:

17.1 Mr Manenzhe alleged that Modise’s report showed a prima facie case of sexual harassment against Mbati. I submit that Modise’s report does not make such a conclusion and further that the mediation report has been reviewed, set aside and declared to be null and void and to be of no force.

17.2 I deny the allegation that Mbati tried to change the statute to give himself a third term. The decision to review the statute was a decision of Council and not the Vice Chancellor. The process was managed by the Registrar, Prof Nesamvuni, and not by the Vice Chancellor. In any event, the statute that was being revised had a clause that said the term of office for the VC was for a maximum of two terms, and could only be extended at the discretion of Council. What I heard, and what I believe was true, was that Mr Makhado and Mr Manenzhe, among others, were concerned that this clause would possibly give me a third term and therefore campaigned to have it removed and this is exactly what happened. The clause that gave Council the discretion to extend a VCs term was scrapped. If we were to use the logic as my accusers, if anybody was to complain about the change of the statute, it should have been the Vice Chancellor.

17.3 I deny the allegation that Virtual® was not appointed in terms of competitive bid processes of the University of Venda. During his testimony the Univen Chair of Council satisfactorily answered this question and provide evidence that this company was appointed in line with the university supply chain management policy.

17.4 I deny the allegations that Mbati appointed consultants to bump up his salary. The matter of my salary has come up during this inquiry, with a false narrative that I somehow influenced my package. Council determines the salary of a Vice Chancellor without the direct participation of the Vice Chancellor. For the first two years or so, my salary increase was part of the general collective bargaining, after which the Director of HR, Mr Manenzhe, would present the salary reviews to the HR Committee of Council, and finally to Council for approval. Around 2011, Council took a decision that the remuneration of members of executive management should not be part of the general salary negotiations. Council took a decision that a remuneration expert be appointed to do this task and to report to Council, providing all the necessary evidence to support the recommendation. Honorable Chair, from that time hence forth, the salary quantum in salary adjustments for the executive, including the Vice Chancellor, was always lower than the rest of the staff.

17.5 I deny the allegation that Nemadzivhanani and Manenzhe were spied upon. Context:

From the moment that the Deloitte forensic investigation was initiated into corrupt practices at Univen, and with disciplinary processes unfolding and leading to the dismissal of certain members of the senior and executive management team, I became a target of intimidation, abuse, and death threats.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that he had first asked his question on the radio interview that Prof Mbati said he (the Chairperson) conducted on Radio 702. The Chairperson asked Prof Mbati if he could, with certainty, say he recorded an interview with radio 702 around September.

Prof Mbati said that he could say that he remembers the Chairperson being on an interview that concerned his tenure as the Vice Chancellor of Univen.

The Chairperson said considering how well thought out the presentation of the VC is that statement seems to make it a fact that he had a radio interview on Radio interview on 702 around September.

Prof Mbati said that he cannot say anything with certainty, as he did not have the excerpt of the radio interview that he relied on to make that statement at that moment, but he was more than willing to check and then get back to the Committee about that.

The Chairperson said he, in fact, had that interview with Power FM and it was in June.

Prof Mbati said to that he would have to look at his records and confirm if what is being said by the Chairperson does, in fact, corroborates with the audio recording that he has of that interview.

The Chairperson pointed out that Mr Maja lied to the Committee when he presented to it. Did the Prof know that?

Prof Mbati said the Mr Maja that he knows would not have lied to the Committee. He may have genuinely not remembered a key fact but not to lie about it.

The Chairperson recounted that Mr Maja was asked questions to which he responded that there are council decisions; he was then asked for the basis of that decision and he mentioned the fact that they were not interviewed and then mentioned that there were some rumours and all of that. When Mr Letsie pointed out that it was a resolution, there was a resolution by council; there was a task team probing into why there was a decision of council before the review application, to which he said it was never a council decision. So he was wrong. The Chairperson said he was lying to the Committee. Does Prof Mbati accept that?

Prof Mbati said that he has known Mr Maja for many years, as a man of integrity. He said what he thought would be fair on Mr Maja would be to provide the University with that information. He also mentioned that Mr Maja felt ambushed; he did not expect some of the questions that were asked. So, he will say whatever was said by Mr Maja was in good faith but there was never an attempt to lie before the inquiry.

The Chairperson said asked if Mr Maja lied to the inquiry because he felt ambushed. Is that the Prof’s rationalisation of the matter? He then asked if a representative of the CGE interviewed Prof Mbati.

Prof Mbati confirmed this.

The Chairperson asked why Mr Maja said he was not interviewed.

Prof Mbati said he has already explained that it may be because that is how he recollects things. He said he has never had a conversation with anyone who testified in front of the Committee, before the present meeting. So, it is very possible that Mr Maja may recall everything; it is possible that it has escaped his mind. What he can say is that, knowing Mr Maja, there is no way he would lie.

The Chairperson said that saying something that is not true is a lie.

Mr W Letsie (ANC) said that, on the posture of the statement that was released by the Prof, Members of the Committee are stooges that are being used by the Chairperson to further his own agenda, of smearing the Prof; that was what he felt from the statement. Prof Mbati referred a lot to the Chairperson when decisions on what to do on the inquiry are taken collectively by the Committee.

Prof Mbati said he has a deep respect for the Portfolio Committee and the work that it does on this inquiry and otherwise. It certainly has not been his intention for that to be the picture that comes out of his statement, but he is simply explaining how he felt in the process. He understands that the Committee has a legislative mandate to carry its duties, and he respects that. He was simply responding as best as he could with evidence that certain things that were said about him were not the correct picture of his character.

Mr Letsie said that he is basing that question based on Prof Mbati’s statement on paragraph 2.2, to be exact. His understanding of the manner in which this paragraph is written is that the Chairperson is the one who makes decisions, and the rest of the Committee is just sitting around and doing as the Chairperson pleases.

Prof Mbati said Mr Letsie would have seen that paragraph 2.2 was contextualised in the text above it. He said it should be said honestly that he has had hostile to witnesses who he feels were not being placed to the same level of scrutiny as others. If that is the impression that is created, that was not the intension; he was simply speaking facts based on what he saw.

Mr Letsie said that paragraph 2.7 points to the Chairperson as a prosecutor and a judge, but he does not want a comment on that. He commented that the Prof has quite an impressive CV of 42 pages; there are a lot of people who do not even have five pages.

He thought that Prof Mbati and the Chairperson were not on the same page on the council decision that was taken on April 2016. Mr Letsie then asked the Prof Mbati to comment on the cancellation of the report by council of Univen.

Prof Mbati said that the chairperson of council is the representative of council. He has communicated with the Members of the Committee a document that outlines the grounds on which the CG report is challenged. He further said it must be remembered that whenever these matter were raised in council he was always recused. In fact, a couple of times there were meetings by executive members of council where this matter would usually be raised in those kinds of meetings. Thus, he said, he cannot comment on the decisions that were taken in those meetings, particularly because he was not part of the decision-making process. Perhaps the inquiry could forward a request from the university to gain access to those minutes.

Mr Letsie asked if the Prof still believes that asking questions relating to his exoneration are still sub judice because the questions relating to that have nothing to do with the merits of the claims that were brought by Prof Phendla, but there is a need to understand that the university followed its own policies to the latter. These questions are pertaining to the sexual harassment policies of the university. He said he is saying all of this to notify the Prof that he wants to ask his questions on university policies and not on the court processes that are around it.

Prof Mbati referred to the revised terms of reference for the meeting. The nature of the questions that Mr Letsie would want to ask would fall outside of the ambit of the said terms of reference. These questions are to be directed to the council of the university. It would be grossly unfair to place those questions on him when there is a body that would be able to answer those questions. He said he sent the Chairperson an email, asking for terms of reference for the meeting so that he could know exactly would be required in the meeting.

Mr Letsie said he hears what the Prof is saying, and he does not want to make the Prof further believe that the enquiry wants to find him guilty by all means necessary. He just hoped that the Prof would open that window for his views as a person. There are specific questions that Mr Letsie would like ask; he wants to establish leadership qualities through those questions. For example, he wanted to find out that since the decision by council was based on the legal opinion of Mr Mashego, what led to his exoneration. There were parts of that report that Prof Mbati took to court; for Mr Letsie that is a sign of leadership. He then wanted to know if Prof Mbati notified council that the report that it had relied on for his exoneration was, as Prof Mbati described it, ‘dead’.

Prof Mbati first expressed gratitude to Mr Letsie for saying that there is not a witch-hunt against him but rather a need for clarity. He then said that, as he had expressed himself to the Chairperson, he is only willing to answer questions falling within the ambit of the terms of reference that were sent to him; anything relating to the court case or anything surrounding it, for that matter, should be sent to Univen to be answered.

Mr Letsie said that he has tried but the Prof is clearly not willing to go there. He then went on to ask questions on the use of Bowman Gilfillan Attorneys; he asked if Prof Mbati has any recollection of when the university made use of their services.

Prof Mbati said the first time Bowmans was used in the university was during the disciplinary processes of Prof Phendla.

Mr Letsie then asked if he has used them in his personal capacity.

Prof Mbati said that he had never met anyone form Bowmans, although he knew they existed he never had any contact with them. When this matter arose, when the forensic report came out, he was shocked at the people that were there. There were members of council, the chairperson of the bid adjudication committee, there were names of his legal advisors and the name of the registrar, among others. Since his legal advisor was implicated in the report, the question was who would then be responsible for the disciplinary process. The Prof then took upon himself to appoint someone who would be independent on the matter. He then spoke to the then CEO of Higher Education South Africa, Dr Duma Malaza, who then pointed him to Bowmans as well as other law firms, but the Prof chose Bowmans. That is how that law firm was utilised.

Mr Letsie asked: for the period Prof Mbati was the VC of Univen, how were the services of Bowmans acquired?

Prof Mbati said that any decision to procure the services of the firm would have to be done through the office of the Director of Legal Services and the DVC: Operations. The reason why this was set this way was to make sure that there was no conflict of interest through his involvement in any stage of the matter.

Mr Letsie then wanted to clarify whether the legal advisor that the Prof is talking about is the one that was implicated in the report.

Prof Mbati indicated that it is not the same legal advisor; he was referring to the new legal advisor.

Mr Letsie then asked if he used them to lodge an interdict against Prof Phendla and for the review of the CGE report.

Prof Mbati said that when Prof Phendla’s case was finalised she made false public allegations in newspapers. Having finalised the matter with Prof Phendla, he then approached the firm to assist him with a letter of demand. Prof Mbati also said he asked them whether that would constitute conflict of interest and they said it would constitute conflict of interest because they were being utilised in his personal capacity.

For the CGE report, he indicated that the founding affidavit was signed under the capacity of the VC of the university. Unfortunately, it was cited and created an impression that he was taking the report for review under his personal capacity when that was not the case.

Mr Letsie wanted to clarify if Prof did not review the CGE report in his personal capacity but rather as a representative of the university. He must have, at a professional capacity, received an instruction to oppose.

Prof Mbati said this came through the office of legal advisor because he would have then made sure that all the legal processes are in order and that he would then be required to sign the relevant document.

Mr Letsie wanted to clarify that in the Prof’s understanding the letter was an instruction from council through the legal advisor for him to oppose.

Prof Mbati said it is his understanding that council took a decision to review the report and through the office of the legal advisor the document was handed to him to sign as the VC.

Mr Letsie then said having established that the Prof has attended all the other meetings of the enquiry. He wanted to know then why it is that there are minutes that suggest that there was never such a decision.

Prof Mbati said he was never present in such meetings that kind of question would be better directed to the university.

Mr Letsie pointed to minutes provided by the university on council resolution, to look into who authorised the investigative challenge. Mr Letsie the asked him if the Prof was not worried that approaching a law firm that was responsible for the disciplinary hearing of his accuser would cause a conflict.

Prof Mbati said that he posed the same question to them, but they still said no. Legally, it would not cause a conflict of interest because it was a personal matter.

Mr Letsie then referred to a statement by Adv. Lambani, where he said that the Prof never made use of any use of Bowman’s in his personal capacity.

Prof Mbati said that he would have been right to have that kind of assumption. That is an attorney-client matter; it is private, and he would not know about that. The Prof said he would not have discussed his private matters with Adv. Lambani. In fact, it is possible that Adv. Lambani would have not joined Univen at the time. This was on the first of November 2011. The Prof expressed uncertainty as to whether Adv. Lambani was even an employee of the university at the time.

