Stellenbosch University (SU) Council has addressed findings from the independent Kriegler Panel regarding amendments to the De Jager Panel report on Wilgenhof residence. While acknowledging governance lapses by the Vice-Chancellor and Chair, the council emphasized there was no malicious intent. The council also condemned media leaks and pledged to strengthen governance.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
The seventh BizNews Conference, BNC#7, is to be held in Hermanus from March 11 to 13, 2025. The 2025 BizNews Conference is designed to provide an excellent opportunity for members of the BizNews community to interact directly with the keynote speakers, old (and new) friends from previous BNC events – and to interact with members of the BizNews team. Register for BNC#7 here.
Stellenbosch University: Council statement on Kriegler Panel report
The Stellenbosch University (SU) Council today considered the Kriegler Panel report. The independent panel, chaired by Justice Johann Kriegler, investigated specific allegations regarding the amendment and related disclosure of the De Jager Panel report on the Wilgenhof residence.
Council noted and considered the Kriegler Panel’s findings, as well as written submissions from attorneys on behalf of the De Jager Panel, additional documentation and input supplied by the Vice-Chancellor and input by the Chair of Council.
After a robust discussion, Council adopted a motion through majority vote which acknowledged that the Vice-Chancellor and Chair of Council had erred in not informing Council about amendments to the De Jager Panel report. The minority dissenting votes against the motion were recorded as requested.
Council accepted that neither had acted “maliciously, or in bad faith, or with any intention of influencing the decisions made by Council related to Wilgenhof residence, and only did what they believed to be in the best interests of Stellenbosch University”.
The motion was critical of the Vice-Chancellor sharing the De Jager Panel report with Chancellor Edwin Cameron. In Council’s view, this represented a “governance lapse” which should not be repeated.
Similarly, Council noted the Chair’s apology for an error of judgment related to the non-disclosure to Council of the amendments that had been made to the De Jager Panel report. Council was critical of this lapse of judgment and urged the Chair to avoid a recurrence.
Council agreed to reconsider its governance processes related to communications between the rectorate, the Chair of Council and with Council.
Finally, Council reaffirmed its decisions regarding the residence’s closure and reopening as a reimagined male residence. That decision was “aligned with a more inclusive, participatory (consultative) approach that Council conducted”.
Council also passed two motions expressing its “disappointment and dismay” at media leaks of the Kriegler Panel report as such conduct is contrary to Council’s Code of Conduct, undermines the work of Council and resulted in prejudice to affected individuals.
The decisions taken today reflect Council’s commitment to rigorous governance, procedural fairness, accountability and respect.
These deliberations flow from Stellenbosch University’s core values of excellence, compassion, equity, accountability and respect, which are articulated in our Vision 2040. The Wilgenhof matter arises from the discovery in January this year of the disturbing contents of two rooms in the residence and further evidence of behaviour and rituals which are inconsistent with these values.
For a detailed timeline and supporting documents please click here.
Council acknowledges that this is a challenging moment for our University community. We are confident that Stellenbosch University will emerge stronger, with a renewed focus on building an institution with accountability and respect for all at its heart.
Originally published by Stellenbosch University
Wilgenhof Alumni to continue legal battle against irrational decisions of Stellenbosch University
Media Statement by the Wilgenhof Alumni Association
The Wilgenhof Alumni Association is disappointed that the Stellenbosch University (SU) Council yesterday continued on the deeply irrational course that has characterised the university’s handling of the Wilgenhof matter for the past eleven months.
The Council was faced with proof of the deceptive behaviour of the Rector, Wim de Villiers, and Council Chair, Nicky Newton-King. The Council’s response to this was inaction, thereby condoning unethical leadership. Despite the finding that the Wilgenhof report was significantly altered to achieve a predetermined outcome, the Council is seemingly still set on executing previous decisions that are largely based on a now thoroughly discredited report.
An independent panel, consisting of retired Constitutional Court Justice Johann Kriegler, advocate Karrisha Pillay SC and Professor Themba Mosia, unequivocally and unanimously found that the Rector and Council Chair interfered in the processes of the Wilgenhof report.
The interference has been documented not just by the panel, who conducted thorough examinations of all the major role-players, but also by another retired Constitutional Court Justice – SU Chancellor Edwin Cameron, who, in an affidavit to the Western Cape High Court, set out the precise circumstances surrounding the university leadership’s deception. That affidavit was filed in the Wilgenhof Alumni Association’s case against the Wilgenhof report.
The Wilgenhof Alumni Association is continuing with its legal action against the materially flawed and defamatory report, asking the court to set aside the report as well as all decisions based on it. The Wilgenhof Alumni Association is also considering whether the current court application should be broadened to include the decisions made by the Council at yesterday’s meeting.
“The findings of Kriegler, Pillay and Mosia have bolstered our legal action to have the report set aside, and we are confident that there will be a moment of reckoning when this entire matter is rationally considered in a court of law, where facts actually matter,” said Jaco Rabie, spokesperson for the Wilgenhof Alumni Association.
What started in January with the sensationalised publication of photos of discontinued historical practices at Wilgenhof, has, through the actions of SU management and Council, become an institutional crisis. Council’s behaviour shows that the university is willing to sacrifice good governance to make ideological gestures. In this case, the gesture – the temporary closure and “re-imagination” of Wilgenhof – is driven by a fatally flawed process and assumptions.
“The Council meeting yesterday was the second time SU decided to abandon its own processes out of political expediency. First, when the Wilgenhof report didn’t give the answers they wanted, the Rector and Council Chair simply decided it should be amended. And now, when Council is faced with the highly inconvenient findings of a panel they themselves appointed, they just wave it away as if it’s a minor nuisance,” said Rabie. “But Council’s inaction will have severe and lasting consequences.”
Not just Wilgenhof alumni, but alumni from the greater SU community have yesterday noted the Council’s failure in leadership and responsibility. It is ironic that the Council claims in its press statement that their inaction reflects a “commitment to rigorous governance, procedural fairness, accountability and respect.”
“We will continue to fight for the best interests of current and past Wilgenhoffers and for an inclusive and caring residence that can develop the leaders South Africa needs – leaders who, we hope, will show more principle and courage than that displayed by SU management and the Council leadership,” said Rabie.
Read also:
