Some University of Cape Town employees told investigators they feared reprisals if identified when raising concerns about vice-chancellor Professor Mosa Moshabela, leaving allegations about his treatment of staff untested.
The investigation report and council minutes, filed in the Western Cape High Court on 3 November, show that the recommendation against disciplinary proceedings left some concerns unresolved. Some allegations were rejected, while others could not be pursued because employees would not agree to be named.
At council’s 30 May meeting, advocate Tanya Golden SC said some interviewees attributed their fear of reprisals directly to Moshabela and provided examples. She regarded their unwillingness to be identified, despite holding senior positions, as particularly concerning.
Golden and fellow investigator advocate Alec Freund SC both recommended against disciplinary proceedings. They differed, however, over whether Moshabela’s conduct at two meetings involving a staff member could amount to bullying or demeaning behaviour.
Council unanimously accepted the recommendation against disciplinary proceedings.
It also directed confidential engagement with Moshabela about concerns regarding his treatment of staff, executive coaching and an annual structured evaluation.
Implementation was subsequently suspended pending his court challenge.
Moshabela, responding through his attorney Kumesh Moodley, disputes the basis of the complaints process. He cites the recommendation against disciplinary action and questions the reliability of the information that prompted the inquiry.
Moodley said the suggestions about Moshabela’s conduct ran counter to his commitment to care, compassion and people’s physical and psychological safety. He would earnestly try to address substantive concerns brought to him directly or indirectly.
“The simple fact is that he has not been approached with any such concerns,” Moodley said on his behalf.
According to the council minutes, Golden believed the fear described by interviewees was real. Although investigating a climate of fear was not a specific task assigned to the investigators, she said the issue had emerged prominently during their work and helped explain why people would not come on the record.
Her comments followed a question from council member Professor Tom Moultrie about whether the accounts reflected problems under Moshabela or the effects of UCT’s experience under its previous leadership.
Freund acknowledged that some senior employees feared what might happen if they were identified. He was more cautious about whether those accounts demonstrated a general climate of fear, noting the difficulty employees could face when criticising the head of an institution.
The inquiry did not comprehensively investigate whether a wider climate of fear existed and made no finding on that question.
The report records interviews with black women who described feeling disrespected, dismissed or demeaned by the vice-chancellor. They wanted as little direct interaction with him as possible.
“The black women whom we interviewed were not prepared to disclose their names for fear of reprisal by the VC,” the investigators wrote.
A male employee similarly said he anticipated victimisation or other negative consequences if he lodged a formal complaint. He also told investigators that deans had expressed fears of victimisation to him.
Other interviewees reported positive experiences. Two black women said they had no such concerns about Moshabela, while two senior white women said they had not experienced disrespectful or dismissive treatment.
Golden clarified that no formal credibility findings had been made about the accounts of fear. Investigators had no reason to disbelieve employees describing concerns, she said, but equally had no reason to disbelieve those reporting no difficulties.
Council member Kelly Phelps questioned the fairness of drawing conclusions from accounts Moshabela had not been afforded an opportunity to answer. She also challenged whether the experiences described demonstrated a wider pattern. The investigators’ sample was not representative.
Under the inquiry’s terms of reference, allegations from people unwilling to be identified could not be put to Moshabela or form the basis of disciplinary proceedings.
Investigators contacted 20 of 27 people initially identified as willing, or conditionally willing, to participate. Eighteen denied having lodged complaints against Moshabela. Two confirmed complaining but declined to have their identities disclosed.
Moodley said those denials raised fundamental questions about the reliability of the information supplied by the ombud and the process built on it. He called for scrutiny of the ombud’s account and said the investigators themselves had questioned the veracity of information provided.
“All concerns about executive conduct should be taken seriously,” he said. But care was needed, he added, where there were questions about whether the concerns existed and how they had emerged.
The report also records concerns expressed during interviews, including by employees unwilling to be identified.
Of three additional complainants interviewed, only Dr Quinton Johnson, director of UCT’s International Academic Programmes Office, agreed to pursue his complaint openly.
Moshabela, assisted by his legal team, responded to Johnson’s allegations. Both investigators rejected four grounds of the complaint but disagreed over his conduct at two meetings.
Golden considered his behaviour on those occasions arguably bullying and demeaning. Freund disagreed. Golden nevertheless recommended alternative remedial measures rather than disciplinary proceedings.
Moodley said Moshabela had repeatedly sought the report’s release and obtained it only after bringing what he described as an avoidable court application. He said crucial parts remained heavily redacted.
Moshabela is asking the court to set aside council’s contested interventions, arguing that it adopted adverse decisions without giving him a fair opportunity to respond. UCT’s position in the litigation is that the measures were employment-related interventions rather than disciplinary punishment.