Mr Letsie then questioned the Prof on allegations that he was allowed to use university funds to defend himself. There is a document that has been termed PCH Term; page six on this document has minutes on the meeting of external members of council, which was held on the 17 April 2015, states that there should be a task team to investigate if there was an inappropriate use of university resources in respect of the VCs defence on the matter and a referral of the CGE report for review. In this inquiry was there any inappropriate use of university resources found against the VC?

Prof Mbati denied the alleged and said that he was never found guilty of misappropriating any university funds. He further gave context on this, saying that when he assumed his second term there were three members of council who suddenly found him to be an irritation. These members tried everything they could get him out of that university. The minutes stipulate what they were looking for. This narrative exists because it has been built. When Prof Phendla was found guilty, she said the reason why that happened was because she denied the Prof sexual favours and not because she was found guilty of corruption. She then took the matter to the Labour Court; when the matter went to court it was always her against the university and the Prof’s name was implicated because he was a witness on the matter.

This narrative of misappropriating of funds is based on this assumption that he was there on his personal capacity. This was proven in a court of law. Beyond the present enquiry the Prof said he would hope that the Committee would look into this matter.

Mr Letsie asked what the recommendation of the task team was.

Prof Mbati said that he did not even know that there was a task team and so he does not know what the recommendations were; he was recused. He only found this out in this enquiry.

Mr Letsie said the Prof described Dr Tshitereke as an incompetent, lazy and totally incapable of conducting basic tasks in senior management. Mr Letsie asked why the Prof hired someone who he described in such a manner.

Prof Mbati said he absolutely regrets hiring someone like that in his management. For reasons relevant to this enquiry, he said it was because he ran a tight ship. Government requires universities to perform certain tasks and do them properly. This was one of the first appointments that he made. During fundraising, the Prof went to a company that he worked in somewhere in Pretoria. He told the Prof that he was about to get fired where he was working and asked whether there was an opportunity for him in Univen. The Prof told him that he could apply for a position at the university when vacancies become available.

Mr Letsie asked on cases that the Prof opened because of threats on his family, including one from a gentleman who identified himself as Prof Phendla’s husband, who threatened his life. Does the Prof know how far those cases are at this stage?

Prof Mbati said that this is one area that he feels like he has been let down. The SMSs were pointing towards Prof Phendla herself, but the investigating officer said they did not have enough concrete evidence on it. The matter was closed with any conclusion. Nothing has happened. He stated that even he has been warned in how he must take care of himself because it not safe. There are people throwing muti into his home; there have also been dead animals that have been found as well. This issue continues.

Mr Letsie asked the Prof where he originates from.

Prof Mbati said he is from Western Kenya, in a little village there.

Mr Letsie asked if they do not have strong muti there to fight those that have been thrown at his home. Finally, Mr Letsie asked on the allegation that Mr Tshitereke said he was a director of that company. He asked if the Prof challenged this on the report anywhere or if he let it be.

Prof Mbati said that he learnt about this report quite later on. He left Univen in January of 2018 and the meeting regarding this was held soon after. He was not even aware of these allegations until he got a letter from the Chairperson stating the kind of issues he needed to respond to. When the UIGC learned of this allegation they conducted an enquiry of their own and found that there is no merit to it. So, somebody did it on his behalf, but he was not even aware of it until the enquiry started.

The Chairperson asked who the respondents in the CGE report were.

Prof Mbati replied that it was himself, the Univen council and Univen, the institution.

The Chairperson asked whom the affidavit deposed on behalf of.

The VC replied and said it was on behalf of the VC himself, council, and Univen.

The Chairperson asked why the chairperson of council was not the one deposing the affidavit if the council was cited in the affidavit.

Prof Mbati responded that this is a question that would have to be directed to the legal advisors of the university. The affidavit was presented to him to sign and he did like he would otherwise. As to why the chair of council would not sign it, he said he does not know if they would even be allowed to sign that kind of document.

The Chairperson said the reason he is asking that question is because Prof Mbati was not privy to some of the meetings and so council, through its chairperson, would have to stand on its own.

Prof Mbati said that on such a matter he would not know if that is what is done because he does not have a legal background.

The Chairperson asked if Prof Mbati as the first applicant was there on his personal capacity or as the VC of the university.

Prof Mbati said he does not know because in the document it is not specified.

The Chairperson the said this stems from a CGE report that has conduct on his personal capacity. So, it would make sense for him to be cited in the report in his personal capacity.

Prof Mbati said the council was simply deposing of this report; he signed the document as the VC of the university.

The Chairperson asked if Prof Mbati would accept that one can act in their personal capacity as well as in their professional capacity and that Prof Mbati has done so in the past.

Prof Mbati confirmed that there are times where he has done so in the past.

The Chairperson then asked if the Chairperson asked if the Prof Mbati acted in his professional capacity even though he was implicated in his personal capacity.

Prof Mbati said that this was matter by council that he simply signed on; he was not involved in the case in his personal capacity but rather as the VC. That is where his involvement began and ended.

The Chairperson enquired if what was in question in court was the report that implicated Prof Mbati in his personal capacity.

Prof Mbati said they went to court to defend the report of the CGE, which was flawed, and the decision of the council was therefore set aside.

The Chairperson said he thought Prof Mbati said that there was no council decision.

Prof Mbati clarified that he did not say that. Perhaps the Chairperson might be confusing that with what was said by Mr Letsie earlier, when he was speaking about the minutes of a meeting that might be conceived to mean that there was no council decision.

The Chairperson asked a question that was asked by Mr Letsie on who would take a decision on what matters would need to be defended in court.

Prof Mbati said that such cases would always be processed in the office of the legal advisor. In terms of who decides, he said that it depends on the case in hand. In this case, there would be a recommendation by council and VC, as a subordinate who would sign on that decision. Generally speaking, though, the VC is the CEO of the university and so a lot of decisions are taken in the office of the VC.

The Chairperson said that this is what he wanted Prof Mbati to admit. He is the one who took the decision to go to court not council because there was no council resolution on the matter.

