29.07.26
Editorial Note
The University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa has debated the issue of academic boycotts of Israel on numerous occasions. For example, in 2014, the UCT responded to calls to support anti-Israel measures and stated that “while UCT as an institution is unable to support the call to take a stand on the specific issues condemning Israel, we uphold the rights of individual academics and students to do so and will facilitate the promotion of all views and serious debate.” Likewise, in 2017, a proposal was put forward by the Palestine Solidarity Forum, which has called on UCT to implement an academic boycott of Israeli universities, and the University debated it.
However, on June 24, 2024, UCT published a notice online titled “UCT Council adopts two Senate resolutions on Gaza conflict,” during its plenary meeting. Two resolutions were passed by a majority vote regarding the Gaza conflict, originally passed by the Senate at a meeting held on April 19, 2024. The first resolution, on the destruction of scholarship and education in Gaza, the Senate resolved, among other things, to: 1. “express concern and opposition to any attempts to curtail academic freedom by labeling criticism of Israel or Zionist policies as antisemitism.” 2. “reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s conflation of critique of Zionism and Israel’s policies as antisemitism in favor of the Jerusalem Declaration’s dynamic understanding of what constitutes antisemitism.” 3. “express support for academic colleagues in Gaza who are surviving under appalling conditions and our intention to assist in the rebuilding of the academic sector after the war.” 4. “express solidarity with academic colleagues victimized for their willingness to speak out against the educaracide in Gaza.”
The second resolution concerned research collaborations with members of the Israeli Defense Force and the wider Israeli military establishment. In terms of this resolution, no UCT academic may enter into relations, or continue relations with, any research group and/or network whose author affiliations are with the Israeli Defense Force, and/or the broader Israeli military establishment.
As a result, the UTC faces consequences. On June 10, 2026, the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education of the Parliament of South Africa convened in order to engage with UCT. The Portfolio Committee is a group of members of Parliament from the National Assembly assigned to oversee and process legislation. The meeting engaged with UCT stakeholders and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) on institutional matters.
According to the transcript of the meeting published online, Karabo Khakhau MP asked the Chair of the UCT Council to explain the resolution to boycott Israel.
Adv Norman Arendse, Chair of Council, UCT, said that “the resolution had its origins in a resolution adopted in the Senate. He noted that he was not sure the resolution explicitly spoke to a boycott of Israel… the resolution spoke to collaborating with Israeli tertiary institutions that were either actively supporting or complicit in supporting the IDF in its war on Gaza. He added that, to the extent that some academics might also have a relationship with those institutions, that too fell within the scope of the resolution. He stated that “the resolution had in fact not been implemented.” He added that, “while Council adopted resolutions, implementation was left to the executive, and a committee in the Senate had been appointed to look into the implementation.” He said “the issue was debated by Council, and all relevant factors were considered, including a loss or potential loss of donor funding. The resolution was adopted on the 22nd of June 2024, following a debate and a vote conducted by a secret ballot.”
Ms Khakhau said she was satisfied “that implementation was nowhere near commencement.” However, “her concern was that students had raised that the university had lost funding from particular donors and that students had been disadvantaged as a result. She said where she was stuck was in understanding the relationship between the resolution, its inaction, and the loss of donor funding… Her problem, however, was with an institution making decisions that would have a negative, direct impact on students’ ability to access academic freedom and to exit an academic institution without impediment.”
Prof Musa Moshabela, VC, UCT, confirmed that “there had indeed been an impact on student funding, as some donors held strong views regarding the position the university had taken… As a result, funding for students had been lost, and the impact had been real.” He said those were matters that had been discussed at the time the resolutions were debated, “but the impact had been severe.” He said “the university had lost approximately R200 million [approx. $12 million] that was designated for an institute for neuroscience at UCT, and a further R50 million [approx. $3 million] in total from various donors.”
Ms Khakhau confirmed that “the figures were R200 million for the neuroscience institute and a further R50 million.”
Prof Moshabela added that “a large portion of that, approximately R15 million [approx. $900 thousand] annually, had been for student bursaries.” He said, “all of that had been lost in terms of new funding… affected donors had continued to fund students already in committed cohorts but had chosen to do so directly rather than through the institution, and had not taken on new students.”
Ms Khakhau said “that was a problem for her. She said the primary responsibility of the institution was to ensure that students entered, studied, graduated… that was the institution’s job and that no decision could sideline that fact. The institution had a greater responsibility to advance the academic project of South African students than to take a position on what was happening in Gaza.” She acknowledged that “academic reflection was part of the institutional mandate and that individuals had the right to protest but said none of that could stand between a South African child, particularly a poor South African child dependent on funding, and their ability to access education.”
Mr S Lonzi (EFF) rose on a point of order. He said, “with the greatest respect, that what had been presented was a total distortion of global solidarity. He pointed to the history of South Africa and noted that part of what had assisted in defeating apartheid was global solidarity, including from universities in America, Germany, and the United Kingdom. It would be unfair to the university to suggest that by demonstrating global solidarity it was reducing its mandate of serving students. He said that was incorrect and a distortion and felt he had to make that point.”
The Chairperson said that “to be fair to the university, it had not been management that had taken the decision but the Council.” He noted that “the university’s statement, for those who had read it, had been mostly about the destruction of institutions of higher learning in Gaza and the killing of teachers and lecturers.” He said, “that was what the institution had been responding to, and the statement was publicly available.” He said “he did not think it was appropriate for Parliament, which had itself gone to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against genocide, to then vilify the Council’s resolution as an act of international solidarity.” He said that “the posture was not correct for Parliament to adopt, and while different political views could be expressed in political forums, Members should be mindful of what message was being sent to South Africans in a democratic house.” He suggested “the Committee refrain from entering that space, noting it was a dangerous one,” and said “it was not fair to imply the university had neglected its academic mandate simply because it had taken a position on international solidarity.”
Ms Khakhau said “the bottom line was that she fully respected UCT as an academic institution with the African and global intellectual standing it commanded, and she had no problem with that. She equally respected the human rights of each and every individual student and staff member. Her problem, however, was that under no circumstance could solidarity with any cause cost a South African child their ability to study.” She said “the primary mandate of UCT was not the production of papers or alignment with any discourse but ensuring that a South African student could present themselves at the institution, study, and that everything in the institution’s power was done to protect that student’s ability to do so.” She said that “where a decision threatened the funders of a student, the institution had a responsibility as the responsible adult to balance the political equation with its core mandate of funding students, and that was the area in which she believed the Chair of Council could have done more work.”
To understand the nuances of the boycott debate, it is imperative to note that South Africa is struggling with severe economic and social challenges.
The university authorities understand that higher education can help break the cycle of violence and poverty in the country and therefore did not implement the boycott. It is also clear that donors who provided students with grants declined to continue their charitable donations.
Ultimately, South African universities should ask whether boycotting Israeli universities advances the welfare of South Africans. In a nation that suffers from so many endemic problems, it is the duty of universities to devote their resources to their own society.
There is always the worry that Iran and Qatar might fill in the void.
REFERENCES:
11 Jun 2026
Donors pulled millions from UCT over Gaza resolutions, MPs told
By Linda Nordling
Revelation prompts parliamentary debate over whether global solidarity should ever trump funding for education
The University of Cape Town in South Africa lost around 250 million rand (US$15m) in funding after its council adopted resolutions critical of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, according to the university’s vice-chancellor.
Mosa Moshabela made the disclosure during a 10 June hearing before the parliamentary portfolio committee on higher education, where he detailed the financial fallout from two resolutions adopted by a council majority in June 2024.
The first resolution denounces the destruction of Palestinian academic institutions and rejects a widely used definition of antisemitism in favour of one that allows for broader criticism of Israel and Zionism. The second prohibits UCT academics from engaging with research groups affiliated with the Israeli military. A UCT professor has challenged in court whether the council was adequately informed of potential consequences before adopting the resolutions. Judgement is still pending.
“UCT is a place where historically there are people who support Israel and people who support Palestine, and our donors and alumni community is also sometimes aligned like that. So, as a result, we have lost funding for students, and it has had an impact,” Moshabela told MPs.
He said the losses include around R200 million that had been pledged to a neuroscience institution at UCT, as well as R50 million from other donors. This includes a R15 million annual hit for student funding, he said.
‘Global solidarity’
The revelation sparked sharp disagreement among committee members about whether a university should take positions on international conflicts.
Democratic Alliance MP Karabo Khakhau argued that UCT’s obligations to students should take precedence over geopolitical solidarity. “Human beings have the right to associate with whomever they want, and if they want to protest, they must protest,” she said. “But none of that must stand between a South African child and funding to access education.”
But Sihle Lonzi from the Economic Freedom Fighters argued that condemning the resolutions missed a deeper historical point. “If someone were to look at the history of South Africa, part of what assisted us to defeat apartheid was global solidarity. It will be unfair to the university to say that by demonstrating global solidarity they are reducing their mandate,” he said.
Committee chair Tebogo Letsie from the African National Congress urged colleagues to be careful about the precedent they were setting. Noting that South Africa’s own government had taken the matter further than any university—filing genocide charges against Israel at the International Court of Justice in December 2023— he called on MPs to refrain from criticising UCT’s council for following a similar moral impulse.
Khaukau was unmoved by the appeal for consensus. “I don’t know where this culture comes from. We don’t have to agree on everything,” she said.
Researchers clash
The debate mirrored one that took place on the pages of the March/April issue of the South African Journal of Science last year.
In one commentary, Nithaya Chetty, the dean of science at the University of the Witwatersrand, wrote that universities should refrain from taking official standpoints in polarising debates such as the Israel-Gaza conflict to “preserve academic integrity”.
However, other academics vehemently opposed Chetty’s argument. Jonathan Jansen, former president of the Academy of Science of South Africa, argued that universities are “by their very nature, political and not neutral”.
Another paper, authored by researchers from the universities of the Witwatersrand, Cape Town, Pretoria and Stellenbosch, said neutrality in the face of human rights violations can undermine moral authority. “Public universities in South Africa have an obligation to serve the public good,” it argued.
============================================================
UCT governance, administration, teaching and learning and related matters, with Ministry
Higher Education
10 June 2026
Chairperson: Mr T Letsie (ANC)
Meeting Summary
The Portfolio Committee convened in Parliament to engage with the University of Cape Town (UCT), its stakeholders, and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) on governance, financial sustainability, student funding, transformation, and related institutional matters. The Ministry opened by confirming that the University of Cape Town remained a functional and stable institution from a governance perspective, having received an unqualified audit opinion with findings relating primarily to conflict of interest non-compliance. It noted UCT’s strong financial recovery in 2025, with a net surplus of R1 35 billion against R852 million in 2024, while cautioning that mounting student debt and the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) accommodation cap continued to exert structural pressure on the institution.
The NSFAS (NSFAS) accommodation cap emerged as the dominant and most contested issue of the engagement. UCT management reported that the cumulative net debt arising directly from the cap shortfall had reached R537 4 million between 2023 and 2026, with 3 465 NSFAS-funded students carrying accommodation balances in 2026 alone. It further noted that NSFAS first-time entering students had declined sharply from 1 431 in 2025 to 834 in 2026, with no confirmed funding policy at the start of the academic year.
The Student Representative Council (SRC) called on the Committee to exempt university-owned residences from the cap and to introduce regional differentiation, citing the Cape Town private market, where comparable accommodation reached R16 773 per month. UCT management rejected the characterisation that it made a profit on residences, maintaining that all costs went directly into services, including insourced staff, student life programming, and residence administration, and that the institution could not absorb the gap between what the NSFAS paid and the actual cost of delivery. Members disagreed with the institution’s management, questioning why UCT, when advertising and accrediting private leases after the cap was introduced, did not restrict those leases to NSFAS-rated pricing, given that NSFAS-funded students had been placed in accommodation above the cap and thereby put into debt.
Management acknowledged the structural tension but argued that placing NSFAS-funded students exclusively in lower-cost residences carried transformation and inclusion risks, and called for a collective multi-stakeholder solution rather than unilateral institutional concessions. The Ministry added that national expenditure on accommodation within the NSFAS budget now exceeded spending on academics, describing the imbalance as unsustainable and calling for accelerated infrastructure investment and a comprehensive review of the funding model.
UCT’s Council resolution on Israeli academic institutions was raised by Members. The Chair of Council clarified that the resolution was directed specifically at Israeli tertiary institutions actively supporting or complicit in the Israel Defence Force’s (IDF) operations in Gaza and confirmed that implementation had not commenced. Donor funding had consequently declined, with approximately R200 million in earmarked neuroscience funding and a further R50 million from various donors lost, of which around R15 million annually had been directed at student bursaries. Management confirmed the impact on student funding was real but noted that overall donor funding had increased by over 11% since 2024, despite a reduction in the number of donors. Divergent positions on the resolution and its consequences were held by Members.
Transformation across the academic pipeline was examined in detail. Members noted that at the Prof level, foreign national academics outnumbered Black African, Coloured, and Indian academics combined, which Human Resources confirmed and characterised as unacceptable. UCT outlined a range of programmes aimed at accelerating black academic progression, including the Next Generation Profiate, the Accelerated Transformation Academic Programme, an Emerging Research Programme, and targeted use of the Employment Equity Fund to recruit at senior academic levels. It acknowledged a persistent gap in undergraduate success rates for African students relative to other racial groups, attributed in part to legacy curriculum structures, and described interventions including curriculum reform, self-assessment tools, and pedagogically enriched first-year courses. Members challenged the framing, arguing that the gap reflected a systemic failure that should not be analysed through the lens of student preparedness, and requested written detail on causes and corrective measures.
Public and Administrative Support Staff (PASS) unions presented a picture of a chronically dysfunctional labour relations environment, citing a collective agreement concluded in February 2026 that was reversed on two key provisions shortly after signing, the absence of a promotion policy for Public and Administrative Support staff despite the gap being formally identified in UCT’s own Employment Equity Plan in 2022, mandatory quarterly consultation meetings that had not taken place once in 2026, and a structural pay disparity between Public and Administrative Support staff benchmarked at the 60th percentile of the general market and academic staff benchmarked at the 75th percentile of their specific labour market. Unions requested direct representation on Council. Members noted that this request was not grounded in the Higher Education Act as currently constituted and proposed that unions instead seek more meaningful recognition through expanded bargaining forum arrangements, observer status, or consultation mechanisms comparable to those at other institutions.
Members raised the issue of withheld academic certificates, with the Chairperson reiterating the Committee’s proposal that the approximately 13 000 certificates withheld by UCT be released through a mechanism involving memoranda of understanding between the DHET, National Treasury, and the South African Revenue Service (SARS), so that graduates entering employment could be identified and reminded of their debt obligations. UCT management indicated qualified support for the proposal but noted that it could not absorb the associated financial risk without a credible repayment undertaking from the state. The Committee requested that UCT consider allowing affected graduates to attend graduation ceremonies while the certificate remained retained, given the generational and social significance of that milestone for first-generation graduates.
The Committee closed with a commitment to convene a dedicated second engagement on student accommodation in the following term, bringing together the Department, the NSFAS, the Competition Commission, Infrastructure South Africa (ISA), Universities South Africa (USAf)), relevant Chapter Nine institutions, and other stakeholders to address the regulatory, pricing, and infrastructure dimensions of the crisis comprehensively. It warned that without intervention, the NSFAS budget, which currently funded approximately 800 000 students at R53 billion, would fund significantly fewer students within five years despite real-term increases in appropriations, as accommodation costs continued to absorb a disproportionate share of available funding. Written questions would be submitted to UCT on accommodation cost breakdowns, academic success rates, transformation pipeline data, and the foreign national workforce, with a response period of more than fourteen days.
Meeting report
Opening Remarks by the Chairperson
The Chairperson welcomed everyone present and announced that the purpose of the meeting was to engage with the University of Cape Town (UCT) and its stakeholders regarding governance, administration, financial matters, and other related issues. He noted that there was a social cluster engagement at the National Assembly from 3 p.m. and therefore emphasised that the day’s engagement needed to be succinct, efficient, and direct in both questions and responses.
The Committee also welcomed representatives from the Russian Consulate responsible for Education. The Chairperson noted that he had met with the Consul-General and representatives of the Consulate the previous day, during which they had discussed a number of progressive views. He therefore invited them to attend the engagement as observers.
He explained that the importance of bringing all stakeholders together in a single engagement was to ensure that the Committee obtained a comprehensive picture and overall perspective of the functioning of the institution. He stated that the Committee wanted to see the Post-School Education and Training (PSET) system remain stable and universities continue to progress effectively. He further noted that he had submitted a motion in Parliament the previous day, recognising Wits University’s achievement of being ranked number one on the Centre for World University Rankings (CWUR). While Wits had often acknowledged that UCT held an advantage and was ranked among the top 1% of universities globally and first in Africa, he felt it was equally important to highlight Wits University’s accomplishment. He added that, as Parliament had previously celebrated UCT’s achievements in other rankings, it was appropriate to recognise this achievement as well.
The Chairperson expressed the hope that the engagement would be fruitful and urged all parties to work together wherever gaps existed. He noted that UCT’s Vice-Chancellor (VC) had recently appeared before Parliament through USAf. He cautioned that no university would be able to survive for more than five years if the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) were to collapse and stressed that it was the collective responsibility of all stakeholders to work with NSFAS to ensure that its governance instability was resolved. He explained that NSFAS beneficiaries often complained that they were unable to register because of outstanding NSFAS payments. However, when Members followed up on such cases, NSFAS would sometimes indicate that UCT had not provided the necessary registration data, preventing NSFAS from confirming which students were eligible for payment. He further warned that if NSFAS were to collapse in July, universities would be unable by September to pay salaries or employ staff to administer examinations. For this reason, he emphasised the need for all parties to work together to find solutions for the sector.
Referring to a statement issued the previous day, the Chairperson noted that the Services Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) had confirmed bursary funding amounting to R520 million in partnership with USAf. He stated that this was the type of initiative the Committee wished to see, as it represented a progressive development which the Committee welcomed. He also appealed to USAf to ensure that the funds were administered effectively so that affected students, particularly those on the verge of writing examinations, would not be disadvantaged.
Apologies and introductions
The Chairperson acknowledged apologies and allowed everyone present to introduce themselves. He then invited the Deputy Minister of Higher Education and Training, Ms Nomusa Dube-Ncube, to deliver her introductory remarks.
Opening remarks by the Deputy Minister
Deputy Minister Dube-Ncube opened by noting that UCT remained one of South Africa’s leading institutions of higher education, ranked first in the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) Sub-Saharan Africa rankings for 2026, with continued strength in academic reputation, employer reputation and sustainability. She indicated that the Department monitored governance, financial sustainability, compliance and transformation across the post-school education and training sector, including at UCT.
She described UCT as a functional and stable institution from a governance perspective. Prof Mosa Moshabela was appointed Vice-Chancellor and Principal with effect from October 2024, following due institutional process, contributing to continuity in leadership. UCT had five ministerial appointees serving on its Council for the period 2024 to 2028, reflecting the required demographic diversity and representativity across race and gender. The Department had received no reports of significant governance instability during the 2025 academic year to date.
On compliance, UCT had submitted its 2024 annual report and financial statements within prescribed timeframes. The institution received an unqualified audit opinion with findings, those findings relating primarily to instances where staff members had failed to declare conflicts of interest prior to the university procuring goods or services from entities in which they held an interest. The Deputy Minister noted that this constituted non-compliance with section 34 of the Higher Education Act and reflected weaknesses in internal controls and in the implementation of the university’s own conflict of interest policies.
On finances, UCT had generated a total surplus of R852 million in 2024, compared to R1.39 billion in 2020, with the decline partly attributable to fair value losses on financial instruments. Key pressures included lower-than-expected tuition fee increases, declining government appropriations, rising personnel costs, increased expected credit losses, and broader inflationary conditions. Personnel expenditure accounted for approximately 50% of total income, and student debt stood at R836 million in 2024, with impaired debt having increased substantially. UCT nonetheless continued to maintain substantial income from state subsidies, tuition and accommodation fees, and third-stream activities.
The Deputy Minister noted that the Institutional Forum (IF) continued to play an important advisory and oversight role, including over senior executive appointments and structures focused on transformation, inclusion, diversity and employment equity. She identified transformation as a strategic imperative and indicated that the Department expected UCT to demonstrate rigorous and sustained attention in this regard.
She advised that the Department was aware of disputes arising from the decommissioning of the Philip Kgosana residence and subsequent eviction proceedings involving former students, which had evolved into court proceedings raising concerns about compliance with the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act. She encouraged all institutional bodies to handle student accommodation matters with the sensitivity and fairness the law required.
The Deputy Minister also raised the issue of students being withheld from graduating on account of outstanding debt. She recalled that at a prior engagement convened by the Minister, VCs and Registrars had committed, including through USAf, that institutions would not prevent students from graduating where debt was owed, but would withhold the certificate only. She noted that UCT’s reported practice appeared inconsistent with that commitment and indicated that the Department intended to pursue the matter with all relevant stakeholders.
In conclusion, the Deputy Minister stated that while compliance and financial pressures required ongoing attention, the Department regarded UCT as a functional institution with generally stable governance structures, and would continue to engage with the institution to strengthen its compliance, governance, financial sustainability and transformation.
Briefing: UCT Management
UCT’s unaudited financial results for the year ended 31 December 2025 showed that total revenue amounted to R9.15 billion, representing an increase of 5.4% compared with 2024, while the net surplus stood at R1.35 billion, reflecting a 59% improvement on the R852 million recorded in 2024. Total assets were reported at R19.34 billion, including investments valued at R11.79 billion and a bank balance of R2.20 billion. Despite this apparent financial recovery, student debt remained a significant structural concern. Gross student fees receivable reached R1.007 billion at year-end, with an expected credit loss provision of R465.9 million, representing 46% of gross receivables. More than 13,000 student accounts carried debit balances. It was further reported that the NSFAS accommodation cap had materially exacerbated the situation. Between 2023 and 2026, the cumulative net debt arising directly from the cap shortfall amounted to R537.4 million, while 3,465 NSFAS-funded students owed UCT accommodation balances in 2026 alone.
On student funding, UCT highlighted a critical structural risk. The number of NSFAS first-time entering students (FTENS) declined significantly from 1 431 in 2025 to 834 in 2026, with no confirmed NSFAS funding policy in place at the start of the academic year. The total number of funded students was 237 below budget. UCT reported that it accommodated more than a third of its student population across 8 765 managed beds, with monthly rates in university residences ranging from R6 199 to R10 217, substantially above the NSFAS accommodation cap. By comparison, private accommodation providers in the Cape Town market charged up to R16 773 per month, further illustrating the inadequacy of a nationally averaged cap applied within a city characterised by a broad-market rental environment.
UCT reported that its research output remained globally competitive. Total external research income in 2025 amounted to R2.33 billion, while 1,843 contracts were signed with a combined value of R2.752 billion. The institution filed 47 patents during 2025 and held equity in spin-off companies valued at approximately R445.8 million. UCT was ranked 150th globally in the QS rankings, 164th in the Times Higher Education rankings, and first in Africa across all major ranking systems. International research collaboration had increased by 75.9% since 2014 and accounted for 63.1% of publication output. However, the institution identified a significant risk arising from its heavy reliance on international funders, particularly the concentration of funding from the United States, alongside declining support from national agencies and industry.
On gender-based violence (GBV), UCT reported 94 incidents through trauma-informed informal pathways in 2024 and 87 in 2025, while on-campus incidents increased from 41 to 51 over the same period. Formal complaints referred to the Special Tribunal totalled 13 in 2024 and 15 in 2025, covering allegations of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and discrimination based on sexual orientation. UCT indicated that it operated a 24-hour GBV hotline, implemented a survivor-centred Sexual Misconduct Policy, maintained a dedicated Special Tribunal aligned with the DHET National Policy Framework, and supported a network of 3 000 Gender Marshals and 400 First Responders. Concerning broader campus security, the institution reported that total incidents declined from 295 in 2024 to 205 in 2025, although theft remained the most prevalent category, accounting for 132 incidents.
See attached for full presentation
Student Representative Council
The SRC stated that its presentation focused primarily on the NSFAS accommodation cap, which it described as the most significant challenge facing UCT students. It traced the origins of the crisis to the 2017 presidential announcement of fully subsidised free higher education, under which accommodation was intended to be covered through government grants rather than loans. The SRC explained that, in 2023, NSFAS introduced a cap on accommodation allowances based on a World Bank study, applying a national average of approximately R5,500 per month without taking into account regional variations, the Cape Town private housing market in which UCT students competed, or the reality that existing accommodation providers could not reduce rates to cap levels without experiencing reductions of up to 50% in per-student revenue. It noted that neither universities nor private landlords had reduced their prices as a result of the cap and that accommodation costs had continued to increase.
The SRC stated that the consequences had been severe. It reported that NSFAS-funded students were unable to attend graduation ceremonies because of outstanding debt arising from the shortfall between the accommodation cap and actual accommodation costs. It further noted that registration concessions during the year had been restricted to NSFAS-funded, NSFAS loan-funded, and bursary-funded students, while the broader concessions previously extended to self-funded students and those whose debt had been partially reduced were no longer available. As evidence of the growing hardship experienced by students, the SRC submitted a series of Back-a-Buddy crowdfunding campaigns, which it said demonstrated that students were being compelled to publicly advertise their financial difficulties in order to remain enrolled.
On transformation, the SRC noted that no persons living with disabilities occupied any of UCT’s 22 senior management positions and that none of the 18 staff members with disabilities classified as professionally qualified or middle management were Black. It argued that this highlighted the intersectional nature of the transformation challenges that remained. The SRC further noted that UCT’s position on Gaza had resulted in the withdrawal of certain donors and bursary providers, which had negatively affected student funding. It also indicated that GBV remained a persistent threat to student safety.
The SRC called on the Committee to exempt all university-owned residences from the accommodation cap, review the cap to better reflect regional market rates, and introduce alternative regulatory mechanisms that would prevent students from accumulating debt as a result of disputes between NSFAS and accommodation providers.
See attached for full presentation
Institutional Forum
The IF presented an overview of its mandate and current activities, drawing on its statutory foundation under section 31 of the Higher Education Act and the UCT Institutional Statute of 2022. It explained that its role was proactive rather than reactive, requiring it to identify policy gaps and concerns relating to institutional culture on its own initiative. The Forum further noted that Council was obliged to provide written reasons within seven days whenever it rejected the Forum’s advice. It reported that, in 2025, Council approved revised Terms of Reference which strengthened the Forum’s proactive mandate, tightened reporting lines, and made provision for the removal of inactive members.
With regard to senior management, the Forum noted that eight significant leadership positions had been filled over the previous two years, including those of the VC and two Deputy VCs, which contributed to greater leadership stability. It highlighted ongoing work undertaken through its Employment Equity Forum substructure, including oversight of the Employment Equity Plan and the incorporation of a new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) into recruitment and selection policies. The Forum further reported that the Transformation Forum had endorsed the Gender Equity Policy and initiated a review of the Anti-Racism Policy, which was expected to lead to the development of a broader framework for discrimination and harassment.
The Forum identified a number of persistent institutional culture concerns, including the recurring pattern of fee-related student protests at the beginning of each academic year, growing concerns regarding GBV among students, and inadequate accessibility and support for staff and students living with disabilities. It acknowledged that a Culture Change Programme was underway, incorporating unconscious bias training, peer support initiatives for racial trauma, and anti-racism education.
