Photos of a woman cavorting naked in bathwater have landed a university employee in hot water of another kind. Moses Peo, a coordinator in Tshwane University of Technology’s (TUT) operations and logistics department, faces possible dismissal following disciplinary charges the university has laid against him for allegedly circulating the photos via TUT’s email system.
In the six photos, a woman successively reveals more and more of her anatomy. Just as there is more to the woman than first meets the eye, there is, say his defenders, more to the case against Peo than is initially apparent.
Two months ago, TUT issued Peo notice of a disciplinary hearing describing his ‘alleged offences†as ‘immoral conduct — in that on 2 March 2007, you forwarded an email containing pornographic material to 15 peopleâ€.
But speculation among some at TUT is that the charges against Peo, a union official who has been involved in wage negotiations with management that have now deadlocked, are a pretext and that TUT’s real aim is to neutralise his labour activities.
Peo does not deny receiving the emailed pictures on his university computer, said Mandla Seleoane, director of TUT’s Ga-Rankuwa campus, who is representing Peo in the disciplinary hearing. He said Peo preferred not to speak to the media with the case under way.
Peo does, however, deny forwarding the offending email to anyone, Seleoane said, although it is clear it was done from his computer. The time of the forwarded message and photos is recorded as 1.49am on March 2, ‘and Peo would have had no reason to be in his office thenâ€, Seleoane said. ‘Also, his computer is set up so that if the user logs on and leaves the machine on when he departs, no password is needed for someone else to operate it.â€
Peo is charged under the disciplinary code of the former Technikon Northern Gauteng (TNG), one of the three institutions that constitute the now merged TUT. But the code appears to rely on the apartheid-era offence of ‘immorality†included in the Publications Act of 1974, said Jane Duncan, the director of the Freedom of Expression Institute. ‘This Act banned publications that were considered to be ‘indecent, obscene and offensive to public morals’.â€
The post-apartheid Publications Act of 1996 rejected these terms as criteria for control of publications, ‘as they were too subjective and based on a Christian nationalist censorship regime that considered sexually explicit materials to be evil and filthyâ€, Duncan said.
‘If the old TNG disciplinary code allows for such a definition of misconduct, then it is clearly outdated and therefore unconstitutional.â€
Two union members on TUT’s Soshanguve campus who preferred not to be named said staff widely suspected that the action against Peo is motivated by his union activities.
TUT spokesperson Willa de Ruyter would not comment on the specifics because the case is still sub judice. ‘Employment relations remain internal between employer and employees of TUT,†she said.