Prof Mbati said that the VC is a subordinate of the council and cannot go against that decision. To say that the VC was the one who took that decision would not be a correct depiction of how the situation occurred.

Ms D Sibiya (ANC) asked on the trip to New York by the Univen delegation. She wanted to know how much was raised. There was also an increase in annual legal fees from R4.4 million in 2010 to R14.4 million in 2017. She asked if Prof Mbati is concerned by the legal costs that may have increased because of the decisions that he took in his tenure, even after he left, specifically with dismissals of some staff members. She asked if some members of the administration that were appointed were present when council was discussing the filling of those posts. She then asked the Prof to explain the reason why the university had its own foundation and what the function of the foundation was.

She also asked if it the redeployment of the Dr Tshitereke from the director of the office of the VC to another position was through the direction of the VC. With regards to the dismissals by the university, is it true that the university dismissed Dr Phendu and on which grounds was that done?

Prof Mbati said council members working in the administration is new to him; unless he could be given some kind of context surrounding that, he does not know about that. What he does know is that some council members would sometimes come a day before the meeting and talk before students so that by the time council meeting took place there would be misinformation circulating. The majority of council members would come early to familiarise themselves with university and do walkabouts but that was unbecoming with regards to their functions as council members.

The Chairperson brought further clarity on the matter by saying there were allegations that there were council members who were subsequently employed as members of the administration, including the current VC, as a reward.

Prof Mbati said that these questions are referring to Dr Kone.  He said Dr Kone has served as council member for many years; he has two PhDs, one from Univen and one from Fort Hare, in administration. He then worked for a mining company that then closed down; after that, he applied for a position of lecturing. Someone who has a PhD should be hired as a professor. He then went through the normal interviewing process. He does not sit in those panels, so he cannot attest for the actual process that happens. There would probably be someone who is the HOD for the department, head of HR and people from labour as well.  Despite the narrative, he could guarantee that Dr Kone was appointed in terms of the rules of the university. In his view he was more than qualified for that position.

The Chairperson asked how many members of council ended up being on the administration of the university.

Prof Mbati replied that he only recalls Dr Kone. If the current VC was included, that would be two. He commented that he finds the nature of the questions interesting because in other institutions there have been members of council that have been appointed and he is sure the Portfolio Committee knows that. The more important part of all this should be whether the correct processes have been followed in the selection process. As far back as 2016, when his term was coming to an end, the advert had been prepared and approved by council. The process was very rigorous. Those adverts have to be shared with labour and the Senate on the university, before advertising. There is a company that deals with the selection of candidates; there one decides if certain candidates are worth pursuing; then there is also another selecting committee comprising members of labour, SRC and other members of the university. This is to say that the selection process for the position goes through a number of steps to make sure that the person that is selected is the right person.

Regarding the foundation, he said that it was not a successful endeavour. In fact, the input costs of running the foundation were higher than the money that it was bringing in. it did not make sense at all. So, the Prof brought members of the foundation to look at the viability of it. He brought Mr Makhado to look into cutting down on overhead costs. Council then took decision to dissolve the foundation, as it was not serving its purpose raising funds for the University. Before he left, this was the case. However, there were talks on a possible restructuring so it might exist in a different manner.

As part of Dr Tshitereke’s disciplinary process, he was made given certain options to work under in the university, but he did not like that and opted to get a payout instead. He said it was a good thing for Dr Tshitereke to be out of the university, he did not add any value; all he did was create problems, which he was really good at. He then referred to Dr Phendu, saying that he was released on criminal charges; he had forged a diploma certificate and when there was a request from HR on the validity of his certification. It was labour who brought this issue to the front and when she was asked bring evidence of her qualification it was found that she did not in fact have the qualification.

The Chairperson asked if the Prof thought that it would an unjustifiable impression that he might have used university resources for a personal issue.

Prof Mbati said that this is quite an easy matter any legal opinion can clarify. He acted on his professional capacity as required by university policy. Of course, impressions can be created but he does not concern himself with them but rather with what is true. What is true is that he did not use university resources for a personal gain. He acknowledged what the Chairperson said around perception and what people may think but some legal inquiries can be done to clear it. There is perception and then there is truth; those are two different things.

The Chairperson asked the Prof to respond to a question by Ms Sibiya on his trip to New York.

Prof Mbati said that, together with the chairperson of council, the trip was between 8 and 12 July 2013 as part of a marketing and fundraising strategy. They met with philanthropic organisations, trusts and other potential donors. One of the companies they met with was Medtronic, a company that specialises in medical equipment in Washington DC. Then with the chairperson of council they made a presentation with the Executive Council on Diplomacy; there was also made a presentation with the Christi Company, New York, which deals with infrastructure projects, because there was an infrastructure backlog at the University. There were also discussions with the Infinite Family in New York, an NGO on community work in developing countries, followed by a meeting with the Coca-Cola Company in New York. Finally, there was a visit to the University of Columbia in New York. This was an important trip. There was a follow up with Coca-Cola Company here in South Africa, but unfortunately that did not result in any funding coming in. With the University of Columbia there is a possibility, but he could not remember the exact details. There was a follow up with them; he said the trip was not just to get funding but also to create partnerships: there was a proposal to have a flow of students for research purposes between the two universities. The presentation that was done for the Executive Council on Diplomacy really helped put Univen on the map. Prior to this not many people knew where Univen or if it is even in South Africa. Regarding how much in total the trip made, he said it is hard to say because these kinds of trips have conversations that take a long time. One does not expect an immediate reward on it; it is a continuous conversation.

The Chairperson asked who was part of the delegation to New York.

Prof Mbati replied that it was the chair of council and himself.

The Chairperson asked with regards to the CGE report. Would it be a fair conclusion to say that Prof Mbati was under the impression that there was a council resolution?

Prof Mbati agreed that this would be a fair conclusion.

The Chairperson asked if Prof Mbati would normally ask to see the decision of council before signing on it or if he would just sign because it is said that the decision was made by council.

Prof Mbati said that it would depend; it can come a resolution of council and it could also come as a letter coming directly to the VC, depending in the context in which the VC is required to sign. So, there is not a single of doing things.

The Chairperson then asked if it would be fair to say to that Prof Mbati, as the person occupying the office of the VC, ought to have known that he was signing on a decision that was never taken by council.

Prof Mbati said that would be how the Chairperson sees, but how he sees it would have been on how he has explained. He could not take the Chairperson’s perspective away; what he knows is that he acted in good faith and legally.

The Chairperson maintained that it was, in fact, illegal because the Prof acted under something that did not exist at the time. So, if it were said that the VC ought to have known that there was no decision of council, what would he say?

Prof Mbati said that he would deny that.

Ms J Mananiso (ANC) said that Prof Mbati expressed how he would like things to go but one of the things he omitted was that the Committee wants the enquiry to be part and parcel of awareness on the things that happen in institutions of higher learning. Can he agree on that?

Prof Mbati said he would not argue with that, but he also came to the enquiry on the parameters set by the terms of reference. It is the basis on which he had presented himself for the enquiry.

Ms Mananiso said that one of things she found interesting is the naming on witnesses that came before Prof Mbati. The Prof had described them as a ‘coalition of the wounded’. Who wounded them? She also said that there also seems to be an idea that when black people are in power, they tend to abuse their power. Would he agree with that?

Prof Mbati said when anyone becomes VC, they have to make sure that they know good governance, info reports, etc. What he does know is that there can sometimes be a sense of entitlement in HDI because of the positions that people assume. That is sometimes a challenge – the nexus between a sense of entitlement and the understanding that these are national institutions that need to serve all South Africa. He said he does not know if he is, in fact, answering the question.

Ms Mananiso said what she wanted to demonstrate is the present case is one of those that make the Committee want to investigate institutions of higher learning. The prevalent idea is that institutions led by black people do not succeed. The basis for that is that the Committee is gathered presently on an institution that is led by a black person. She said she does not expect an answer. She said Prof Mbati has sat through the enquiry and heard what other people are saying about him as a leader; she then asked him to describe himself.

Prof Mbati said that it is unfortunate that black people see that of themselves. He does not believe in that. People get to describe themselves as angels when they are not. Rather ask other people what they think of him to get a fuller picture of him a leader. Black Management Forum and other international bodies can be asked to give an account of how they view him. Members have also seen his CV.

Ms Mananiso said that the Prof is wrong in that regard because when he is surely asked to describe himself in interviews, and that is exactly the question she was asking him. His unwillingness to describe himself worries her because it leaves nothing but the word of how others have described him. She then asked a question on his view as a VC on the ethics of a senior member having a sexual relationship with a subordinate.

Prof Mbati said that question is clearly based on him because it is asking a question about a senior particularly on the role of a VC. Issues of morality he will leave to the enquiry to decide. As far as that goes in general, every institution has a policy that addresses all the ethics of sexual relationships between in their respective staff members.

Ms Mananiso then asked him on issues of consequence management when it comes to discipline. What were the steps to be taken if such a case arose?

With regards to the trip to New York, how would he describe it? Would he say that it fruitful or a wasteful expenditure? Finally, she asked if he thought that HR was following the correct procedure when they were dealing with his issue of sexual assault.

Prof Mbati said that he has never heard of a policy that said consequence management in his life, so perhaps Ms Mananiso could assist him with that but there are university disciplinary processes that deal with misbehaviour or contravention of its policies.

Concerning the trip to New York he said he does not understand why Members are fixated to that trip when he has given examples of other trips that have been done on behalf of the university. There have been many others that have been made to Zimbabwe, for example. He does not understand why there is an obsession around the trip he took to New York. That is why he is saying that there is a narrative going on. The trip cannot be seen as wasteful expenditure and he has gone to town explaining how that would not be the case.

The Chairperson said to say that Members are obsessing, in a dismissive way as if they are not supposed to ask questions about that or to suggest that that question, should not have been asked in the first place.

Prof Mbati expressed his apologies if that is the impression he gave. What he wanted to convey was that taking trips is common practice. Why is he, for example, not being asked about the trip he took to Denmark?

The Chairperson said that this is because there was a specific allegation relating to that trip and that is why Members are asking about it. There might have been information raised on all the trips but there was an issue raised about one trip and that is the one that was based in New York. What is irritating is the Prof’s expectation for there to be no questions when there are allegations.

Prof Mbati said he understands that and that is why he wants to bring context into everything he says because it then is perceived differently to how he describes it. All he wanted to show was that there is nothing unusual about the trip. Whether HR handled the matter the manner in which it was supposed to have been handled, he said council had answered that question. He thought it would be inappropriate for him to answer that question because he was subject of the discussion in the first place.

The Chairperson asked on the people the Prof describes a ‘coalition of the wounded’. Mr Modise was one of the people that testified in the enquiry, is he also one of the wounded?

Prof Mbati said that he could be one of those people because if one is to remember his report was taken for review.

The Chairperson then asked on the former investigator of the CGE.

Prof Mbati said that his report was taken for review and set aside so he is definitely one of the wounded. Prof Mbati then briefly explained the meaning of the term: he said those are people that have an axe to grind and who are unhappy with him.

The Chairperson said that he is trying to understand the logic behind this characterisation because there people that were outside the employ of the university, which the Prof labels as such nonetheless.

The Chairperson then turned to the former registrar who ultimately won his case at the Labour Court and the Labour Appeals Court. He did say he was not corrupt, and both the CCMA and the courts have proved this. Would the Prof still maintain that he is guilty?

Prof Mbati said that he had no grudge against the former registrar. In fact, he worked with him very well; their respective families would even have meals with one another. He also used to drive his children to Pretoria. When people go through disciplinary processes the unfortunate thing is that the VC has to sign their letters of dismissal. Unfortunately, it created an impression that it is the VC that wants those persons gone even though he was never involved even on the allegations in the first place.

He responded to the question posed by the Chairperson, on what he thought that he needed to act on the recommendation of an independent disciplinary hearing that emanated from an independent forensic report. He said that he is not a sangoma to determine if a certain person is guilty or not; he depends on the decisions of the courts and other justice bodies authorised to do so.

Regarding the ‘coalition of wounded’, the Chairperson asked if the Prof was implying that anyone who has been at the receiving end of his decisions is incapable of executing their roles. Does the Prof question the motive or does he question the substance of what they are saying?

