SMU Vice Chancellor Inquiry

Meeting report

The Chairperson said the inquiry was now addressing Part B which dealt with SMU. The Committee would finalise some outstanding aspects of Part A on the University of Venda (Univen) later in the week. The Committee will commence with the SMU Council Chairperson followed by the Senate Chairperson who was also then the acting Vice Chancellor of the University.

Parliamentary Legal Services administered the oath or affirmation to the witnesses.

Witness: Ms Maria Rambauli - SMU Council Chairperson
Ms Rambauli read out her statement which covered the appointment process of Prof Mbati; if Human Resources Policies and Procedures if Human Resources procedures were applied; sexual harassment allegations against Prof Mbati; how Council was informed of the allegations; poor infrastructure governance and general comments on the sexual harassment allegations.

The Chairperson referred to the appointment procedure for the Vice Chancellor. She mentioned that there was a first process which did not yield any results and then a second process. Can she mention the candidates who applied in the first round and how many there were? Is there a report from Council that mentions what happened during that process?

Ms Rambauli replied that there was Bundle A and B submitted to the Committee and those bundles indicate the people interviewed.

The Chairperson welcomed that and indicated that he would consult the documents. Moving to the second process; what is the name of the recruitment agency responsible for the process? How was the agency appointed?

Ms Rambauli replied it is AP Academic Partners. The process followed the normal procurement process of the University, the tender was advertised and its process followed with specifications and then evaluation and then adjudication.

The Chairperson said in her statement that initially one candidate was interviewed and the panel asked for more and then an additional three were brought in so there was a total of four candidates. The interviews are said to have been conducted remotely. Can she explain?

Ms Rambauli replied SMU used Blackboard and the interviews were conducted virtually.

The Chairperson asked if this was a joint meeting or interviews.

Ms Rambauli explained that the four candidates had to prepare a presentation where they came to present physically and this was held in a joint sitting. In that sitting the Council members, Institutional Forum and the Senate were present. All candidates were present except for one who cited personal reasons and could not make it. Once completed, the interviews were set up.

The Chairperson said that a selection panel conducted the interviews which were done during lockdown. The rules require that there must be a closed ballot – how was the closed ballot done?

Ms Rambauli replied that she was not aware of the technicalities but a platform was submitted where each person was able to cast a vote and indicate a preference. Detailed information can be provided to the Committee.

The Chairperson said there was an allegation by NUMSA and SADTU that the University used Skype to conduct the interviews and thus contended it did not secure the necessary confidentiality and secrecy for voting.

Ms Rambauli replied that the allegations are untrue and SMU never used Skype.

The Chairperson said that the unions were also claiming that there was no reason for SMU to hurry the process of the Vice Chancellor appointment during Covid-19. Council could have extended the contract of the acting Vice Chancellor given that the country was on lockdown. What does she think about these assertions? Does she think SMU could have waited?

Ms Rambauli replied that Covid-19 was unprecedented. Change is sometimes difficult and it depends on where the person is sitting – as the Council Chairperson, she wanted stability for the institution. The Council was very clear about what it wanted to achieve and went on to recruit because at that point there was no certainty when the pandemic would stop. She needed to ensure that the process was fair and they objectively applied their minds through following the University procedures, which was done. At this point SMU was already in its second year without a Vice Chancellor, which motivated the decision to go ahead with the recruitment. Everything was done accordingly.

The Chairperson asked how the Council voted – did it use the same platform utilised by the selection panel?

Ms Rambauli replied that Council used the Blackboard platform but it was audited by auditors and the voting was through a secret ballot.

The Chairperson said in her statement she claimed that Prof Mbati disclosed the sexual harassment allegations in the package of documents received through the agency and during the interview. You also indicated there was a labour court matter involving Prof Mbati. What is the Council-approved independent process that cleared Prof Mbati of sexual harassment, as stated in paragraph 14 of your statement?

Ms Rambauli replied, according to her records, Univen ran an independent process which tested the sexual harassment allegations. She consult the package to provide the facts on the matter.

The Chairperson asked if the SMU Council conducted a verification process to validate the information disclosed by candidates.

Ms Rambauli replied that the recruitment agency conducts the background checks but the Council sought legal advice to test the verification of the information and this was provided. The Council ran two processes and the legal team (external legal services) provided an independent view on the matter.

The Chairperson asked if the SMU Council relied heavily on the information submitted.

Ms Rambauli replied that the HR also conducts background checks but in this case it was done through independent service providers.

The Chairperson asked if the SMU Council received information on the process followed by the Univen Council.

Ms Rambauli replied she would provide details later.