The Forum’s recommendations to the Department included the development of a sustainable NSFAS funding model and a review of the accommodation cap. Its recommendations to university management included expanding disability inclusion initiatives, increasing mental health support, and strengthening mechanisms for monitoring transformation.
See attached for full presentation
Organised Labour Unions
The three PASS staff unions presented what they described as a picture of a fundamentally broken relationship with UCT management, characterised by a consistent pattern of agreements being concluded and subsequently disregarded. They stated that a collective agreement signed on 27 February 2026 had been reversed on two key provisions shortly thereafter: that executive-level participation in bargaining had occurred only once and was never repeated, and that more than 15 issues raised during a post-bargaining review meeting had not received any feedback. The unions further noted that the mandatory quarterly consultation meetings required under the Collective Bargaining Agreement had not taken place at any point during 2026.
The unions identified the absence of a promotion policy for PASS staff as a critical equity concern. They explained that, while academic staff benefited from a structured Ad Hominem promotion pathway that allowed advancement without requiring them to vacate their existing posts, PASS staff had no equivalent mechanism. They noted that UCT’s Employment Equity Plan, dated October 2022, had identified this gap as an employment equity barrier, yet no policy had been developed four years later. The unions further stated that a formal six-month ultimatum issued in August 2025, warning that continued inaction would amount to an unfair labour practice, had been ignored.
The unions also raised concerns regarding the exclusion of union representatives from UCT Council. They noted that, despite a previous directive from the Portfolio Committee requiring management to engage with unions on the matter, the Chairperson of Council had not taken any action. On remuneration, they argued that PASS staff were benchmarked against the national all-jobs market at the 60th percentile, whereas academic staff were benchmarked against their specific labour market at the 75th percentile, thereby entrenching a two-tier compensation structure within the same institution.
The unions called on management to include the Executive Director of Human Resources as a permanent member of the bargaining team, reinstate biannual information sessions with the university executive, and resolve outstanding Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) referrals internally. They further called on the Committee to urgently address the NSFAS funding crisis, which they described as posing a direct threat to the stability of students, staff, and public institutions.
[See presentations for full details]
Consideration and adoption of minutes and UWC Oversight Visit Report
Consideration and adoption of outstanding committee minutes and the University of the Western Cape (UWC) Oversight Report
Mr S Lonzi (EFF) noted that on 30 April, when they were engaging on vacancies in the sector, they spoke about the National Skills Fund (NSF), and the DG’s response was that they had asked for more material and that he would revert to the Committee. This was not reflected in the minutes.
At the 29 May meeting with the Minister, it was correct that a meeting would be held to discuss the conflicting versions of the Board members and the Minister’s versions. The Committee had not had time for that engagement.
For the 27 May meeting, with USaF and the South African College Principals Organisation (SAPCO), Members had asked for additional information from the remaining 30 TVET colleges that had not submitted statistics about their student debt. Disaggregated information was also requested to break the student debt information down accordingly.
With the note of these issues, he would happily move for adoption.
Dr D Christians (DA) also commented on the 29th of May meeting, indicating that she had submitted her corrections via the WhatsApp group, with the following amendments: NSFAS CEO position, concerns about NSFAS being placed under administration for the third term, and issues related to governance disputes. She had no issues with the adoption of the minutes granted the minor grammatical errors were also rectified.
Ms K Khakhau (DA) stated that she did not appreciate looking clumsy in front of visitors and had asked previously that the Committee deal with housekeeping matters privately to avoid these minor issues being discussed in front of guests. She noted that there was one thing missing, which was the inputs made by Members on the NSFAS comprehensive funding model and what it must look like. She acknowledged that the Committee had not yet agreed as a collective on the final model, but each party’s input must be recorded accordingly. Their inputs could be tagged under each Member’s inputs as separate inputs from resolutions. She felt this part was missing, especially the part relating to the decentralisation of administrative functions to institutions and National Treasury to disburse the NSFAS funds.
The minutes were adopted, with the corrections noted.
The Chairperson noted the draft oversight report of the Committee to the University of Western Cape, tabling it before Members to correct and adopt it.
The report was adopted. See full report here https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/6683/
Discussion
Ms Khakhau extended her deepest condolences to the university community, the family, loved ones, and friends of the late Mlingani ‘Mli’ Matiwane. She spoke warmly of Mli, recalling him as a very vibrant “shutdownist”. She said she was saddened when she spoke to his husband and had shared her last memories at the same time. She recalled that after the elections, where she had been dubbed president, they could not believe it, having spent two years shutting down the institutional mandate. She remembered a conversation she had had with Mli, noting that while he had been clear about his politics, he had always been a warm person, committed to self-identification at all costs and an advocate of simply being a human being and being the best one could be. She expressed the hope that Mli’s soul would rest in peace and that comfort would be found in knowing that, at least at UCT, there was much that could be pointed to as Mli’s contribution, not only at UCT but in his communities.
She then proposed that the Committee deal first with the matter before it. She asked the Chair of Council to take the Committee through the Council resolution to boycott Israel, what had informed it, and how it had come about.
Adv Norman Arendse, Chair of Council, UCT, said that the resolution had its origins in a resolution adopted in the Senate. He noted that he was not sure the resolution explicitly spoke to a boycott of Israel.
Ms Khakhau asked what his understanding of the resolution was.
Adv Arendse said the resolution spoke to collaborating with Israeli tertiary institutions that were either actively supporting or complicit in supporting the IDF in its war on Gaza. He added that, to the extent that some academics might also have a relationship with those institutions, that too fell within the scope of the resolution. He stated for the record that, as he understood it, the resolution had in fact not been implemented. He noted that the VC was present and that, while Council adopted resolutions, implementation was left to the executive, and a committee in the Senate had been appointed to look into the implementation. He said that was how the resolution had come to the Council. The issue was debated by Council, and all relevant factors were considered, including a loss or potential loss of donor funding. The resolution was adopted on the 22nd of June 2024, following a debate and a vote conducted by a secret ballot.
Ms Khakhau said she was satisfied with the response to the effect that implementation was nowhere near commencement. However, her concern was that students had raised that the university had lost funding from particular donors and that students had been disadvantaged as a result. She said where she was stuck was in understanding the relationship between the resolution, its inaction, and the loss of donor funding. She noted that she respected fully and without question the rights of individuals to associate as they wished, and that she appreciated the intellectual contribution of UCT and its academics to domestic and international discourses. Her problem, however, was with an institution making decisions that would have a negative, direct impact on students’ ability to access academic freedom and to exit an academic institution without impediment. She directed her question to the VC and asked for a full account.
Prof Musa Moshabela, VC, UCT, confirmed that there had indeed been an impact on student funding, as some donors held strong views regarding the position the university had taken. He noted that UCT was historically a place of contestation, with its donor and alumni community sometimes aligned with opposing sides of the Israel-Palestine question. As a result, funding for students had been lost, and the impact had been real. He said those were matters that, as the Chairperson of Council had indicated, had been discussed at the time the resolutions were debated, but the impact had been severe. Council had mandated management to assess the impact, which management had done and reported back to Council. The task given to management was to indicate what the impact had been on student funding. He said the university had lost approximately R200 million that was designated for an institute for neuroscience at UCT, and a further R50 million in total from various donors.
Ms Khakhau called a member of the public in the gallery to order in the absence of the Chairperson, noting that it was not the gallery’s meeting and that anyone requiring more information needed to conduct themselves in an orderly manner.
She confirmed that the figures cited were R200 million for the neuroscience institute and a further R50 million and asked the VC to continue.
Prof Moshabela confirmed that the R50 million had come from various donors, and that a large portion of that, approximately R15 million annually, had been for student bursaries. He said all of that had been lost in terms of new funding. He noted that affected donors had continued to fund students already in committed cohorts but had chosen to do so directly rather than through the institution, and had not taken on new students.
Ms Khakhau asked how many students had been affected by the loss of those funds.
Prof Moshabela said he did not have the exact number at hand but undertook to provide it. He noted that the calculation would need to account not only for those funded by the particular donor in question but for others as well.
Ms Khakhau said that was a problem for her. She said the primary responsibility of the institution was to ensure that students entered, studied, graduated, obtained employment, grew the economy, and lived their best lives, including being able to afford cars, pay lobola, and buy homes. She said that was the institution’s job and that no decision could sideline that fact. The institution had a greater responsibility to advance the academic project of South African students than to take a position on what was happening in Gaza. She acknowledged that academic reflection was part of the institutional mandate and that individuals had the right to protest but said none of that could stand between a South African child, particularly a poor South African child dependent on funding, and their ability to access education.
Mr S Lonzi (EFF) rose on a point of order. He said, with the greatest respect, that what had been presented was a total distortion of global solidarity. He pointed to the history of South Africa and noted that part of what had assisted in defeating apartheid was global solidarity, including from universities in America, Germany, and the United Kingdom. It would be unfair to the university to suggest that by demonstrating global solidarity it was reducing its mandate of serving students. He said that was incorrect and a distortion and felt he had to make that point.
The Chairperson said that to be fair to the university, it had not been management that had taken the decision but the Council. He noted that the university’s statement, for those who had read it, had been mostly about the destruction of institutions of higher learning in Gaza and the killing of teachers and lecturers. He said that was what the institution had been responding to, and the statement was publicly available. He said he did not think it was appropriate for Parliament, which had itself gone to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against genocide, to then vilify the Council’s resolution as an act of international solidarity. He said that the posture was not correct for Parliament to adopt, and while different political views could be expressed in political forums, Members should be mindful of what message was being sent to South Africans in a democratic house. He suggested the Committee refrain from entering that space, noting it was a dangerous one, and said it was not fair to imply the university had neglected its academic mandate simply because it had taken a position on international solidarity.
Ms Khakhau said she did not know where the culture of requiring all Members to agree had come from. She said Members did not generally agree, and it would not start today, that a point of order was raised simply because a Member held and presented a different view, because the same could just as easily be done in return.
She said the bottom line was that she fully respected UCT as an academic institution with the African and global intellectual standing it commanded, and she had no problem with that. She equally respected the human rights of each and every individual student and staff member. Her problem, however, was that under no circumstance could solidarity with any cause cost a South African child their ability to study. She said the primary mandate of UCT was not the production of papers or alignment with any discourse but ensuring that a South African student could present themselves at the institution, study, and that everything in the institution’s power was done to protect that student’s ability to do so. She said that where a decision threatened the funders of a student, the institution had a responsibility as the responsible adult to balance the political equation with its core mandate of funding students, and that was the area in which she believed the Chair of Council could have done more work.
She then moved to the issue of the student accommodation cap, noting that she had only two minutes remaining, and that was the reason she had asked for more time. She said she and the Deputy Minister disagreed on the matter, as did she and the ANC. She said since the previous administration had used the example of the university she had studied at, making the point that accommodation in Rondebosch, Claremont, and the CBD could never be equivalent to accommodation in Bloemfontein because of the cost of living in different metros, it made no sense for the Department to force property owners to service bonds at a rate lower than what they were being charged. She said when a property owner approached ABSA for a home loan, ABSA determined the repayment amount, and rental pricing was necessarily based on that repayment obligation. She noted that was only one factor, leaving aside municipal rates and other considerations, and said there were further points she had wished to raise, but time did not allow.
The Chairperson said the issue of the accommodation cap would enter that path. He said that even when comparing Cape Town to Cape Town, the cap did not make sense. He said that in 2023, when he was part of the Committee, they had raised the matter of the UCT student accommodation in Observatory and the student accommodation of CPUT at the time, which were in literally the same suburb. He said that the Committee had gone there and did not speak from reading things in newspapers, and noted that Mr Lonzi had made the same example two weeks prior, and hoped the university would obtain those names. He said the point was valid: if one was paying the same rate, one could not have a UCT residence charging R9 000 when the one opposite was charging R6 000.
The Chairperson referred to a slide presented by UCT and noted that less than 2.5% of the total budget was allocated to student life, amounting to R21 million out of approximately R900 million. He stated that the argument being advanced was that residences might appear similar, be located in the same area, and charge comparable rates, but that the distinguishing factor was student life. He said he had waited to hear the presentation on this issue and noted that the information presented showed that only R21 million, or 2.5% of the budget, was allocated to student life. He questioned the source of that allocation.
He stated that Members of the Committee met with students in their communities, churches, and other establishments, and that some Members even conducted observations at night as part of their research into the behaviour of young people, including patterns of behaviour following alcohol consumption. He argued that prices in those environments had become excessive because some of the university’s representatives required establishments to stock energy drinks and cold drinks in order to obtain accreditation, which in turn had financial implications.
The Chairperson expressed disappointment that the students present had not raised the issue that, according to UCT’s presentation, approximately R2 billion was received from government subsidies. He noted that the government was subsidising education at UCT to the value of more than R2 billion, yet no one had questioned why such subsidies were being provided while certain individuals within the system were simultaneously arguing that accommodation should not be subject to a cap and that rates of R16 000 per bed should be charged. He maintained that even accommodation charges of R7 000 or R9 000 per month were unacceptable because education, as a social good, was being treated as a commodity.
He stated that he could personally take the university to some of its accommodation facilities and demonstrate that the cost per square metre was lower for individuals working in nearby commercial premises than for students occupying university accommodation. He said that the rationale for student accommodation was well established, as statistics consistently showed that students residing in student accommodation completed their studies more successfully and within shorter timeframes than those who did not. He explained that a student from Gugulethu who slept in a dining room because of overcrowding at home did not have a conducive environment for studying, whereas student accommodation was intended to provide such an environment. Instead, he argued, accommodation costs had become excessively high.