Prof Mbati said that in his head, the coalition of the wounded referred to Univen employees. He said what people get wrong is that their dismissals are that they see the VC’s signature and automatically think he was involved in that process when he was not. “So, yes, he would fall under that category because he thinks I was involved in his dismissal when in fact I am not. If one looked at the 64-page submission I have made, one will see that what everybody else says about me is in total contrast with what these four individuals have said about me.” One could not get a picture of a person’s character by asking four individuals that he has supposedly dismissed. They are bound to retaliate; it is human nature.

The Chairperson said as per the Prof’s logic, his question asking if an aggrieved individual is qualified from being expected to tell the truth as it is.

Prof Mbati replied that it is certainly very suspect, especially if what that individual is saying is in total contrast with everybody. Asking four aggrieved people is a biased sample. He said he provided evidence from other people in the university from students and other members of the university. “You could not get my character from four people when the entire Univen space consists of more than 15 000 people. You can ask many people and they will tell you that Prof Mbati is the VC that they have worked with; Mr Manenzhe said this to others and to me. What has changed suddenly?”

The Chairperson said that Mr Manenzhe had retired. He said that there were attempts to get him fired but that never happened.

Prof Mbati said that when he came in to Univen, Mr Manenzhe was on his way out of that university and people were about to be dismissed, including Mr Manenzhe, but he kept him there. So, when he says there were attempts to get him out of there, he was right, but the Prof was the one who kept him there. These are all facts that can be proven by asking Univen.

The Chairperson asked: “So, you kept him so that he could return the favour?”

Prof Mbati said: “Well, if that is how you want to interpret that, I cannot take that away from you. But I would say is that I kept him to start on a clean slate. I was respectful as best as I could; I gave people a chance to start over. If I am the evil man I am made out to be, I could have just easily let them be dismissed,” replied Prof Mbati.

The Chairperson asked if Mr Manenzhe did not leave because he was retiring but because he had a DC.

Prof Mbati said that there was a disciplinary committee hearing against Mr Manenzhe before the he was there as the VC. What happened was that Mr Manenzhe had a grievance against a colleague but there was no basis for this grievance; in fact, there was an external advocate who looked into the matter and found that there was no basis for the grievance and recommended a disciplinary hearing. Now because there was no disciplinary hearing during Prof’s tenure, Mr Manenzhe believed that he was protecting other people. Soon after that, he left.

Ms Mkhatshwa said that she first wanted make it known that there is no bias against Prof Mbati. Having worked with her colleagues across political parties, whatever bias he says he noticed is for the protection of the sector considering the pivotal role it plays in the sector. So, the bias of the Committee is towards students, academics and institutions – making sure that there is a conducive environment for all of them to exist. So, when Ms Mananiso is asking on the relationship between a VC and a subordinate, the matter that brings this enquiry together informs the question. But the exercise that is being done here is for there to not be so many differing opinions on what a university environment is meant to look like. So, when she asked that question, it is not about Prof Mbati. As someone who has worked in the university space for so long, with his credentials, it would have been refreshing to hear Prof Mbati’s take on the matter. Ultimately the goal is to better the sector and to better the system on which it sector operates. In as much as it is about the individuals involved in this matter, there should be a way for everyone to pull themselves out of the situation.

One would want to apologise to anyone who felt that the Committee was treating him unfairly. Ms Mkhatshwa said that she personally does not think the Committee has been unfair on anyone, at least not intentionally. This is a democratic space meant to be safe for expression, and there is an attempt to make sure that it is just that. One also must commend the Chairperson for leading the Committee with the outmost decorum despite many personal attacks heading his way. She said she has also felt offended by some of the things that were said by Prof Mbati about the Committee, but the Chairperson did not note the objections of the Committee. This was in a bid to protect Prof Mbati from outbursts and genuine concerns to what were saying, she continued. Even when he was referring to Ms Mananiso as being obsessive when she was asking him a question that she was entitled to ask, when he could have used words like ‘focus’ to refer to that line of questioning. There are quite a lot of things that have been said.

In this enquiry there have been a lot of people criticising the Prof and there have been a lot of people lauding him for his leadership skills. Having heard all of this, would the Prof say if there was any criticism on him that was justified? Is there anything that when you look back you regret doing and would have done differently?

On infrastructure, she said she is not naïve to the fact that there is a mammoth task for historically disadvantaged institutions. In fact, the same question was posed to the Department: considering the funding that has been provided by the Department through taxpayers’ money and other generous institutions who donate their funds for the betterment of these institutions, do you think that the institution is where it ought to be? Looking retrospectively, could the institution have been further ahead in terms of its infrastructure development plan at that particular institution? It is important that there be frank conversations about what could have been done better, what works and what does not work, what kind of extra help could be factored by the Department, and so on. The Department has spoken on their performance targets and their annual performance plans to strengthen these institutions to be able to deliver on their infrastructure development plans. She could appreciate that there is a sentiment that there has been some development in Univen over the years, but she has been there twice and has seen that the institution is in disrepair. Development and maintenance are nowhere near where they are meant to be.

In his view, what does Prof Mbati think has been the reason for these institutions to continue to be in the state that they are in? Considering that SMU is in the same state that Univen is in, surely Prof Mbati can appreciate the concerns the Committee has on him as a leader, when he left Univen in such a state? Will he be capable of tackling those issues going on in the institution?

There is a sentiment form students, at least the ones that the Committee has been able to engage with, that the former VC had an open-door policy. When the Prof reflects on his position in Univen, was he that kind of person? Was he open to talking to students, the SRC, etc., in making sure that their voices are heard? This is important because a breakdown in communication with students often leads to protest, albeit protest being a constitutional right for students it also hinders an environment conducive for learning and teaching. That is not to say protest action must not happen, but there must be continuous and consultative communication between the institution and the students that it serves.

Gender-based violence is a huge problem in society and manifests itself in microcosms of society such as institutions of higher learning. How do you, as someone who has been alleged to be perpetrator of this particular scourge, considering that this is a multi-sectorial problem that exists in context of the role that the SAPS, government policy and many other elements of society, view gender-based violence and seek to address the problem from the perspective of students to academics. The Minister has spoken about increasing funding to increase the number of women in the higher education sector, but we need to ensure that the institutions that they will be entering into are not going to swallow them in misogyny and patriarchy, that they able to thrive in these spaces. Essentially, she asked for Prof Mbati’s perspective is on protecting women, men, and everybody in between, in such spaces.

