Allegations of corruption at the University of Zululand are misleading, writes Professor CRM Dlamini
In the Mail & Guardian of August 1 to 7 1997 allegations of corruption were made against the University of Zululand. Although the headline was Concern over campus corruption, the truth of the matter is that these were mere allegations, and the examples which were made in the article were not true cases of corruption. Whatever evidence the M&G claims to have had to this effect could be refuted by evidence to the contrary.
The management of the university does not defend or condone corruption but seeks ways to discover it and to deal with it as effectively and as transparently as possible. The issue of the degree fraud is a good example. The university was completely transparent in dealing with it. The public protector in his report even commended the management for the way it dealt with it.
When we try to deal with corruption, the detractors of management, especially the South African Students Congress (Sasco), try to discourage management by introducing the racial element. When I suspended AM Ngubane, who was regarded by the public protector as the main culprit, they alleged that I was suspending him because he was black and I was not suspending whites. I refuted this by giving them an example of a white member of staff I had also suspended.
It is interesting that some of the examples they used in the document they sent to the M&G are the same examples they used when we discussed the degree scam.
When the degree scam was publicised in the press, Sasco demanded a commission of inquiry. The reason for this was that they thought management would be found guilty of complicity in the episode. When the public protector cleared management, they began seeking another stick with which to belabour management.
They got an excuse when five black members of staff were charged with, and suspended for, corruption. Once again they cried racial bias. I issued a circular asking all members of the university community to bring forth evidence of whites who were involved in corruption. They have not done that. What they have done is to send to the M&G a document with wild accusations against some members of staff and me for failing to charge them.
The reason why I appointed an independent accountant, Ngubane and Company, was because at the time there were already allegations of corruption. I wanted to kill these rumours.
Those who gave the Ngubane report to the M&G did not mention that I appointed this firm. I do not know why I would appoint it and then ignore what it recommended. In any case, the matter was finalised by the council and the council did not recommend that AM Ngubane be charged.
None of these issues are clear cases of corruption or even merited being referred to the Ministry of Education. In the process, Professor Itumeleng Mosala was alleged to have made disparaging remarks about the university and myself. He denied these to the M&G. In refuting those allegations I had to give a background to them, including a visit by members of the Board Transformation Forum (BTF) of my university to Minister of Education Sibusiso Bengu. In the course of that explanation I said that not even during the heyday of apartheid were universities run like that.
That earned me the dubious distinction of glorifying apartheid, of being allergic to the democratically elected, non-racial government and of hankering after what the minister called the good old days of apartheid. I have no desire to be involved in mud-slinging with the minister, but since he chose to attack and discredit me, I am entitled to defend myself.
With respect, one has either to be malicious or be a master (if not a minister) of distortion in order to construe that from my words in the context I had used them. What I said had nothing to do with a democratically elected, non- racial government. It also had nothing to do with the ministry as a whole and how it was dealing with higher education institutions in general. It was specific to how the minister was dealing with my university and me in particular, and this was not based on an isolated incident. There are other instances where the minister has acted like this.
My statement was based on the assumption that people in South Africa know that the apartheid regime violated fundamental rights, including institutional autonomy. It also followed an interventionist approach to universities. If that be the case, there is nothing to glorify or to long for in apartheid. I support fundamental rights, including academic freedom. That is why I am a member of the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission is, according to the Constitution, one of the institutions for supporting democracy. I have no problem with democracy nor with the democratically elected, non-racial government. I also do not believe in the good old days of apartheid because there is no such thing.
The problem with the minister is that he espouses the outdated concept of democracy where a democratically elected government can do as it pleases. South Africa is a constitutional democracy. Constitutionalism implies limited government. The present government is limited by the Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights enshrines the rights of individuals. One of them is academic freedom. This entails both individual academic freedom and institutional autonomy. This has nothing to do with apartheid but with the present constitutional dispensation.
What has been disturbing to me is that the minister has been attempting to excel the apartheid regime at its own game of intervening in the management of universities. He uses the same argument which was used by the apartheid regime, namely, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Institutional autonomy implies that a university is entitled to manage its own internal affairs without external interference. This is based on the assumption that the people on the spot know better and encourages efficiency and effectiveness. Such autonomy is entirely compatible with democracy, especially pluralist democracy, because it institutionalises freedom of research and teaching. It also prevents political manipulation of universities. The minister is obviously engaged at a systemic level but is not involved in the internal management.
A further problem with the minister is that he appears to disregard the Constitution that he is supposed to uphold. He also appears not to know the elementary principles of administrative law. This includes the ultra vires doctrine and the audi principle. For this reason he boldly states that he listened to one side and was better informed without listening to the other side. Moreover, he accepted implicitly that the BTF from my university had no recourse to the management and to the council without hearing the side of management. He could have easily established that by picking up the phone. He did not.
The minister appears to relish making statements on fundamental constitutional and administrative law without consulting his legal advisers. Sometimes he even takes steps without doing this. If he continues to do this he will soon learn a costly lesson in constitutional and administrative law.
As I have said, I have no problem with a democratically elected government, on the contrary, I support it. But it does not mean that I have to support everything that is done by such a government or its officials if it is unconstitutional. What I object to is if things are not done the correct way. I am also not aware that the minister has been mandated to interfere in the management of universities.
I have no hidden political agendas. I have done my best to lead the University of Zululand and, as academic leader, I have led by example. The university is a national asset and not a toy that has to be made a political football. It should be treated properly and not like a mickey- mouse institution. In striving to protect the university, I will not be intimidated by a minister using bully-boy tactics.
— Professor Dlamini is rector and vice- chancellor of the University of Zululand