He further stated that UCT-owned buildings listed under Public Works and government ownership, which he would have expected to be among the least expensive accommodation options. However, he argued that this was not the case because the institution sought to treat accommodation as a commodity. He contended that, while the prevailing argument was that the NSFAS accommodation cap was harming the sector, the reality was that accommodation was increasingly becoming accessible only to wealthier students, resulting in the effective exclusion of poor students. He noted that the government was willing to fund tuition and accommodation at a specified level while continuing to subsidise higher education, yet UCT appeared to be arguing that although the government could provide subsidies, it could not influence accommodation pricing. He questioned what exactly the government was subsidising under such circumstances. He indicated that the Committee would engage the university frankly on the matter, as it appeared that the Committee and the institution were approaching the issue from fundamentally different perspectives.
He concluded by stating that the issue of the accommodation cap remained unresolved and that he still had questions for Prof Ramugondo.
Mr M Msezane (MKP) apologised for his late arrival, attributing the delay to Cape Town traffic. He stated that he would endeavour to be concise given the limited time available.
His first question was directed to the Deputy VC: Academic and the VC. He noted that, in UCT’s presentation, the success rate of undergraduate students, particularly African students, was substantially lower than that of all other racial groups. He further observed that there had been a marked decline in 2021, followed by a slight improvement in 2022, although performance levels remained relatively low. He asked what factors accounted for the lower success rate among African students and what measures had been implemented to address the issue, particularly within the context of the university’s transformation agenda.
Prof Brandon Collier-Reed, Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Teaching and Learning, responded by acknowledging the decline identified by the Member and explained that UCT had referred to it as the “post-COVID dip”. He stated that in 2021 the difference in overall undergraduate course pass rates between the combined African, Coloured and Indian student grouping and white students had been 15%, whereas by 2025 the gap had narrowed to 7%, reflecting a significant improvement. He added that pass rates within the African, Coloured and Indian grouping had increased by 12% between 2021 and 2025, reaching 89%.
Mr Msezane interjected, stating that his question had been specific and that the response had moved beyond the issue he had raised. He noted that his concern was not with broader trends but with the reasons for the lower performance of African students and the measures taken to address that challenge. He stated that the graph clearly showed African students performing below all other groups and questioned whether the university’s transformation agenda adequately addressed that reality. He requested a more direct response so that he could proceed to his remaining questions.
Prof Collier-Reed explained that, following the Rhodes Must Fall and Fees Must Fall protests, UCT had established a curriculum change working group between 2017 and 2018 and developed a deliberate strategy aimed at addressing the very issues raised by the Member. As part of UCT’s Vision 2030 agenda, substantial funding had been allocated to faculties to identify and implement interventions that would improve student success, particularly among African students. He requested the Member’s indulgence to provide examples of initiatives that had proved effective.
He cited the Commerce Faculty, where one of the challenges had been students entering quantitative courses without adequate preparation. To address this, UCT had developed a self-assessment tool to assist students in determining whether they possessed the necessary foundations to succeed. He also referred to the Civil Engineering programme, where a comprehensive curriculum redesign had introduced locally relevant examples and project-based learning to improve student outcomes.
Prof Collier-Reed further highlighted two initiatives within the Humanities Faculty. The first involved the integration of pedagogically enriched and decolonial first-year courses directly into departmental curricula. These courses were designed to engage students’ diverse life experiences, foreground African contexts, strengthen academic literacies, and incorporate multilingual and digital pedagogies. He stated that such interventions were intended to improve the success rates of all students, particularly African students who had historically experienced lower success rates than their white counterparts. He nevertheless reiterated that the performance gap had narrowed significantly between 2021 and 2024, as reflected in the data presented.
Mr Msezane stated that he remained unconvinced by the explanation provided. He observed that the Deputy VC had referred to curriculum design and questioned whether this implied that African students were less able to comprehend the curriculum than their white counterparts. He reiterated that he wished to understand the root causes of the lower performance levels and the interventions implemented to address them. He maintained that the explanation had not sufficiently answered his question and stated that, given more time, he would have explored the issue further.
He further noted that while reference had been made to a post-COVID dip in 2021, the graph appeared to show an improvement in the success rate of African students in 2020. He emphasised that, despite the explanations provided, African students continued to perform below all other racial groups at the institution. He placed on record that he was not persuaded by the response and suggested that the university submit a written explanation to the Portfolio Committee outlining both the causes of the lower success rates and the measures taken to address them. He stated that he was particularly interested in understanding why African students were not progressing beyond a certain point and observed that lower success rates implied that students were either not graduating or not graduating within the expected timeframe. He added that the discussion on curriculum had diverted attention from his central concern and requested, through the Chairperson, that the university provide a written response detailing the causes of the challenge and the interventions implemented to ensure that African students successfully completed their studies.
Mr Msezane then turned to the issue of foreign nationals, which he described as a topical and significant matter. Referring to the presentation on foreign national professionals, he stated that it had been indicated that foreign nationals employed by the university were providing scarce skills in accordance with legislative requirements. He requested that the presenter, or another appropriate official, place on record that all foreign national academic staff employed by UCT were providing scarce skills. He further stated that the Committee would subsequently require a detailed breakdown of the work being performed by those individuals, confirmation that such work constituted scarce skills, and verification that the individuals concerned held valid work visas.
Prof Moshabela responded that UCT would place the requested information on record and provide the necessary details. He confirmed that his understanding of the request was that the university should formally confirm that the foreign national academics employed by UCT were providing scarce skills.
Mr Msezane confirmed that he wanted all such staff members to be accounted for.
The Chairperson observed that the issue was not only whether foreign nationals employed by UCT were providing scarce skills, but also whether all of them appeared on the critical skills list and possessed valid work visas. He noted that there were nearly 900 foreign nationals employed at the institution.
Prof Moshabela stated that he would request the Executive Director of Human Resources to address the matter, although he had initially understood the Member’s question to be a request for confirmation of what had been presented, with supporting details to follow.
Ms Juliet Mhango, Executive Director: Human Resources (EDHR), UCT, acknowledged the request for further information regarding academic staff. She explained that the majority of PASS staff were South African citizens. Concerning foreign nationals, she stated that UCT maintained its own scarce and critical skills list and confirmed that some PASS staff members fell within those categories. She acknowledged, however, that historical issues existed and that a small proportion of staff members did not appear on the scarce and critical skills list. She added that a plan was in place to address the matter.
Mr Msezane responded that he had listened carefully to the presentation and recalled that Ms Mhango had stated that foreign national academic staff were providing scarce skills. He explained that this was why he had directed his question to the VC, seeking confirmation on record that the academic staff concerned were indeed providing scarce skills. He further stated that the university should then provide the Committee with a breakdown of the number of such staff members, the nature of the work they performed, the basis upon which that work was classified as scarce skills, and confirmation of their verified work visas. He argued that the Executive Director was now presenting a different position from that contained in the original presentation and maintained that her response did not reflect what had previously been conveyed to the Committee.
The Chairperson stated that the VC had indicated that all academic staff who were foreign nationals were providing scarce skills and that he had subsequently broadened the question to encompass all foreign nationals employed by the university. He noted that the EDHR had responded to that broader question and had indicated at the outset of her response that all academic staff were on the critical skills list. He added that he had then sought clarification as to whether this also applied to PASS staff, to which the EDHR had responded that only a small proportion were not on the list and that this was a legacy or historical matter rather than a recent development. He therefore considered the question regarding academic staff to have been answered. What remained outstanding, however, was whether those individuals on the critical skills list held legitimate work visas and valid documentation. He invited either the EDHR or the VC to address that issue.
Ms Mhango responded that, with regard to the legitimacy of employment in South Africa, UCT ensured that all employees held valid documentation and work permits permitting them to work legally in the country. She explained that where a work visa expired, the matter was managed on an individual basis. She emphasised that the institution’s policy required all employees to possess valid documentation and reiterated that any expired permits were dealt with through established processes. She noted that such cases were very limited in number, currently amounting to approximately two instances, and maintained that, overall, all employees at the institution held valid work permits.
Mr Msezane thanked the EDHR for the response. He explained that the clarification he had been seeking related specifically to the information originally presented and not to the broader question raised by the Chairperson. He noted that the issue of legacy cases had not been mentioned during the presentation and stated that he was now satisfied that he had the necessary clarity. He added that the Committee would await the written report.
Mr Msezane further expressed concern that the SRC had not addressed a number of sensitive and topical issues affecting the university, particularly the success rate of African undergraduate students. He requested a response from the SRC Secretary-General regarding what he regarded as a contentious issue, namely why the SRC was advocating for university-owned residences to be exempted from the NSFAS accommodation cap.
Mr Percival Mabuza, SRC Secretary-General, explained that the position stemmed from considerations relating to residences such as St Peter’s and, possibly, Rochester. He stated that the SRC had examined these matters and noted that accommodation at St. Peter’s currently cost in excess of R70 000 despite consisting of shared rooms, unlike Observatory Square, which provided single-room accommodation. He said the SRC had taken these factors into account and had concluded that an approach was needed that would not disadvantage students. For that reason, it maintained that university-owned residences should be exempted from the cap. He added that where accommodation providers were inflating prices, the Department, the Portfolio Committee, or NSFAS should hold them accountable. He noted that NSFAS had previously threatened to refer certain providers to the Competition Commission in 2023, a stance supported by the SRC. He stated that the SRC’s objective was to ensure that students did not incur accommodation-related shortfalls, were able to register, and could proceed to postgraduate studies without financial impediments.
Mr Msezane indicated that, given the time constraints, he would confine himself to one final point. He asked the official responsible for accommodation whether the university, when leasing accommodation, determined the contractual terms and pricing conditions applicable to private providers. He questioned why the university did not require providers, through its contracts and invitations to tender, to ensure that accommodation costs remained within the NSFAS cap. He stated that the Committee should not be told that accommodation would not be available under such conditions, as there were numerous vacant buildings seeking student tenants. He argued that the university was in a position to shape the conditions of its contracts and expressions of interest to ensure compliance with the NSFAS accommodation cap.
Prof Elelwani Ramugondo, Deputy VC: People, Culture and Society, began by apologising for having shaken her head during the discussion.
The Chairperson remarked that he had noticed the gesture but had not heard the accompanying comment.
Prof Ramugondo explained that the discussion had been passionate, particularly the suggestion that UCT was responsible for manufacturing accommodation costs, which she regarded as a serious allegation. She stated that she had also heard suggestions that UCT charged students solely for a bed, whereas her presentation had sought to demonstrate that student success could not be supported if student accommodation was viewed merely as sleeping space. She stressed that UCT fully agreed with the SRC that accommodation providers who inflated prices should be held accountable.
She stated that comparisons between residences needed to be made on a like-for-like basis and noted that not all universities offered what UCT provided through its all-inclusive residence fee structure. She explained that students at other institutions sometimes only became aware of additional costs, such as Wi-Fi charges, after arriving at their residences. She further noted that UCT had become aware that some universities cross-subsidised their residences and that it was therefore insufficient to compare residences located solely within the same suburb. Universities with residences concentrated in a single area, she argued, could not cross-subsidise costs from residences located in more affordable areas.
Addressing the R21 million allocation for student life, Prof Ramugondo explained that this amount was managed directly by students and reflected UCT’s commitment to student leadership and budget management. She noted that UCT’s residence culture differed from institutions where social events were centred on extended entertainment activities, as students and residence committees deliberately curated activities that balanced social engagement with academic and residential objectives. She stated that the student life allocation would effectively amount to nothing without staff support and that a substantial proportion of residence expenditure was directed towards staff who assisted students with budgeting, mentorship, and related support. She added that UCT’s insourcing model also required investment in staff development and argued that proposals to reduce costs to the bare minimum would, in practice, require the removal of staff who played a critical role in supporting students and advancing the academic project.
Turning to leased accommodation, Prof Ramugondo stated that such accommodation represented only a small proportion of UCT’s overall accommodation portfolio and that, if it were possible, the university would prefer not to lease accommodation at all. She noted that UCT operated two residences under Public Works and three within leased private accommodation. Private providers, she explained, necessarily considered prevailing market conditions and the pricing structures of other providers in order to remain commercially viable. She further noted that one leased residence was currently operating below full occupancy because students retained the freedom to choose their accommodation, and UCT would not interfere with that choice. She stated that the university was required to enter into commercially viable agreements with private providers and that its primary concern during the contracting process was to ensure that minimum standards, including Wi-Fi access, were maintained.
The Chairperson responded that the Deputy VC appeared to be suggesting that other institutions did not provide the services UCT considered exceptional. He observed that student accommodation providers were generally required to provide security, Wi-Fi, and other basic services and that these were standard features across the sector. Drawing on his own experience in student residences, including at UKZN’s Pius Langa Residence, he noted that residence assistants, security personnel, and similar support structures had long been standard features. He therefore stated that he had not heard any justification for the significantly higher costs associated with UCT accommodation.
He further argued that the Deputy VC appeared to be suggesting that UCT advertised accommodation but did not determine pricing, and that accommodation costs had to remain competitive with the broader market. Referring back to Mr Msezane’s question, he asked why UCT did not specify in its accreditation advertisements and calls for accommodation providers that accommodation intended for NSFAS-funded students had to comply with the NSFAS accommodation rate. He argued that if the university genuinely cared about the financial burden faced by NSFAS students, it could have imposed such a requirement.
The Chairperson emphasised that NSFAS-funded students were individuals whom government had identified as requiring support because their families lacked the financial means to cover higher education costs. He noted that government funded their tuition, accommodation, personal care allowances, and living expenses. He stated that many such students arrived from places such as Bloemfontein, the Northern Cape, Soweto, and other parts of the country with no alternative accommodation options and therefore occupied expensive accommodation out of necessity rather than choice. He argued that it was unfair to attribute responsibility for those circumstances to the students themselves.