Prof Mbati first said that he might just go into politics when he retires, referring to a mistake Ms Mkhatshwa made when she referred to him as an Honourable Member. He then proceeded to say that Ms Mkhatshwa has made him comfortable with answering a question he did not want answer earlier. He did not want to answer that question mainly because of the manner in which it was phrased. He said when he was at the University of the Free State there was no relationship between students and academia; that is where his view always was before he come to Univen. On getting to Univen, people there said no. This is how they have gotten their wives and husbands – through these kinds of communications between colleagues. So he let that go.

He said, if one is to look at his CV, he has trained over 30 masters students and the majority of them South Africans – a number of PhDs and around 50 honours students. In fact, three or four them are now lecturers, and one is now professor at North West University.

When it comes to that kind of relationship, it is hard to say. Like, is that something that should be legislated? Maybe it should and maybe it should not. He does not know. Should a dean not have a relationship with a lecturer? Personally, he thought would probably not want to encourage relationships that have some kind of power dynamics, but he does not know if one can legislate. This is why he has always had difficulty with that kind of question. He does not think one can put moral prompters on it, and that makes it particularly difficult to legislate.

He then apologised for any discomfort that he may have caused Members. He then said Ms Mkhatshwa captured his sentiments well because for three weeks he has been listening to people slander him and use him name in a light that is not to his character. Sometimes, the manner in which a response comes is because of the type of attack that was launched in the first place. It certainly was not intentional for him to be disrespectful to the Committee.

In terms of his leadership skills and criticism, he said he is a very focused person. He is goal oriented and goes for what he seeks to achieve. Outside of the realm of his office, one would not know that he is a Professor. People that have worked with him would say that he is a team player; he has helped many others grow. He made an example of his PA when she worked for him: she did her honours degree, masters and now she is doing her PhD. That is the kind of person he is. His own driver only had a certificate but he now has a degree. People were hurt that he had to implement university decisions that affected them adversely. Unfortunately, that is the role of the CEO – making decisions that are going to affect everybody. If he had not acted the Committee would say question why he did not act when there was a recommendation to dismiss someone. So either way, there is always going to be dissatisfaction. He thinks he has always been fair person. Maybe he may not be as flexible as people may want him to be sometimes, but he is fair. Once he has decided about where he sees the university going, he expects people to execute those decisions. This may be a weakness, but sometimes you do not know how flexible you have to be to propagate the objectives of the university.

In terms of infrastructure, he said that it is at times like these where he is thankful for the leadership of the Minister Blade Nzimande because at a time when it mattered, he made extra funding available for HDIs. He said that the manner in which Ms Mkhatshwa asked her question to infrastructure makes it clear that she already knows the answer. Infrastructure development plans are not where they are supposed to be. There have been issues of supply chain management being relaxed at the institution and one has to wonder why. He thought it is to make sure that there are people there who get those tenders. When there are architects who say that a building is going to cost say R400 million, and there are contractors giving you exactly the same amount in quotations, is there then no collusion between people externally and those who are in the Committee itself? There are people asking why there are people being brought from the outside, as in other parts of Limpopo outside of Venda and other parts of the country. Universities are public institutions that are meant to serve South Africa as a nation, so what is wrong with having contractors from other parts of South Africa bidding for tenders? We then wonder why there are abandoned projects in the university. He said that a Member of the Committee spoke of the pollicisation of the tender awarding process. There were contractors who were awarded tenders for projects that they were unable to do. If it means having joint ventures, there is no problem but there must be comfort in knowing when projects are handed out that they will be completed. He said that he would not compromise on quality and price. Certain projects do not require people to come other parts of the country; things like paving can easily be done locally. Some projects do not require very specialised skills and experience, but you must demonstrate that the quality of the paving you are going to do will be exactly the same as everyone else. He also said another problem with infrastructure development is that of capacity: the issue with HDIs is that there is not enough capacity to facilitate the projects that are needed. He had approached the Department to make sure the increased infrastructure grants are accompanied by the right personnel to execute them because it does not matter how big a budget is, if there is no one to make sure how well that budget is spent, it will pointless. He has requested that VCs be allowed to look into the kind of personnel that would be required for the duration of the projects. The issue with maintenance is that there simply are not enough resources to maintain and build at the same time.

In term of an open-door policy, Prof Mbati said the Committee could ask on the sentiments of students. He has an open-door policy but when students want to meet him, he will ask if they have met with the SRC or the Director of Student Affairs. The SRC president has his number and calls him all the time, and so does labour. He does not encourage students to come to him when they could have approached other members of the university.

When it comes to gender-based violence; the heroes in his life are women: his grandmother, his wife, and his daughter. He said he has been married to his wife for the last 30 years; they were together since university. It is an evil that must be tackled the same way corruption is being tackled. He was the first to meet with students and have a meal with them and create an organisation for them in the institution. He said he would do everything in his power to make sure that women, in particular, are protected and to make sure that the various sexualities that exist have their rightful space in society. When it comes to the growth if women in higher education, he said he has written a paper when he was in Univen on how to best grow the number of women in higher education. That is certainly the attitude he is taking to SMU. In fact, what he has done is that he created a gender office at SMU; council has been very helpful in this regard because they allowed for this office to be created even though there was no formal structure present to hold this office.

The Chairperson said he noticed how the Prof spoke passionately about infrastructure in Univen, yet he presided over the worst period for infrastructure in the university. So, where is the disjuncture between theory and action? There are many buildings that were there under his leadership that were left abandoned under his leadership.

Prof Mbati said that he does not find that assertion to be correct. In fact, Minister Naledi Pandor was heard on record saying that Univen is a construction site because there were a lot of buildings that were under construction at the time, some funded by the Department and some by the University itself. While he was there, he created an infrastructure management board where there were project managers contracted outside, so what he was supposed to do as the CEO was done. However, when you have contractors abandoning projects, how does that become the fault of the CEO? There is no disjuncture; it is simply a matter of reality. In fact, the Chairperson was on record, saying that this is a sector wide problem. What he would say is that one should not be over ambitious over having many projects running at the same time? He said if one had visited the institution in the early 2000s, one would have seen a case of about 50 students using one toilet; so there has been progress. So, when the Chairperson speaks of disjuncture, it really is a matter of reality that there simply are too many problems to fix the issue would perhaps having too many projects running at the same time in a bid to fix everything at the same time. This can be seen on the forensic report that he has provided.

Speaking of the forensic report, it blames everyone else but the person meant to be held accountable, said the Chairperson. It is blaming the director of supply chain management; it is also blaming the DVC but the VC who is supposed to the accountable.

Prof Mbati said that is probably because there are people that are designated for certain parts of the university. He said there is the DVC for Operations who is responsible for HR and Infrastructure, as there is one for Academia, who would be responsible academics and research. If there is something wrong that has been done by her subordinates and is not reported to him but picked up by a forensic report, how does that become his problem? The report correctly picked up where the problem is; it said that there were deviations that were not approved by the VC. There was a supply chain process that happened outside of the sight of VC; how does that become a problem of the VC?

The Chairperson asked the Prof who asked for a forensic report.

Prof Mbati said it was council who asked for it.

The Chairperson said that the point he was getting at is that when something wrong happened there is someone to blame but when something good happens, he claims the credit. Surely when he was doing walkabouts there were abandoned projects everywhere; they costed about R200 million. He would have seen that there is something wrong with that and reported it.

Prof Mbati said he did do walkabouts and when the Department said they were the ones looked around campus; this was false. The project board already picked this up earlier; there was already work going on. There were reports that were done and sent to the university council by the time DHET came these processes were already happening. As far as he is concerned, the management of the institution did what was required of it.

On the question of why the two firms did not find him, he responded that it is a question that should be posed to them. This is a question of credibility of the work that they have done. If that is unsatisfactory then who should be asked on why they did not find the VC guilty?

The Chairperson said he is asking where the buck stops because he is taking credit for something that other people did but when other people do something wrong, he is not the one to blame.

Prof Mbati said that in 2016, the university received a qualified audit precisely because of this problem. When a CEO gets a qualified audit is that not accountability for that CEO? He said he is not sure what the Chairperson is referring to when he talks about accountability. Maybe the Chairperson expected him to be punished in some form. He does understand this narrative that the Chairperson is pushing or where it is going. There was a problem the auditors picked it up; the auditors informed the VC, and the audit was sent to council. As the VC, he received a qualified audit in 2016. In the many years he was the VC in Univen this was the only time he got a qualified audit; that was accountability. The narrative that he takes all the credit when good is done is simply not true, because he has credited the government, management and council as well. He was simply the VC; he could not have done anything without the assistance of others in the university. There was hard work and planning to see what one sees at Univen today.

The Chairperson said that there were people who said the internal audit of the university was disbanded. What happened to it?

Prof Mbati said that those who allege must prove that there was no internal audit. When he arrived in Univen the internal audit externally sourced; PwC did it. A decision was then taken that there should be a mixed model. When he left Univen that was the model he left operational. So, whoever alleges that he disbanded it must prove those allegations. An audit works functionally to the audit committee and administratively to the VC. He has never seen a case where the VC would be able to singlehandedly disband an audit committee.   

The Chairperson asked if Prof Mbati is the director of Black Capital.

Prof Mbati said that he went into great detail explaining this in his report. He is not a director for company or any of its companies. One could do a CIPRA search, and they would easily be able to see that. In fact, Mr Cibi himself has produced evidence that he has produced as evidence; he does not belong to any of those companies.

The Chairperson asked who made a settlement offer during the legal process; the chair of council had said she is not aware of such a settlement.

Prof Mbati said he does not know. Prof Phendla never engaged with him on matters of a settlement. He only learned of such three months ago when from the legal advisor when Mr Legetla was talking. The legal advisor said it was something he initiated, and he gave his motivation as to why, but it was not discussed with him. It would have been in conflict of interest for him to do so.

The Chairperson then asked if Prof Mbati thought there was collusion between Mr Tshitereke, Mr Modise and the CGE investigator.

Prof Mbati said he does not know.

The Chairperson said they all said the same thing.

Prof Mbati said those individuals’ respective reports were set and Mr Tshitereke lied. That is as far as he can go with those three individuals.

The Chairperson asked if the CGE report was set aside or if certain portions were excised.

Prof Mbati replied and said substantial portions of the report were set aside. In fact, he would say about 95% of the report was set aside.

The Chairperson asked if Prof Mbati knew if the recommendations were not set aside.

Prof Mbati indicated that he was aware.

The Chairperson asked what those recommendations were.

Prof Mbati said that this question should be directed to the University.

The Chairperson said that he is asking the Prof but he was avoiding the question. He reckoned that the reason for this was because council did not sign the founding affidavit; it was, in fact, Prof Mbati signed it.

The Chairperson said since the Prof is the one who deposed of the affidavit; he wanted to find out if the Prof is aware that the recommendations were not set aside and what they are. The Chairperson asked if Prof Mbati found the comments of Labour Courts to be definitive.

Prof Mbati said as he has explained in his statement the court said ‘may have’, and that is not definitive. 

Prof Mbati replied and said if the Chairperson also had said ‘might have’ then he would be correct in saying that.

The Chairperson replied that the court was not clearing him because it was saying he may have or may have not.

Prof Mbati replied that that is exactly what it means.

The Chairperson said that he is pointing out that even though the merits of the case are not being questioned, contrary to what Prof Mbati was saying, the court never cleared him.

Prof Mbati replied that he does not know if the Chairperson read the report to see why Prof Phendla had made an application to court. Prof Phendla said the reason for her dismissal was on the basis of sex and not on the basis of corruption and the court held that her dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair. Therefore, the allegation of sexual harassment is set aside.

The Chairperson said that he was looking forward to hearing fully why the university did not implement its own sexual harassment policy, but instead he has been left poorer. He has not cleared that matter the former chairs of council did not clear. Why did the matter have to go to the South Gauteng High Court for the implementation rule 5.5 to kick in?

Secondly, on the challenging of the CGE report itself, there was never a decision by council. Prof Mbati is the one who deposed of a report that accuses him on a personal basis on an assumed decision by council that never existed when that could have been easily cleared by a call to the registrar of the university. This is how most CEOs are supposed act and Prof Mbati surely knows that.

The meeting was adjourned.