Preliminary Report on SMU Vice Chancellor Inquiry

Meeting report

Apologies

Apologies were received from Ms C King (DA), Ms N Tarabella-Marchesi (DA) and Dr A Lotriet (DA).

Opening remarks

The Chairperson apologised for the delay with the start of the meeting. After the quorum was confirmed, she thanked Members for availing themselves and for the commitment to ensure that the important work of the Committee is done. In December 2021, the Committee attempted to adopt the report into the enquiry on the appointment of Professor Mbati about his time at SMU and other related matters. But the Legal Team requested an opportunity to engage with the submissions, which needed to be tested from a legal perspective. In addition, some of the Members had not had sufficient time to thoroughly scrutinise the report and had asked to be given time to reflect on the report in order to make contributions or submissions. On this basis, the adoption of the report was moved to the new term. The Legal and Research Teams reflected on the changes since the previous engagement and would be reporting back to Members.

The Chairperson raised concerns about the leakage of the preliminary report which had been misquoted in media articles. She would appreciate if Members had regard for the preliminary status of the report which had not yet been adopted. Based on the commitment to ensure that the process was fair, this Committee would allow affected parties to interact with the report and to make submissions should the report not be a true reflection of the engagements in the process.

Reflections on the Preliminary Oversight Enquiry Report
Ms Fatima Ebrahim, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, Constitutional and Legal Services Office, said Members had requested an opportunity to scrutinise the report. The Legal Team worked through the comments and suggestions from Members. Legally sound suggestions were incorporated into the report. No major deviations from the first draft were noted. Minor changes such as wording and specific timeframes were added. The previous observations made by the Legal Team remained valid in terms of the report being reasonable and well-balanced. The team was satisfied with the process to date, including with development of the second draft. The main concern was that affected parties must be afforded the opportunity to engage with the report for the purpose of ensuring that the correct information was captured, that witnesses were understood correctly and that claims were substantiated.

During the process of examining the report, the team identified whistle-blower affidavits about allegations in respect of the appointment process of Professor Mbati. Unfortunately, the allegations were received at a very late stage, i.e. after the hearing process of the enquiry was concluded. It was inexplicable that the information was provided at the tail-end of the process and after the preliminary report had been drafted. Provision was nevertheless made in a section of the report to track the development of the investigation. SMU confirmed through a public statement that the investigation would be done. In terms of the report, it was mandatory for the university to report back to Parliament, which the Legal Team would monitor closely. At this point, the Committee would not be in a position to test the evidence and reliance could not be placed on unverified evidence. From a legal perspective, the team was satisfied with the report and the process followed to date.

Dr Agnetha Arendse, Committee Researcher, said her presentation was a repeat of the reflections of the Legal Advisor in terms of the status of the report. The contents of the presentation noted the resolutions taken by the Committee in the meeting of 10 December 2021, updates of responses from the Content Research and Legal Teams and reflections on new submissions received and additions made to the preliminary report.

On 10 December 2021, the Committee resolved to give the DA and FF+ more time to read the report and allowed seven days for additional submissions by all parties. To date, no additional submissions had been received from both parties. Input received from the ANC was assessed to confirm if it was legally sound and aligned with the objectives of the process. A review of the interventions in place, revealed that some of the proposed recommendations had no legal basis and others had already been reflected in the policy framework on Gender Based Violence.

New submissions received from whistle-blowers contained serious allegations of collusion to secure the appointment of Professor Mbati by Professor Mbati himself and certain officials who were part of the interview panel. The team resolved to refer the matter to the SMU Council for internal investigation and made recommendations in the report for the Committee to consider. Affected parties would be given a specific timeframe for comment. Responses would be considered only if evidence of contested areas was available. A final report for the consideration by the House would be tabled so that recommendations could be made to House Resolutions.

Discussion

Mr W Letsie (ANC) noted the date of 10 January 2022 in paragraph 2.7 of the report was incorrect.

The Chairperson agreed the date should be 11 February 2022. She implored Members to continue engaging with the report and to inform the Committee Staff of any errors, while the report was still a working document.

Dr W Boshoff (FF+) said this was a good example of a Committee that took its oversight function seriously. It would not be possible to do the same exercise with every institution. The level of detail allowed the Members to have a good understanding of the process. The FF+ did not find anything in the report that warranted improvement. He was however being mindful of factional fighting in certain pollical parties and therefore wanted to reserve comment but expressed the view that the oversight was sincere. He thanked the previous Chairperson, Mr Mapulane, in his absence for his role in the process and his commitment to the project.