He reiterated that the key issue was why UCT, when advertising leased accommodation opportunities, did not stipulate that accommodation costs must remain within the NSFAS cap while the dispute between NSFAS, the Department, and the university remained unresolved. He stated that this was the central argument being advanced. Since 2023, UCT had entered into new lease agreements at rates above the cap despite knowing that NSFAS-funded students placed in those residences would be unable to cover the resulting shortfalls and would therefore incur debt.
Prof Ramugondo responded that UCT’s preference was for students to reside in university-owned accommodation and noted that NSFAS policy similarly identified on-campus accommodation as the preferred option. She stated that UCT would prefer not to rely on leased accommodation.
The Chairperson replied that the fact remained that UCT had entered into lease agreements after the accommodation cap was introduced. He noted that those leases exceeded the NSFAS cap and that NSFAS-funded students had been placed in the accommodation concerned. He argued that whether the university preferred students to live in university-owned residences was irrelevant to the issue under discussion.
Prof Ramugondo then asked what would prevent UCT from considering residences located within safe communities and accessible by shuttle services as an alternative, even if not a preferred option.
The Chairperson responded that the discussion was becoming frustrating. He reiterated that UCT had signed lease agreements after the introduction of the accommodation cap and had advertised those accommodation opportunities itself. He repeated the central question: if the institution was genuinely concerned about the welfare of students and the financial shortfalls they faced, why had it not stipulated that it would not lease accommodation above the NSFAS cap? He noted that UCT had previously argued that, without these agreements, private providers would simply accommodate privately funded students. He questioned that assumption and suggested that the market would ultimately determine whether such providers remained viable. He maintained that UCT had knowingly entered into lease agreements above the cap, placed NSFAS-funded students in those residences, and thereby contributed to the indebtedness of those students. He stated that this was the essence of Mr Msezane’s question: if UCT genuinely cared about the issue, why had it not exercised its influence over pricing? He argued that the university could have engaged with the SRC, reviewed the approximately 2 400 leased and accredited accommodation units, and stipulated that accommodation designated for NSFAS-funded students should be capped at the NSFAS rate. In his view, UCT had the capacity to do so but had chosen not to.
Prof Moshabela stated that he wished to respond to the point raised by Mr Msezane regarding the negotiation of terms with private accommodation providers. He acknowledged that the Chairperson was correct in stating that UCT selected its service providers and determined the standards they were required to meet. He explained that UCT maintained a high standard within its own residences at the cost previously presented to the Committee. While recognising that the Committee might disagree with UCT’s position that the cost of its university-owned accommodation exceeded that of institutions such as CPUT, he maintained that UCT could demonstrate that it generated no profit from its residences and that all revenue was reinvested into services provided to students. He urged that UCT not be placed in competition with other universities, emphasising that the institution’s objective was to contribute to a strong PSET sector and to ensure that students had a conducive learning environment. He argued that UCT should be allowed to determine the standard of accommodation it provided because it believed that the standard supported student success. He added that if UCT failed to maintain those standards, it would later be questioned about poor student performance and outcomes.
He stated that UCT was asking the Committee to work with the institution to determine an appropriate standard of residential living, establish the costs associated with that standard, and verify that no profit element was involved. Where leased accommodation was concerned, UCT sought to ensure that the same standards were maintained. He acknowledged that achieving those standards in privately leased accommodation inevitably resulted in costs that were somewhat higher than those associated with university-owned residences. He added that this was one of the reasons student leaders had argued that university-owned residences should receive preferential treatment, recognising that UCT did not exercise full control over privately owned residences but nevertheless required the same standards to be upheld. He stated that UCT could not allow students in university-owned residences to experience a different standard of living from those placed in privately owned accommodation.
Prof Moshabela further stated that it was easy to suggest that UCT could simply dictate accommodation prices but argued that this was not how markets operated. He urged the Committee to exercise caution in how it approached the matter and requested that no impression be created that other universities were offering lower standards. He reiterated that UCT sought to provide students with a comprehensive package of services.
Addressing the accommodation cap directly, he stated that UCT disagreed with aspects of the NSFAS accommodation cap and maintained that NSFAS owed the university approximately R540 million, a liability which NSFAS did not recognise. He remarked that, should the matter ultimately require resolution through the courts, so be it. However, he emphasised that UCT’s primary concern was that students should remain at the centre of the discussion and that attention should remain focused on the challenges students faced as a result of mounting debt. He noted that the previous engagement had concluded with an agreement to seek a collective solution and stated that UCT was attempting to act reasonably while preserving the standards of service it wished to provide.
The Chairperson indicated that the Committee did not agree with the position being advanced.
Mr Msezane requested an opportunity to make a brief final point. He stated that the Committee had raised a crucial issue and noted that some Members had themselves studied under difficult financial circumstances without family support. He said there were now students experiencing severe distress because of additional accommodation costs, with some accumulating debts so substantial that they were unable to access their academic results. Referring to the VC’s earlier remarks, he stated that Members of Parliament were indeed placing students at the centre of the discussion, particularly poor students, regardless of whether UCT generated a profit from its residences. He reiterated that UCT determined the conditions applicable to leased accommodation and that NSFAS operated within a fixed funding framework. He argued that any shortfall should not be borne by poor students who lacked the means to pay it. He stated that figures covering the period from 2023 to 2026 would likely demonstrate the extent to which accommodation debt had accumulated, increasing from approximately R3 000 to between R16 000 and R18 000. He questioned how many affected students had ultimately graduated, given that accumulated debt could prevent them from registering in subsequent years. He concluded by stating that the Committee was prioritising the interests of poor students and could not accept the argument that UCT’s accommodation services justified imposing financial burdens that those students could not afford.
The Chairperson stated that he wished to make it clear that he disagreed with the VC’s suggestion that comparisons between universities should not be made. He argued that accommodation procurement processes were broadly similar across institutions and that UCT could not claim exemption from scrutiny simply because it believed it offered superior services. He stated that he would be failing in his responsibilities as a Member of Parliament if he accepted the proposition that accommodation charges of R16 000 should not be questioned. He also clarified that he was not defending NSFAS, noting that such a perception would be incorrect. He argued that accepting UCT’s reasoning would imply that any provider could set any price without accountability. While the Committee wanted students to benefit from high-quality accommodation, it could not accept the suggestion that questions regarding pricing or comparisons with neighbouring institutions were inappropriate. He maintained that accommodation in Cape Town itself demonstrated that UCT’s charges exceeded those of comparable providers in the same area.
Deputy Minister Dube-Ncube stated that she wished to offer a different perspective to both the Committee and the university. She observed that, nationally, more money was currently being spent through NSFAS on accommodation than on academic costs. She explained that this reality had informed the President’s call for universities to construct their own accommodation because the existing situation was unsustainable. She further stated that there now appeared to be instances of “double dipping”, whereby universities constructed their own residences and still charged rates exceeding those funded by the state, even where the state had supported the development of the accommodation. She argued that this was an issue that required serious discussion.
The Deputy Minister also sought clarity regarding the presentation, noting that she had initially welcomed the reference to accommodation having been insourced. However, she said that she became concerned when she heard that insourcing had created additional administrative issues which raised questions regarding how the model was being managed.
She further urged the university to recognise the necessity of comparisons with other institutions and accommodation providers. She stated that she had previously shown examples to the Director-General, including Campus Key, Rise Student, DigsConnect, and other providers, all of which charged lower rates than those presented by UCT. She encouraged the Committee to examine the standards offered by those providers as well. She added that it was unfair to imply that Members were advocating for lower standards or lacked an understanding of the issues. In her view, the standards were broadly comparable, but the Committee’s concern was rooted in the reality that the fiscus could only stretch so far and that NSFAS funding was specifically intended for poor students.
She noted that the Committee had previously discussed the matter with USAf, during which the University of Pretoria had indicated that, where accommodation costs exceeded the NSFAS cap, the university itself absorbed the difference. She argued that the real problem arose when universities transferred those shortfalls onto students who had been funded precisely because they lacked financial means. She stated that this was a discussion from which none of the parties could retreat and which the country would ultimately have to confront. She questioned whether it was reasonable that institutional leadership could not provide clear answers to these concerns.
The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister and invited the VC to respond.
Prof Moshabela stated that he did not wish it to be interpreted that UCT opposed the existence of an accommodation cap. He explained that, while the university had responsibilities towards its students, it also had responsibilities regarding its own financial sustainability. He argued that if the expectation was that universities should absorb any difference between the NSFAS cap and actual accommodation costs, then such expectations should have been incorporated into the funding model from the outset. He noted that while the University of Pretoria might be able to absorb those costs, UCT could not do so.
He stated that he did not wish to begin criticising the NSFAS funding model but believed that all parties needed to acknowledge that a problem existed and required resolution. He warned that UCT faced the risk of reversing the gains made through transformation if the current situation persisted. Referring to earlier comments made by the Deputy VC, he stated that if institutions were compelled to make decisions solely on financial considerations, the consequences for transformation would be severe. He cautioned that if each institution focused only on its own interests, the outcome would ultimately be detrimental to students and the country as a whole. This, he explained, was why he had earlier described the discussion as potentially leading down a dangerous path.
Prof Moshabela also addressed the suggestion that NSFAS-funded students should simply be allocated to lower-cost residences. He explained that UCT had considered this option and that, shortly after his arrival at the university in 2024, he had participated in budget discussions where precisely that proposal had been examined. However, he noted that UCT had a highly diverse student population and that concentrating students from similar socio-economic backgrounds within particular residences raised broader concerns regarding inclusion, non-discrimination, and transformation. He stated that these considerations had to be balanced carefully.
He added that, from a purely financial perspective, it would be easier for UCT if all students were housed in residences costing approximately R60,000 per year, requiring the university to cover only a relatively small shortfall. However, he argued that such an approach would not serve students’ long-term interests or support the kind of institutional environment UCT sought to foster. He maintained that UCT wanted students to graduate having interacted with peers from a broad range of socio-economic backgrounds.
The VC further stated that UCT had conducted a survey in 2024 which revealed that many students did not wish to move into the relatively cheaper residences available within the UCT system. He noted that it was only in 2026 that students had, of their own accord, begun to choose such residences in greater numbers. He stated that the university now had to consider the implications of that trend, particularly if students from historically disadvantaged backgrounds became concentrated in specific residences. He emphasised that these were among the many factors the university had to consider and that UCT’s approach extended beyond financial considerations to encompass the holistic development of students.
He concluded by appealing for moderation in the discussion and cautioning against overly simplistic or absolute positions. He stated that balancing the competing interests involved was complex and that no aspect of the issue could be regarded as straightforward. He urged all parties to work collectively towards a reasonable solution that balanced the interests of NSFAS, universities, students, the higher education sector, and the broader public.
Mr T Louw (ANC) rose on a point of order. He stated that, while he appreciated the VC’s call for collaboration, he was concerned that he had directed significant criticism towards NSFAS and its shortcomings. He appealed to the VC to maintain consistency in his submissions. While acknowledging that NSFAS had weaknesses, he stressed that the scheme existed to support the poorest students and argued that discussions should remain focused on that central objective
.
Mr Lonzi stated that he did not intend to spend much time on the accommodation issue, noting that the Committee had previously discussed it with the VC in his capacity as a representative of USAf. He emphasised that the matter was not unique to UCT but affected the higher education sector as a whole. In his view, the DHET ultimately bore responsibility for addressing the issue because it was responsible for ensuring equitable access to education across the country. He argued that students should be treated consistently regardless of whether they attended Walter Sisulu University, UCT, the University of Pretoria, or the University of Fort Hare. He therefore urged the Department to work closely with NSFAS and USAf to develop a long-term solution. He noted that universities such as the University of Pretoria and Stellenbosch University faced similar challenges, as did many other institutions.
He further stated that all parties should agree on a fundamental principle: once a student had been identified as eligible for NSFAS funding, particularly where eligibility arose through receipt of a SASSA grant, that student’s educational journey should not be undermined by circumstances beyond their control. He argued that it was unacceptable for a student to complete their studies successfully yet be unable to graduate because of financial disputes arising between institutions and funding bodies. He noted that if a student had failed academically, the situation would be different, but where students had excelled academically and still faced barriers to graduation because of debt, responsibility lay with the Department, NSFAS, universities, Parliament, and all stakeholders collectively. He therefore urged the Department to prioritise resolving the issue.
Turning to another matter, Mr Lonzi referred to audit findings previously mentioned by the Deputy Minister. He requested that the Chief Financial Officer provide a written response, given the limited time available, indicating what steps had been taken to address the findings and how far the process had progressed. He added that, apart from the issue in question, the university’s audit outcomes had generally been positive.
Mr Vincent Motholo, CFO, UCT, explained that the audit finding in question related to a conflict of interest involving transactions entered into between the university and members of staff who were required to declare their interests. He stated that the university took comfort from the fact that those transactions had not resulted in any instances of fraud. However, from a legislative compliance perspective, the required declarations should have been made. He indicated that the university was actively working to improve staff compliance with disclosure requirements and that the matter remained an ongoing area of focus.
Mr Lonzi stated that he wished to raise the issue of student debt, noting that it was highly contentious and that the Committee had previously discussed it with USAf when the VC had appeared before the Committee in that capacity. He remarked that he frequently had this debate with chief financial officers, including the CFO of Nelson Mandela University. He observed that when debts were classified as effectively irrecoverable, institutions were implicitly acknowledging that significant efforts had been made to recover the funds without success. He questioned what benefit accrued to universities from continuing to withhold the qualifications of affected students, or whether the rationale was that withholding qualifications would place sufficient pressure on graduates to return and settle their debts. He asked whether universities could not adopt alternative debt recovery measures that were less punitive and did not centre on withholding qualifications and degrees. While acknowledging that the VC might disagree with him, he maintained that the practice was punitive in nature.
