Vice-Chancellor Professor Wim de Villiers and Council chairperson Dr Nicky Newton-King had recused themselves from the meeting to allow for an impartial discussion and decision-making process.
The Stellenbosch University Council has resolved that an independent expert must investigate allegations of improper interference in the findings of the Wilgenhof Panel report.
Council met and made the decision on Friday following recent claims in Chancellor Edwin Cameron’s affidavit that Vice-Chancellor Professor Wim de Villiers and Council chairperson Dr Nicky Newton-King changed the report, which recommended the closure of the controversial Wilgenhof residence.
A three-member independent panel chaired by advocate Nick de Jager was tasked with investigating the contents found during an audit of the spaces and amenities of the men’s residence and to report to the rectorate on its findings and recommendations.
The residence’s closure is also the subject of a court application by the Wilgenhof Alumni Association, in hopes that the Western Cape High Court will overturn the university’s decision.
In his affidavit, Cameron admits he had access to the report as it was sent to him by De Villiers.
“I discovered that the final paragraph of the final report sent to me on June 1, 2024, had disappeared.
“Instead, the proposal contained in that paragraph had been moved to a position earlier in the report, but had been altered. It now indicated, not an alternative that ‘appealed’ to the panel, namely a ‘truly deep, carefully managed and facilitated dialogue’, but an alternative that the panel unequivocally rejected,” he said.
On discovering that the panel’s report had been “altered”, Cameron said he wrote to De Villiers and Newton-King and the VC called him.
“We had a 13-minute long conversation.
“He admitted that he had intervened by writing to the panel about the final paragraph of its report.
“The VC insisted that he had merely responded to an invitation the panel directed to the rectorate to ‘provide any clarification or answer any questions’ about its report,” he said.
Newton-King confirmed in a meeting update that the matter had been referred for a further probe.
She also indicated that De Villiers and herself had recused themselves from the meeting to allow for an impartial discussion and decision-making process.
“Council tasked the Social and Business Ethics Committee (‘SBE’) and the Audit and Risk Committee (‘ARC’) of the Council to appoint and co-ordinate appropriate independent expert(s) (‘The Panel’) to investigate the circumstances in which the Wilgenhof Panel report was changed, whether the Executive Committee of Council decided at its 4 June meeting that Wilgenhof should be closed, and whether the Chair of Council should have disclosed the Chancellor’s concern around the changing of the final paragraph of the Wilgenhof report to Council at its June 24, 2024, meeting,” said Newton-King.
The panel will present its findings to Council at its meeting on December 2 for council to decide on appropriate action.
Council decided on September 16 to close the Wilgenhof men's residence in its current form and to replace it with a reimagined and renewed male residence student community. A settlement was reached between the university and the Association for the Advancement of Wilgenhof Residents (AWIR) to accommodate Wilgenhof residents by shortening the period of closure to one semester and by allowing those students who wish to do so, to stay in the larger of the two new north campus residences.
“It is important to note that the settlement does not compromise on the crux of the Council decision, i.e. to close the residence in its current form and embark on a facilitated process towards a reimagined, renewed, and rejuvenated student community.
“The University reiterates that it will remain on course in its endeavours to effect decisive change,” said Newton-King.
Student Representative Council (SRC) interim chairperson Phiwokuhle Qabaka said there was hope when going into the meeting that it would be a constructive meeting and a way forward.
“We are happy that the meeting was indeed constructive and people put aside their differences. All stakeholders showed the intention that they want what is best for students.
“Also we will be included in the process that is about to unfold to ensure things are dealt with properly.”
Cape Times