The futures of University of Stellenbosch chair of council and outgoing vice-chancellor are in peril after a scathing report by retired Constitutional Court justice Johann Kriegler called into question their sincerity over the contentious closure of the Wilgenhof men’s residence.
The university’s council is chaired by esteemed business leader Nicky Newton-King, who sits on the board of several JSE-listed groups and previously held the role of CEO of the stock exchange. She was appointed to the role in April 2023, making her the first woman to hold the position of council chair in the 106 years of the university’s existence.
The institution’s rector and vice-chancellor Wim de Villiers ends his second and final five-year term at the end of March — with his reputation likely to be stained by how he handled the closure of Wilgenhof.
Kriegler, in a report dated November 29, found the council should have been made aware of the amendment of a key recommendation by a panel set up to investigate the matter — that closure of the residence was not the only option.
Challenges besetting Wilgenhof came to the fore after a series of reports by News24 in January exposing abusive initiation rituals that left some of the victims scarred for decades.
A panel was put together to look into the allegations, which in its original report recommended the residence either be closed or a dialogue held that might lead to it staying open.
However, this contentious paragraph in the report was later substantially amended — leaving the council under the impression that only the closure of Wilgenhof was recommended. Kriegler said the council was kept in the dark about the alternative.
“The approach of a truly deep, carefully managed and facilitated dialogue on campus appeals to the panel as an alternative to the closure of Wilgenhof. The panel cannot comment on how long the process might take,” reads the original paragraph (paragraph 517), which was later watered down.
“The process would have to grapple with the difficult issues that maintain the primacy of the dominant culture at Wilgenhof, and those persons would have to be prepared not only see their own blind spots, but also acknowledge their privilege and make big sacrifices to engender deep and lasting change,” the original report read, adding that there was also no guarantee that such a process would be successful.
The report, compiled by a panel comprising Nicky de Jager, Penny van der Bank and Derek Swemmer, was shared with only a few privileged people, including Newton-King and De Villiers.
After back and forth between Newton-King, De Villers and the panel, the paragraph quoted above was materially amended and labelled as paragraph 513 before a “final” report was presented to the universities’ top brass for consideration. There was no mention of the facilitated dialogue.
Kriegler and his team found that the amendments between the original and amended report were “textually substantive and contextually vital” and De Villiers and Newton-King had a duty to inform council members of the amendments.
When asked why they made the amendments, De Jager sought to take responsibility, saying the previous wording of an alternative solution were her personal views that made their way to the report. Van der Bank and Swemmer supported this view, but Kriegler did not buy it.
De Villiers and Newton-King told Kriegler that no pressure was brought to bear on the panel to change the wording of the alternative solution to closing the residence. This too, Kriegler was sceptical about.
“We emphasise that it is a time-honoured principle of our law that it matters not how a simulated transaction is constructed: one looks to the substance — in this instance the radical amendment of a report by an ostensibly independent panel,” reads Kriegler’s report.
“At the same time, having traversed the matter thoroughly and robustly with the chair and rector, we conclude that they could hardly have been unaware that notwithstanding its apparent legality, the process was fatally flawed. Whatever the elaborate process, the rector, with the approval of the chair, was instrumental in the amendment of the original report.”
Kriegler was scathing on Newton-King’s failure to alert the council of the key amendment made to the original report.
“The chair was at times aware — as she herself made plain to us in the course of our interview — that the future of Wilgenhof was a painfully controversial issue in an environment lacking trust even within council,” the report reads.
“The chair was indeed obliged to inform council at its meeting on June 24 2024, when the amended report was debated, of the existence of the original report and, we add, of its tenor. Such non-disclosure constituted the withholding by the chair of material information that could have influenced the outcome of council deliberations.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.