Mr Motholo responded that Mr Lonzi was correct in observing that the practice had originally been introduced as a debt collection mechanism and had served that purpose for a period of time. He acknowledged that the Member’s concerns regarding students’ ability to access the labour market raised legitimate questions about whether the approach remained sustainable. He explained that the university had processes in place that enabled students to obtain employment both within the institution and in the broader labour market where qualifications could be made available. However, he stated that the discussion had created an opportunity to reconsider the existing process and explore alternative mitigation measures, including potential collaboration with SARS as a partner in debt collection. He added that this was an area the university was actively examining.
Mr Lonzi thanked the CFO and stated that he had advanced similar arguments during previous engagements with USAf when the VC had represented the organisation. He argued that universities across South Africa should consider less punitive methods of recovering outstanding debt. He noted that all parties could agree that qualifications and degrees were the primary means through which young people gained access to employment opportunities. He questioned how a graduate was expected to secure employment and earn an income if the institution withheld the very qualification required to enter the labour market until payment had been made. He stated that the discussion was long overdue but welcomed USAf’s willingness to engage with the issue.
Mr Lonzi indicated that his penultimate point related to the Gaza and Israel resolution. He explained that he had not originally intended to raise the matter, but comments made earlier by Honourable Khakhau had prompted him to do so to ensure that the Committee did not inadvertently convey an incorrect message to the public. He stated that his understanding was that the resolution related specifically to the IDF and the military activities forming part of the matter before the ICJ, rather than constituting a blanket boycott of all individuals or institutions in Israel. He requested that the Chairperson of Council clarify the matter so that the meeting would not conclude with a misunderstanding of the institution’s position.
Adv Arendse responded that the resolution was entirely linked to and concerned with the activities of the IDF, the war in Gaza, and what had been described as genocide taking place there. He stated that the resolution was grounded in the values of the university. While acknowledging the importance of financial considerations, he took the opportunity to provide context regarding donor funding. He explained that the R200 million figure referred to funding spread over ten years, amounting to approximately R20 million per annum. He noted that the first tranche of R20 million had been spent in accordance with the agreement between the donor and the university, entirely on the Neuroscience Institute, and had not involved student funding. To the best of his recollection, the donation as a whole had not been directed towards student funding.
He further stated, for the record, that donor funding had increased by more than 11% since 2024, although the number of donors had declined. He noted that it could reasonably be assumed that some of those who had withdrawn support or ceased donating had done so because they disagreed with the Gaza resolution. He reiterated that this was the relevant context. He confirmed that the resolution related specifically to the activities of the IDF and did not concern academic freedom. Rather, it reflected the view that academics should not engage in or associate themselves with activities that directly or indirectly contributed to the conflict and thereby rendered them complicit.
Mr Lonzi stated that the clarification was important.
Mr Arendse then requested to be excused, noting that he had submitted a request the previous day because he needed to attend a disciplinary hearing of considerable importance, one aspect of which could potentially affect a participant in the proceedings. Turning to the issue of union representation, he indicated that he would address the matter in his capacity as Chairperson of Council. He stated that UCT had prepared a formal response which could be submitted for the record. In summary, however, the Council was scheduled to meet on Saturday. He explained that the university’s position had always been that employees, rather than unions, were represented on Council, with academic staff and two PASS staff representatives serving as Council members. He noted that Council was not a constituency-based body and that its members did not represent constituencies in the same manner as Members of Parliament. He explained that ministerial appointees to Council, including himself and four others, were required to act in the best interests of the university.
Returning briefly to the donor funding issue, Mr Arendse stated that the state remained by far the largest funder of tertiary institutions. He noted that, when the Gaza resolution had been under consideration, he had not received a single telephone call, email, or message from government, a Minister, or any representative of the state suggesting that the university should take into account South Africa’s case before the International Court of Justice. He explained that the decision had been left entirely to Council members, who had been required to determine what they believed to be in the best interests of the institution. Through a process of majority decision-making, Council had resolved to adopt the resolution. He emphasised that this aspect of university governance should be respected across the higher education sector.
He added that a formal response could be submitted for the record and reiterated that, in summary, UCT complied with the Higher Education Act and its Statute regarding employee representation. He stated that any move to introduce direct union representation on Council would require amendments to both the institutional statute and the university’s own governance instruments. Such a process would necessarily involve consultation with a range of constituencies, including the Institutional Forum, Convocation, Senate, and other relevant structures.
Mr Lonzi remarked that the Chairperson had already utilised some of his allocated time but requested some leniency. He explained that he had intended to advise the unions that, in his view, their proposal was not grounded in the Higher Education Act, which referred specifically to academic and non-academic staff rather than unions. He observed that the Act did not expressly require student representative councils to deploy members to Council, as it referred only to student representatives. Consequently, he suggested that a university could theoretically hold separate elections for student representatives independent of the SRC while remaining compliant with the Act.
He stated that a more viable request would be for unions to seek forms of recognition similar to those adopted at institutions such as Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University and the University of Pretoria, where unions participated as observers or were afforded more meaningful engagement within bargaining structures. He suggested that such demands would be more realistic. He warned that requiring every union to be directly represented on university councils could prove disruptive, particularly at institutions with six or seven unions holding divergent ideological positions. While he did not disagree with the concerns raised by the unions, he maintained that their proposals should be reframed in a manner consistent with the relevant legislative framework.
Adv Arendse sought clarification as to whether the unions intended presenting their proposal at the Council meeting scheduled for Saturday.
The Chairperson responded that the matter was internal to the institution and suggested that those concerned engage directly with the Chairperson of Council outside the Committee proceedings. He stated that such internal matters were not issues in which the Committee should become involved.
Mr Arendse noted that the Registrar had already been engaging with the unions on the matter.
The Chairperson reiterated that it was an internal matter that would be dealt with through the appropriate institutional processes. He indicated that he intended to give the Director-General an opportunity to speak before the meeting concluded but first needed to release Members who had questions to pose to Ministers during the social cluster sitting, some of which already appeared on the order paper.
Prof Moshabela indicated that he had wished to make a contribution earlier on the accommodation issue, before the Deputy Minister’s intervention.
The Chairperson confirmed that he would allow the VC to speak but requested that Dr Christians proceed with her questions first, given that some Members needed to be excused to attend the social cluster session.
Dr D Christians (DA) stated that she wished briefly to return to the accommodation debate and observed that the Director-General might also wish to comment on the issue when allowed speaking. She noted that the Committee had heard that NSFAS allegedly owed UCT R540 million and that the VC had made it clear that numerous factors complicated direct comparisons between institutions. She acknowledged that the Committee understood this complexity and recognised that similar debates occurred internationally, where universities with differing rankings charged varying fees and where funding and quality considerations formed part of the broader discussion.
She expressed the view that the accommodation crisis was not unique to UCT but was recurring across the sector. Student debt continued to grow, universities were carrying increasing financial burdens, and pressures on the system were intensifying. She observed that both the SRC and the Institutional Forum had argued that the funding model required reform. In her view, the Committee was becoming distracted by secondary issues rather than addressing what she regarded as the core problem, namely the NSFAS funding model itself.
Directing a question to the university, Dr Christians asked whether UCT believed that the current funding model was suitable for a city such as Cape Town. She further asked whether the university was proposing that the model be adapted to accommodate its particular circumstances and, if so, what changes it would recommend.
Prof Moshabela responded that, in the interests of time, he would be direct. He stated that UCT currently had approximately 5 000 NSFAS-funded students and that the institution did not wish to see that number decline, particularly given existing concerns in that regard. On the contrary, UCT wished to increase the number of NSFAS-funded students as far as possible. He explained that if the university was bringing students from provinces such as KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape to Cape Town, it wanted to ensure that they were housed appropriately and did not have to worry about accommodation. Consequently, UCT’s position was that funding should cover all student costs, including accommodation.
He acknowledged concerns regarding rising accommodation costs and the resulting pressure on NSFAS. However, he argued that if accommodation was accepted as an essential component of transformation and student support, then the associated costs should be fully funded. He stated that he was willing to engage on how NSFAS could pay the actual costs incurred in university-owned residences in order to ensure that students were adequately supported. He added that, from UCT’s perspective, the central issue was ensuring that the funding model covered the full cost of study and that, where possible, intermediary costs should be reduced so that a greater proportion of funding reached students directly.
Prof Moshabela further acknowledged broader structural challenges, including the fact that the R350 000 household income threshold had remained unchanged for an extended period and had not kept pace with inflation. He noted that increasing demand for higher education had placed additional pressure on families earning above both the R350 000 and R600 000 thresholds. Such families frequently approached the university questioning why the thresholds had not been adjusted. He recognised that NSFAS itself faced budgetary constraints and that any move towards a more comprehensive funding model could reduce the total number of students who could be funded. Nevertheless, he maintained that for students residing in university accommodation, the priority should be ensuring that they were fully funded.
Dr Christians responded that it had become clear throughout the engagement that the existing NSFAS funding model was no longer functioning effectively for universities. She suggested that some degree of decentralisation might allow institutions to adapt funding arrangements to their particular circumstances and needs. In her view, the model was no longer serving students adequately. She indicated that she would leave further explanation to the Director-General and noted that investment in student accommodation infrastructure represented another significant challenge facing the sector, a point that had also been raised by the Deputy Minister.
Turning to transformation, Dr Christians stated that Parliament continued to grapple with the issue of transformation throughout the academic pipeline. Referring to slide 31 of the university’s presentation, she noted that UCT had provided a detailed racial breakdown of employees by category, including African, Coloured, Indian, and White staff. However, she observed that the level of detail diminished in later sections dealing with academic progression, senior academic appointments, Profships, and senior lecturer positions. She expressed concern that aggregated figures could conceal important trends within the academic pipeline and requested that the university provide a detailed racial breakdown of senior lecturers, associate Profs, and Profs across the African, Coloured, Indian, and White categories.
Prof Collier-Reed asked whether the university should provide the information immediately or submit it in writing.
Ms Mhango thanked the Member for the question and stated that the university did possess the data. However, she suggested that it would be more useful to provide the information in writing because the figures had been aggregated and a more detailed breakdown could then be supplied.
Dr Christians indicated that this would be acceptable but asked Ms Mhango, based on the figures available to her, to identify the point within the academic pipeline at which transformation began to slow.
Ms Mhango responded that transformation began to slow at the senior academic levels, particularly at the level of associate Prof and Prof, where the most significant gaps remained. She noted that the university had introduced a number of transformation initiatives, including its Academic Transformation Programme, specifically aimed at addressing those disparities. While there had been some progress at lecturer level, she acknowledged the Member’s concern regarding the need for more detailed disaggregated data. She added that, within the broad black category, substantial work remained necessary at Prof and associate Prof level from a transformation perspective.
Dr Christians stated that her concern related to the age profile of the academic workforce and the sustainability of the university’s future academic pipeline. Given the demographic profile of current Profs across faculties, she asked whether the university believed that its existing pipeline of African, Coloured, and Indian academics was sufficiently strong to replace those academics who would be leaving the institution in the coming years.
Prof Ramugondo stated that this was a very important question which UCT was taking seriously and that a number of initiatives had been introduced to address that concern precisely. She explained that one initiative which had been particularly important in helping to close the gap identified by the Executive Director of Human Resources, was what UCT referred to as the Next Generation Profiate. These were colleagues already employed by UCT at senior lecturer and associate Prof level, and the programme focused on addressing the structural barriers that impeded promotion. She stated that it had been important for UCT to recognise that the problem did not usually lie with individuals themselves, and that if the institution was successful in attracting talented academics, it should be concerned when those individuals were not progressing as expected. She explained that the initiative worked specifically with colleagues who should be progressing and assisted them in preparing applications for promotion.
She added that UCT also participated in the New Generation of Academics Programme (nGAP), a national initiative for which the university was grateful, as it brought new academics into the sector. She explained that one structural barrier identified over the years was that entry-level lecturers often became overwhelmed by heavy undergraduate teaching loads. At universities of high standing, it was common for newly qualified doctoral graduates to be afforded time to publish from their doctoral research, something which was difficult to achieve when they were fully occupied with undergraduate teaching responsibilities. She said the nGAP had provided an important indication of the structural barriers that needed to be addressed.
Prof Ramugondo further stated that UCT also operated an Emerging Research Programme, which was available to all staff because everyone required support. She noted that signalling that only people of colour or Black staff required support conveyed the wrong message. She said there were two additional initiatives she wished to highlight. The first was the Employment Equity Fund, through which heads of department or deans could approach the executive to motivate for the appointment of exceptionally talented candidates from historically disadvantaged groups at associate Prof or Prof level. This effectively enabled targeted recruitment where necessary. The second, and particularly exciting, initiative was the Accelerated Transformation Academic Programme, which addressed concerns regarding the ageing professoriate. She explained that it was no longer sufficient to focus solely on existing academic staff and that the institution also needed to pay attention to postgraduate students, particularly Black African and Coloured students who had a passion for academia. Through this initiative, UCT sought to encourage such students to remain within the academic system and pursue academic careers.
Mr A Sauls (PA) stated that he wished to begin by emphasising that his commitment to racial transformation was not focused on a single race but rather on a balanced approach. He explained that he wanted to change the way racial transformation was conceptualised. He said that when he heard that 20% of students were Coloured, many expected him to celebrate the increase. However, what interested him was the movement towards a balanced approach in which all students were regarded as Africans and represented proportionately. He stated that this was his central concern and that he wanted it to be understood that he was equally encouraged by figures showing 20% Coloured students, 23% White students, 44% Black African students, and a slight increase to 7% among Indian South Africans. In his view, all of these groups should be regarded as Africans.
He asked whether it was correct that applications from Coloured students had increased by 5% and requested confirmation from the Deputy VC (Academic) that he had interpreted the presentation correctly.
Prof Collier-Reed confirmed, through the Chairperson, that applications from Coloured students had indeed increased for the 2026 academic year.
