Sibusiso Bengu : Right to Reply
The article in the Mail & Guardian (November 13 to 19 1998) by Mungo Soggot and Sechaba ka ‘Nkosi with the headline “Baqwa protected dirty professor” contained some factual mistakes leading to wrong conclusions and insinuations.
The tone of the article creates the further impression that both myself and the Public Protector, advocate Selby Baqwa, defended and applied undue influence to protect the rector of Vaal Technikon, Professor Aubrey Mokadi. Indeed, very serious charges, but not based on facts.
>From the start of the whole saga at the institution, that is, internal disciplinary action against Mokadi and the investigation by Professor Jaap Durand, I acted in a responsible and fair manner. I unscrupulously adhered to fair justice and refrained from any interference in the ensuing processes initiated by the council to avoid undermining the autonomy of the institution.
In fact, I supported the council throughout in their attempts to resolve the problems at the institution.
The essential facts are that I made it clear that the council-initiated disciplinary process against Mokadi must continue unhindered. My only request was that the hearing be “lawful and fair” in compliance with the law. Nothing more.
All along I recognised the fact that I was not Mokadi’s employer, but he was employed by the council, which therefore had the right to institute disciplinary action against him.
The decision on July 27 to appoint Durand as an independent assessor in terms of the Higher Education Act was essentially to assess the current circumstances at the technikon. This could not be construed as wanting to scupper the internal disciplinary action against Mokadi.
In a letter to the chairperson of the council, Dr E Eeden, I stated that “the legal process pertaining to Professor Mokadi must continue and will not be influenced by the assessment process” of Durand.
Eeden even acknowledged to the relevant stakeholders in the technikon, including trade unions and student leadership, that Durand’s investigation was to “advise the minister and the council on appropriate measures to address the circumstances at the technikon and to avoid their recurrence”.
Again she herself acknowledged that the appointment of Durand must not to be seen as “intervention, but rather as a form of assistance and guidance from a concerned minister to the institution, in the interest of all parties involved”.
Subsequently, Durand recommended to me that a new council be appointed at the technikon. As a result of the recommendation to me, one of the options I considered was the withholding of funds to the technikon.
Therefore, the insinuation that the independent assessor’s investigation was imposed on the technikon from the start is not borne out by the facts.
>From the beginning, the assessor and the ministry received enthusiastic support from the council until the adverse findings and recommendations of Durand. The council then somersaulted.
I must reiterate that there is nothing sinister in the involvement of the Office of the Public Protector. True, I provided information to his office. As far as I know the Office of the Public Protector is still investigating the matter. My department was one of the parties requested to supply documents to Baqwa. There is no collusion to defend Mokadi.
Much is made in the article about my close association with Mokadi and that he is my confidant. Although I do not deny that I had known Mokadi, I personally last saw him over a year ago.