The Chairperson agreed with Dr Boshoff about the role played by the previous Chairperson who always emphasised the importance of trying to address systemic challenges across all higher education institutions and problems that might exist in other universities. Although the Committee had in the recent past been dealing with two universities, the recommendations were aiming to address sectoral challenges.

Ms K Mahlatsi (ANC) said she had largely been covered by Mr Boshoff’s comments and agreed that gratitude should be given to the Parliamentary Staff and the Legal and Research Teams for a job well done. She was grateful for the opportunity afforded to the Members for examine the report, which had been written in a profound way to make it clear to everyone. She applauded the staff for dealing with the issues of ambiguity. The process was beneficial to the Department, the Committee and the broader South African society. The manner in which Legal Services dealt with the issue gave comfort that there were no hidden agendas. The matter was referred to Legal Services to clarify misunderstandings and misinterpretations. The Committee appreciated the work done with regards to the process. She wanted to move for the adoption of the report but would wait on the direction by the Chairperson.

Ms J Mananiso (ANC) asked what the implication would be of the DA and FF+ not giving input to the report. She enquired about the omission in the report of the apology by the SMU Council to Professor (name inaudible) and expressed her appreciation for the job well done by the Parliamentary Staff.

The Chairperson said she struggled to hear the remarks from Ms Mananiso but summarised the questions that she was able to hear as follows; the impact on submissions not made as requested, the omission of an apology by the SMU Council and lastly reiterating the importance of the work that had been done. She afforded Mr Letsie the opportunity to make further comments.

Mr Letsie was satisfied with the additional information in paragraphs 4.30 to 4.33 in the report. In the absence of objections, he moved for the adoption of the amended preliminary report.

The Chairperson said it was good to note the support of colleagues on this matter. She pointed out that minor errors still needed to be corrected for example paragraph 4.30.1 on page 83 should be 4.30.4. It was a huge task and the Committee and staff needed a collective effort in sharpening the work that had been done.

The Chairperson called on the Legal Advisor and Committee Researcher to respond to the comments and questions raised by Members.

The Legal Advisor said the sound was poor but if she correctly understood, Ms Mananiso was concerned about the lack of input from certain parties who requested time to read the documents but failed to submit comments. The process would not be impacted by parties not providing comments. What matters, was that members were all afforded a fair opportunity to make submissions. The most important factor was that at the time of the adoption of the final report, every party would have the right to accept or reject the report.

The Chairperson asked if the apology referred to by Ms Mananiso was reflected in the report.

The Legal Advisor replied that the apology was noted in the report.

The Committee Researcher said the Legal Advisor adequately responded to the concern about the implications from other parties not providing input. She confirmed that the apology had been noted on page 97 of the report.

The Committee Secretary, Mr Anele Kabingesi, agreed the matter was reflected in the report.

The Chairperson requested both the Researcher and Secretary of the Committee to double check the information in the minutes and to refer back in writing to the Committee about the need to apologise.

The Chairperson thanked the Legal and Research Teams for the input and responses and for the support in exercising robust oversight. The Committee was not embarking on a witch hunt but was planning to rid the sector of its many ills. The aim was to ensure fairness. She implored the Members to make submissions up until the final report was adopted and reiterated the importance of the work of the Committee.

Mr Letsie complimented the Legal Team and Parliamentary Staff for compiling a report that was easy to read and moved to adopt the report.  Ms Mahlatsi supported the adoption of the report.

Concluding Remarks

The Chairperson confirmed that the Preliminary Oversight Enquiry Report had been adopted and that it would be circulated to affected parties. She was counting on the same level of support from Members and staff on the process of moving forward with the recommendations. She supported the statement that the President made in the SONA that everyone needed to do their part to ensure that no one should be left behind. The plans of government should be exuded through the work of the Committee.

Mr Letsie reminded the Chairperson that a timeframe for comments and feedback had not been determined. He proposed 21 days be allowed for comments and disputes.

The Chairperson apologised for the omission on her part and said the Committee had been guided by the Legal Team which suggested a timeframe of three weeks for comments. She said Members should rest well and reflect on the President’s SONA message.

Mr Letsie said it appeared that the Chairperson had forgotten about the adoption of the minutes of meetings. He proposed that the minutes should be moved to the next meeting.

The Chairperson agreed and sought approval from the remaining Members to move the minutes to the next meeting.

The proposal was not opposed.

The meeting was adjourned.