Mr Sauls stated that he needed matters explained in very simple terms and asked whether the figures showed that more Coloured students had applied to study at UCT compared with previous years. He further asked whether it was correct that Coloured students had accepted firm offers from the university at a higher rate than Black African and White students.
Prof Collier-Reed confirmed that, for 2026, Coloured students had the highest take-up rate, which he believed was approximately 53%.
Mr Sauls then asked whether it was true that UCT had made fewer offers to Coloured students than to White and Black students.
Prof Collier-Reed explained that the university followed a rigorous admissions process in which offers were made to eligible students who met the admission requirements. He stated that every student who met those requirements received an offer. He added that the university did not make judgements about applicants beyond assessing whether they met the established thresholds.
Mr Sauls responded that the presentation itself contained the relevant figures and asked the Deputy VC to answer directly and transparently rather than assuming he had not studied the presentation. He stated that the figures showed that the university made fewer offers to Coloured students and more offers to Black and White students.
Prof Collier-Reed confirmed that this was correct and explained that it reflected the pattern of applications received.
Mr Sauls stated that this was the fact he wished to explore and asked whether the university understood the implications. He argued that Coloured students were demonstrating increasing interest in studying at UCT, that the university was making more offers to Black and White students than to Coloured students, and that Coloured students were accepting offers at a higher rate than either Black African or White students, despite receiving fewer offers. He asked whether that situation was fair.
Prof Collier-Reed reiterated that offers were made to every student who met the admission requirements and that every eligible student received an offer. He stated that fewer offers were made to Coloured students because there were fewer Coloured applicants overall.
Prof Moshabela added that the figures reflected a pattern rather than a deliberate institutional action. He explained that one could have a large applicant pool within which relatively few individuals met the required criteria, while another group with a smaller applicant pool could have a higher proportion of applicants who met the criteria, resulting in more offers being made. He stressed that this did not necessarily indicate any systematic form of segregation but reflected the outcome of the admissions process. He characterised it as a pattern rather than an action.
Mr Sauls responded by acknowledging that the VC was a highly intelligent individual, considerably more so than himself, but stated that he wished to challenge that reasoning. He argued that the issue was indeed systematic and said he had anticipated such a response based on his previous experiences with Stellenbosch University. He explained that he had identified a case study which, in his view, illustrated the systematic nature of the problem and asked the VC to consider it carefully rather than dismissing it.
He referred to a Grade 12 learner named Cameron Reid, whom he described as a Coloured student with outstanding academic results, including distinctions in Mathematics and Physical Science. He stated that she was the country’s leading school debater and remained the national champion. He explained that she had applied to UCT, UKZN, the University of Pretoria, VUT and other institutions, selecting Medicine as her first choice and Dentistry as her second. According to Mr Sauls, all of the universities, including UCT, had declined her application for Medicine and instead offered her a place in Accounting. He described her as a brilliant learner from a disadvantaged community who had excelled academically, in leadership, and in debating, and asked whether it was fair that she was not admitted to study Medicine.
Prof Moshabela responded by recounting that UCT had rejected his own application to study Medicine approximately thirty years earlier. He explained that he had subsequently studied Medicine at UKZN, completed further qualifications at the Medical University of South Africa (Medunsa), Wits, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and had eventually been approached by UCT on several occasions when the institution was searching for its next VC. He remarked that he had long felt aggrieved by that rejection and had considered it unfair at the time, although he had since forgiven the institution. He stated that he could therefore understand why the situation described did not feel fair.
Mr Sauls replied that his respect for the VC had increased as a result of that response and that it resonated deeply with him. He stated that Cameron Reid was not an isolated case and that many similar examples existed. Given that the VC understood the concern being raised, he asked whether the institution would examine more closely the systemic limitations affecting students such as her. He argued that students who had devoted themselves entirely to academic achievement should not be pushed out of the system when their aspiration was to study professions such as Medicine. While acknowledging that the intention might not be discriminatory, he maintained that the framework nonetheless produced exclusionary outcomes. He therefore requested the VC’s commitment to investigate the matter.
Prof Moshabela confirmed that he gave the Member that commitment.
Mr Sauls then asked one final question. He stated that he accepted the undertaking from Human Resources that a detailed demographic breakdown would be provided to the Committee and sought confirmation that the category “Black” included Coloured and Indian South Africans alongside Black Africans. He then asked whether it was correct that, at UCT, foreign national Profs outnumbered Black African, Coloured, and Indian South African Profs combined.
Ms Mhango confirmed that this was correct at Prof level, as reflected on her presentation slide.
Mr Sauls then asked whether she considered that situation to be appropriate.
Ms Mhango replied that she did not. She stated that, as Prof Ramugondo had outlined, the institution remained committed to transformation and was seeking to change that picture through the various programmes that had been implemented.
Mr Sauls thanked Ms Mhango.
Responses by the DHET
The DG stated that he could not remain silent when presented with an opportunity to engage on the issue of student accommodation. He remarked that, when the Chairperson had opened the meeting, he had assumed the discussion would be guided towards a dedicated engagement on student accommodation. However, as proceedings progressed, the discussion had broadened and certain assertions had been made that could not be fully substantiated within the limited time available.
He stated that the Department’s position was that a report already existed from the Ministerial Committee on the Review of the Provisioning of Student Housing and that, on the basis of that report, the Department had also developed a policy on minimum norms and standards for student housing in public investments. He explained that the system had therefore been guided by clear policy directives, which should make it difficult for non-compliant practices to emerge. However, he argued that it was reasonable to ask institutions whether they experienced difficulties in implementing those policies and what support might be required to facilitate implementation. Given that a significant period had passed since the publication of the policy directives, new challenges may have emerged during implementation which institutions wished to raise. He noted that the guidelines were comprehensive and addressed issues such as costs and services rendered, which were central to the current discussion.
The DG expressed support for the Chairperson’s earlier remarks and request, noting that Honourable Lonzi had also raised the matter and had implicated the Department in efforts to find solutions. He observed that Dr Christians had highlighted the importance of infrastructure and stated that the Department continued to experience slow progress in the rollout of infrastructure projects across universities. Given the imperative of expanding access to higher education, infrastructure resources needed to be utilised strategically to support system growth.
He further noted that the Department had begun engaging on a range of policy matters, including the overall structure of the system. He explained that a key challenge was ensuring that infrastructure investments were supported by robust feasibility studies. Without such studies, there was a risk of repeating mistakes observed in the basic education sector, where schools had been built in response to perceived demand but later stood empty because proper feasibility assessments had not been conducted. He suggested that any future approach would need to involve entities such as the construction sector, Infrastructure South Africa, and relevant housing departments, and should not be limited solely to the post-school education sector. He remarked that one only had to travel around South Africa to observe large quantities of underutilised infrastructure in industrial and other areas to appreciate that the country was not necessarily short of infrastructure resources, despite the accommodation difficulties faced by young people.
He stated that the Department wished to make it clear that student accommodation was a priority. The Department intended to work with USAf and the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) sector to determine what infrastructure interventions could be pursued. He noted that discussions had already taken place with the Department of Public Works, although those engagements had not progressed as constructively as hoped due to misunderstandings regarding the Department’s objectives. Nevertheless, he believed those engagements had been valuable and stated that the Department was prepared to take responsibility for facilitating cooperation and engagement among all stakeholders. He emphasised that addressing student accommodation remained the Department’s foremost priority and that it fully appreciated the hardships students were experiencing as a result of unresolved accommodation challenges.
Further discussion
Mr Lonzi stated that he wished to place several matters on record. He reminded the Chairperson of his commitment to circulate a report to the Committee and requested that the university also provide written responses to questions which had not been fully addressed during the meeting due to time constraints. He further requested that the VC and CFO provide details supporting the university’s claim that no profit was generated from university-owned accommodation, including a breakdown of costs and income.
He added that he had refrained from interrupting Mr Sauls’ earlier engagement but wished to note that, in his understanding, where ten places were available and twenty applicants met the minimum requirements, admission decisions would ultimately be determined by the competitiveness of the applicants’ results. Thus, a student could satisfy the minimum criteria but still not secure admission. He stressed that the shortage of spaces within post-school education was not solely a university problem. While he was not suggesting that Cameron Reid’s academic results lacked competitiveness and indeed believed they were likely to be highly competitive, he wished to afford the university the benefit of the doubt and suggested that this was the point Prof Collier-Reed had been attempting to make.
Mr Sauls responded that the issue raised by Mr Lonzi was not the matter under discussion. He explained that this had initially been the university’s response, but that he and the VC had subsequently reached a shared understanding regarding the systemic limitation he had sought to highlight. He noted that the VC had himself acknowledged having been disadvantaged by UCT in the past and had since forgiven the institution.
The Chairperson indicated that he had intended to ask the Chief Financial Officer who audited the institution.
Mr Motholo responded that the university had recently concluded a five-year audit term with PricewaterhouseCoopers and that Ernst & Young had now been appointed as the new external auditor.
The Chairperson stated that the Committee had an arrangement with the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) whereby, when detailed information was required, the Committee could engage with the Auditor-General, who would in turn engage with the institution’s auditors. He indicated that he was particularly interested in obtaining a detailed breakdown of student accommodation figures. He explained that he had reviewed the university’s annual report but had not found the level of detail he sought within the financial statements. Consequently, he intended to write to the Auditor-General, as suggested by Mr Lonzi, to request that the relevant information be obtained from the auditors. He stated that he required an independent assessment of the accommodation figures, which appeared to involve expenditure approaching R900 million and potentially more.
The Chairperson further stated that the Committee would write to the institution with a number of specific questions requiring responses from the VC. He recalled having previously discussed with the DG a proposal that had also been shared with the VC when he appeared before the Committee as a representative of USAf. The proposal envisaged the release of approximately 13,000 withheld certificates following the conclusion of memoranda of understanding between the Departments of Higher Education and National Treasury. Under such an arrangement, if a graduate subsequently secured employment, the system would identify that employment, and the graduate would be reminded to repay the outstanding debt owed to the institution.
He noted that USAf had responded that, in the case of financially distressed universities, National Treasury might need to provide upfront financial support before certificates could be released. Nevertheless, the Committee remained of the view that there was a direct relationship between the number of unemployed graduates and the number of graduates whose certificates were being withheld, as many individuals had completed their studies but lacked documentary proof of their qualifications.
The Chairperson stated that the Committee possessed correspondence showing that Parliament, together with the Department of Higher Education and Training, advertised positions on the basis that applications would be considered incomplete if they did not include all required certificates. He argued that this created a significant obstacle for graduates whose certificates had been withheld. The Committee therefore wished to see those certificates released. He acknowledged that the proposal would require further development, consultation with USAf, engagement with the Department, and subsequent consideration by National Treasury. In the interim, he argued that greater recognition should be afforded to letters of completion and that the DHET, together with the National Treasury, should engage with the South African business sector to ensure that such letters were recognised as carrying the same weight as formal degree certificates. Academic transcripts and records remained available should employers require additional verification. He concluded that poor students who lacked the means to settle outstanding debts should not be punished but should instead be afforded an opportunity to participate fully in the labour market.
He said the second part of the proposal was that the public service, all government departments, municipalities, state-owned entities, and Parliament itself had to accept letters of completion as equivalent to degrees, because a number of graduates had been punished because of the format requirement.
The DG said he supported what the Chairperson had said, noting that even within the department itself, the recruitment and selection policies indicated that a certificate was required.
Remarks by the Chairperson
The Chairperson stated that the Committee would hold a second dedicated engagement on the issue of student accommodation, which he anticipated would also include students, student housing stakeholders, and relevant state agencies. He said he held a different view from the position that institutions could determine accommodation fees without scrutiny, and indicated that the Committee would revisit the matter during the next parliamentary term once Parliament reconvened, as the current term was due to end at the close of the month. He explained that the Committee intended to bring together the ministerial report, USAf, NSFAS, the Competition Commission, relevant Chapter 9 institutions, Infrastructure South Africa, and other stakeholders for a comprehensive discussion on the matter. He noted that the Deputy Minister had indicated that the country was spending more through NSFAS on accommodation than on academic costs and warned that, if left unchecked, NSFAS risked becoming primarily a student accommodation funding entity rather than a student funding institution. He said this was the direction in which matters were heading in the absence of proper regulation of accommodation costs.
He stated that he did not believe education, as a social good, should be commodified, and argued that student accommodation had become a significant commercial commodity sold at the highest possible price. He said all parties present had a responsibility to address the issue because the ultimate victims would be students, not necessarily the current generation, but those currently in lower grades who might be unable to access higher education if the matter was not regulated. He remarked that he could demonstrate the difference between accommodation expenditure in 2022 and current expenditure for a similar number of beneficiaries and argued that the trend was moving in the wrong direction. He warned that this trajectory would undermine the transformation objectives consistently advocated by stakeholders. He noted that NSFAS was currently funding approximately 800 000 students with a budget of R53 billion and suggested that, even with an increase to R55 billion, the number of funded students could decline to 500 000 if the issue remained unresolved. He argued that, within three to four years, the number of funded students could be reduced by half despite a substantial increase in funding. He further cautioned that NSFAS could eventually have a budget of R60 billion while supporting only half the number of students it funded at present. He emphasised that this required a collective response and should not be dismissed as solely a government responsibility.
He further stated that, should the situation remain unresolved, the government might eventually be compelled to divert funding from university subsidies to NSFAS. In that context, he noted that the approximately R2 billion in government subsidies currently received by UCT could ultimately be placed at risk.
The Chairperson explained that his questions regarding foreign nationals would have taken a different form and that he would therefore submit them in writing. He said his interest related specifically to compliance with the Employment Services Act, the Immigration Act, and the policy framework on internationalisation, which the Committee fully supported. He acknowledged that the institution relied on international investment and needed to attract international talent but stressed that the applicable legislative framework had to be followed. He indicated that his questions would focus on whether the institution had complied with those legal requirements and policy frameworks. He further advised that he would write to the institution with additional questions on behalf of Members who had not had an opportunity to raise them during the meeting and that the institution would be afforded more than fourteen days to provide comprehensive responses.
He noted that a number of proposals had emerged during the engagement and observed that the students had approached the matter strategically by ensuring that the SRC’s presentation and recommendations had also been channelled through the Institutional Forum via the Deputy President, effectively resulting in two presentations from the same structure. He indicated that he would also direct further questions to the institution to assist the Committee in gaining a clearer understanding of certain matters.
The Chairperson stated that UCT was an extremely important academic institution and that while the Committee would not always agree with the university, such agreement was not necessary. He said the Committee nevertheless had a responsibility to acknowledge areas in which the institution was performing well, noting that UCT had demonstrated strong performance in a number of respects despite disagreements on certain issues. He reiterated his personal view that the accommodation pricing model was inappropriate, while acknowledging that the university believed its pricing was justified. He noted that this remained a point of disagreement. He added that the Committee had agreed with the VC that the proposal under consideration would at least help unlock opportunities for graduates whose qualifications had been withheld.
He suggested that, going forward, the Committee’s correspondence to Council might request consideration of a proposal whereby students who had completed their studies but still owed money would be permitted to participate in graduation ceremonies, even if their certificates remained temporarily withheld. He observed that if certificates were only released several years later, affected graduates might lose the opportunity to participate in a formal graduation ceremony altogether. He said the Committee would ask Council to consider holding graduation ceremonies on Saturdays and allowing such students to graduate while retaining the certificates pending the finalisation of the legislative proposal. He argued that, for many students, particularly first-generation graduates, being denied the opportunity to graduate formally could cause lasting harm.
The Chairperson thanked the students for exercising restraint and refraining from further interventions and apologised for the limitations imposed by time constraints. He remarked that, in recognition of their cooperation, when the institution invited Members to attend elections or campaigns, the Committee would participate collectively as supportive partners rather than as individuals. He thanked all participants for attending and for contributing to a robust engagement, including worker representatives, student leaders, members of the Institutional Forum and its advisers, and NSFAS representatives. He noted that NSFAS had been required to attend the meeting but would not form part of the next engagement the Committee intended to convene, despite being central to many of the issues under discussion. He added that he did not understand why UCT had not referred accommodation providers to the Competition Commission and remarked that he would have done so himself.
He stated that the Committee would now need to conclude proceedings and proceed to the social cluster sitting, where Members had questions directed to Ministers, including questions from Honourable Lonzi and himself. He wished students well in their examinations and in the upcoming SRC elections during the second semester. In a light-hearted remark, he observed that online elections occasionally appeared to produce results influenced by algorithmic interference and commented that, although the preferred candidates had been successful the previous year, he was aware of a rotation practice. He jokingly suggested that if anyone intended programming the algorithm, they should programme it to maintain the same outcome for the next five years.
The meeting was adjourned.
==================================================
24 June 2024
Dear colleagues and students
The University of Cape Town (UCT) Council held an ordinary plenary meeting on Saturday, 22 June 2024.
Among the items on the agenda were two resolutions regarding the Gaza conflict, which were passed by Senate at a meeting held on Friday, 19 April 2024 and then tabled for consideration by Council.
Council debated the two resolutions and following this debate, adopted each by majority decision.
In terms of the first resolution, on the destruction of scholarship and education in Gaza, Senate resolved to:
call, again, for an immediate ceasefire, the passage of humanitarian aid and the return of all captives as contained in the Senate’s resolution of 17 November 2023
condemn the destruction of the education sector in Gaza and the massive scale of killing of teachers and university staff in the current war
urge the international community to ensure that the provision of humanitarian aid includes the restoration of the education sector in Gaza
express concern and opposition to any attempts to curtail academic freedom by labelling criticism of Israel or Zionist policies as antisemitism
reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s conflation of critique of Zionism and Israel’s policies as antisemitism in favour of the Jerusalem Declaration’s dynamic understanding of what constitutes antisemitism
express support for academic colleagues in Gaza who are surviving under appalling conditions and our intention to assist in the rebuilding of the academic sector after the war
express solidarity with academic colleagues victimised for their willingness to speak out against the educaracide in Gaza.
The second resolution was in regard to research collaborations with members of the Israeli Defence Force and the wider Israeli military establishment. In terms of this resolution, no UCT academic may enter into relations, or continue relations with, any research group and/or network whose author affiliations are with the Israeli Defence Force, and/or the broader Israeli military establishment.
Council will in due course provide further updates through the usual communication channels on some of the other key items discussed at the June 2024 meeting.
Communication and Marketing Department
======================================================
By ILANIT CHERNICK
SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 11:06Updated: OCTOBER 1, 2017 16:12
Africa’s top university, the University of Cape Town, is debating a proposed academic and cultural boycott of Israel. The proposal was put forward by the Palestine Solidarity Forum, which has called on UCT to implement an academic boycott of Israeli universities. “This academic boycott would require that UCT reject forming any institutional ties with Israeli universities,” the PSF wrote.“The rationale for this call is clear – Palestinian human rights are violated by Israel on a daily basis with the direct and indirect support from Israeli universities… By implementing an academic boycott, UCT takes a principled position in the defense of human rights and academic freedom,” The group claimed.
The matter has been raised for discussion at the UCT Academic Freedom Committee. The committee, however, is only able to make recommendations to the university for consideration by the UCT senate and council, it does not have the authority to make binding decisions on behalf of the school.Klaas Mokgomole, a member of Africans for Peace, said the idea of boycott is taking the focus away from real issues.“First of all, we have very important issues in South Africa that are burning and need urgent attention,” he told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.“For example, we are busy fighting for free, quality and decolonized education. That is why we had the ‘#FeesMustFall’ movement in the past two years. We need the government to work together with institutions of higher learning. The boycott is trying to sway the black students’ focus from real issues that affect them in South Africa.
“This will lead to a cut in funding, and more and more black and underprivileged students will suffer the consequence. It is actually very selfish to suggest such a boycott. This kind of a suggested motion is very anti-black and it cannot be allowed to carry on,” Mokgomole said.“Africans for Peace is about bring two parties to the table and have a dialogue. We need to be promoting peace in the Middle East, not boycotts. Boycotts have not helped so far, however, promoting dialogue will help,” he stressed.Asked how a boycott might affect relations between Israel and South Africa, Mokgomole said ties between the two countries “are very strong.”
“However, a boycott like these would lead to unnecessary consequences, and as a result, the South African black community will suffer at the end,” he said.
Concerned UCT students, parents and alumni have banded together to create an online petition that, once it reaches 2500 signatures, will be handed over to UCT management, which includes the university’s senate and council. “We believe that the implementation of a wholesale academic boycott against Israel violates the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech, guaranteed in Section 16 of the South African Constitution and which are fundamental to the undertaking of education and research,” said the group, which calls itself Concerned Citizens for Academic Freedom at UCT. “Research, teaching and scholarship flourish through robust exchange of ideas across borders and among institutions in different parts of the world, including the Middle East. The true essence of a university is to foster dialogue and develop solutions to problems without regard to political, racial and cultural differences. UCT has always shown these qualities, leading us to celebrate our association with UCT,” it said. “Student groups are well-known for their efforts to isolate the Jewish state’s universities, students and academics. And all too often, student groups like the Palestine Solidarity Forum at UCT do not make the profound distinction between antisemitism, anti-Zionism and criticism of the policies of a particular Israeli government.“It is these blurred lines and misunderstandings that create a negative impact on campus for Jewish students, making them one of the most targeted minority groups at university,” the group added.In an interview with South African Jewish Report, UCT vice-chancellor Max Price, who himself is Jewish, said his “personal position is that there should never be an academic boycott anywhere, and this coincides with the position of UCT up till now.”“Things can change depending on the debate. We should be concerned about academic freedom globally. This year we have been called upon to re-think our position as a university,” he said. He made it clear that the debate was an institutional issue, not a personal one.
Earlier this month, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) and South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) said they were working closely with the South African Union of Jewish Students (SAUJS). Representatives of SAUJS will make a presentation this week to the AFC and have been in communication with university management, and other concerned organizations. “We are concerned both about the nature of this campaign by anti-Israel groups on Campus, as well as the antisemitic rhetoric that may evolve from this debate and its implications for Jewish students who support the values of academic freedom.“The SAJBD and SAZF unequivocally reject academic boycotts, whether aimed at Israeli institutions or those of any other country. Such initiatives are discriminatory and inconsistent with universal academic standards,” the organizations said in a statement.
Both the SAUJS and the Palestine Solidarity Forum have made lengthy presentations to the Academic Freedom Committee, which the body is still considering.
==============================================
14 October 2014
https://www.news.uct.ac.za/downloads/email/UCTManagementStatementOnGazaConflict.pdf
UCT response to calls to support anti-Israel measures
The Palestinian Solidarity Forum (PSF) and the Student Representative Council (SRC) at the University of Cape Town have called upon the University’s management to make a statement on behalf of UCT in solidarity with the Palestinians around the Gaza conflict. In particular there has been a demand for the university to: declare unconditionally that Israel is an apartheid state; support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign; not renew UCT’s contract with the security company G4S; and call for the South African government to cut diplomatic ties with Israel. The University community is distressed by the loss of life as a result of the conflict and we offer our deepest condolences to all the families affected. However, after extensive discussion, UCT management has concluded that we cannot support the statement and demands of the PSF and SRC. The reasons are as follows. Firstly, while as individuals in the management team we all have views on the conflict between Palestine and Israel, and there is significant overlap in our views, when UCT management speaks, it is necessarily a position that it takes on behalf of the institution; it is read by the members of staff, students and the public as an institutional position. So the call to management to support the above is therefore a call to the institution to take a position. UCT is not reluctant to take such a position when there is sufficient clarity on the essential issues, and especially when there is a clear moral imperative. But given how controversial and highly contested the interpretation of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is, including disputes over the facts and interpretations of motives, we do not think at this stage that there is a shared or even dominant view on these issues. Does this mean we can do no more than maintain silence? The answer is no. The evidence, from on-campus marches, to Israel Apartheid Week, to the stream of speakers visiting UCT to address related topics, is that a large number of our students and staff feel involved in or affected by the Israel-Palestine issue and would like their UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN iYunivesithi YaseKapa Universiteit van Kaapstad Dr Max Price: Vice-Chancellor Private Bag X3, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa Room 101, Bremner Building, Lower Campus, Lovers’ Walk, Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7700 Tel: +27 (0) 21 650-2105/6 Fax: +27 (0) 21 650-5100 E-mail: vc@uct.ac.za Website: www.uct.ac.za “Our Mission is to be an outstanding teaching and research university, educating for life and addressing the challenges facing our society.” university to show some moral and intellectual leadership on the issue. That, it seems to us, is good enough reason to engage. The University’s role is to create and protect safe spaces for controversial and competing views, and to nurture rational debate on difficult issues in accordance with the principle of academic freedom. We also have a duty to provide thought leadership. We will initiate a project inviting essays from members of the university offering analyses of, arguments about and possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Gaza war. In producing an anthology of position papers from across the university, we hope to re-emphasise the point that on the one hand the university as an institution does not have a single view, and on the other, that the university is a place where ideas, argument and reason matter. Implicit in creating the space for debate is a position on the academic boycott. While there are many in our community who may support divestment, sanctions and other boycotts, UCT (through its Academic Freedom Committee) takes the view that academic boycotts are in a category of their own and should almost never be supported by universities. The day we ban people from speaking on our campus because we do not agree with their politics is the day we sacrifice our commitment to academic freedom and the ability to protect different, unpopular, and dissident views, and set ourselves up to repeat the errors of the Galileo affair. Finally, the PSF and SRC specifically called on UCT management not to renew its contract with G4S. The information about G4S activities and an alleged record of abuses, both in Israel and elsewhere, is disputed, but UCT will conduct its own assessment prior to making a decision on renewing the contract. As is the case with all contracts, when this one becomes due for renewal it will be put out to tender and many factors will be considered, including the findings of this assessment. In summary, while UCT as an institution is unable to support the call to take a stand on the specific issues condemning Israel, we uphold the rights of individual academics and students to do so and will facilitate the promotion of all views and serious debate.
Dr Max Price Vice-Chancellor University of Cape Town
“Our Mission is to be an outstanding teaching and research university, educating for life and addressing the challenges facing our society.”
Hagar Kotef is a Professor of Political Theory in the Department of Politics and International Studies, SOAS, University of London. She is the author of Movement and the Ordering of Freedom (Duke University Press, 2015) and The Colonizing Self: Or, Home and Homelessness in Israel/Palestine (Duke University Press, 2020), which won the Spitz Prize, the C.B. Macpherson Award, and the Yale H. Ferguson Award. Her next book, The Civil Infrastructure of Torture: Administrating Violence in Israel/Palestine, is forthcoming with Oxford UP. Kotef is the co-editor of Theory&Event.
Merav Amir is a Reader of Human Geography at the School of Natural and Built Environment and a Fellow of the Institute for Global Peace, Security, and Justice at Queen’s University Belfast. She is the 2021 recipient of the Emma Goldman Award of the FLAX Foundation for her contributions to feminist research and knowledge in Europe, the 2023 Emma Goldman Fellow of the Vienna Institute for Human Sciences, and a member of the Geography and Geosciences Committee of the Royal Irish Academy. Her research has been published in Perspectives on Politics, Environment and Planning D, International Political Sociology, and Antipode.
Nurit Peled Elhanan
Demand an end to their university’s collaboration with genocide and apartheid enablers: hundreds of students in Leipzig.
israel-academia-monitor.com 