The Chairperson said the Senate and Institutional Forum said in their submissions to the Committee that they were not provided with the Prof Mbati sexual harassment disclosure, how these allegations were treated and finally concluded. They said that this was not in the bundle of documents they received before entering into a vote. Why was this information not provided before voting took place?

Ms Rambauli replied the process was run by the Registrar and she would check why the information was not provided. During Council discussions on appointability that was the first point they had to disclose their satisfaction on the matter. It was disturbing that these concerns were not raised during Senate and Institutional Forum deliberations.

The Chairperson said that they were not aware of those allegations at the time of voting. Why it was not disclosed to them?

Ms Rambauli replied that to her knowledge she did not know why it was not disclosed but she believed that it was not malicious. She would have to come back to the Committee on this matter.

The Chairperson asked if that kind of information was significant to the extent that it may influence the decision of those voting – all that information during the investigation of the sexual harassment.

Ms Rambauli replied that we live in a country where the rule of law applies and if the person is cleared of the allegations; that is the picture. The position she agreed with was transparency, regardless of whether it was negative or positive, to allow people to make informed decisions.

The Chairperson said the non-disclosure of that kind of significant information does constitute a procedural error.

Ms Rambauli replied she was uncertain if it constituted a procedural error but she agreed that it contributed towards decision-making.

The Chairperson asked why was the information required if it would not influence the selection panel.

Ms Rambauli replied that she was not aware why they did not receive this information but she was uncertain of the impact it would have made if the information was provided. However, she agreed that it should have been provided.

The Chairperson said if the information contributes towards decision-making, it was a procedural error not to have made this information available. Incomplete information was provided, which could have affected decision making.

If the Senate and Institutional Forum both support the candidate, the candidate proceeds but if both did not support the candidate what happens?

Ms Rambauli replied the interviews would continue and at that selection panel a decision would then be taken.

The Chairperson asked if the Senate and Institutional Forum does not support a candidate, one would assume that the process will not proceed. Is this what the policy says?

Ms Rambauli replied that the interview happens and the Council may not appoint due to the voting of the Senate and Institutional Forum.

The Chairperson asked if she was aware of the CGE report on the allegations, particularly during the interviews. Was she aware of the investigation by the CGE? Was she aware of what the court said on this matter, besides excising parts of the CGE report?

Ms Rambauli confirmed that she was. She understood and knew what happened. There was a CGE report that was taken on review and certain aspects of that report were removed. She was not aware of what the court judgment said.

The Chairperson explained that the CGE recommendations remained and the court did not set them aside. It directed Univen to implement its sexual harassment policy and the court made this call because the university had failed to do so. Was she aware of this information?

Ms Rambauli replied that from the reports she received from Univen, it claimed that it implemented the sexual harassment policy.

The Chairperson said that Univen did not implement its policy for four years and Committee has learnt through this inquiry that the university admitted to this. What would she say to that?

Ms Rambauli replied she would not understand why it did not but she did not want to speculate why Univen stated a different position.

The Chairperson finalised the disclosure matter – how come the SMU Council did not know that the court judgment did not set aside the CGE report recommendations and that Univen failed to implement its sexual harassment policy? There is no truth that Prof Mbati was cleared through an independent process.

Ms Rambauli replied that to her knowledge – that was what was communicated to the SMU Council. That is all we knew.

The Chairperson said that the SMU Council only had the outcome of the labour court – this was the only information that Council had?

Ms Rambauli confirmed that was the case.

Mr T Letsie (ANC) asked Ms Rambauli to confirm that the witness statement was written by her.

Ms Rambauli replied that this was the Council and her own statement.

Mr Letsie read out paragraph 2.1.2 of the SMU Policy and Procedure on Appointment of the Vice Chancellor. He asked how the nomination process stipulated in the policy is conducted for the a Vice Chancellor. How does the nomination of the Vice Chancellor work?

Ms Rambauli replied that the nomination process is in essence about people putting forth the names of the individuals they believe are suitable for the position.

Mr Letsie asked if the members of the Senate and Institutional Forum are allowed to nominate from their own structures or is it only external?

Ms Rambauli replied the nomination is open if the requirements can be met, which also meant that Senate members could nominate other members of the Senate.

Mr Letsie asked how conflict of interest is managed. Do members of the Senate, Council and the Institutional Forum form part of the people who will be on the shortlisting and interview panels as well as the Council meeting where voting takes place?

Ms Rambauli replied that nomination does not equate to meeting the requirements – it is around ensuring that there is a wide pool of prospective candidates participating in the recruitment process.

There are representatives from Senate, Institutional Forum and Council as well as external Vice Chancellors that form part of that selection panel. The selection panel takes a decision collectively.

Mr Letsie asked how many nominations were received.

Ms Rambauli replied that information was in the bundle of documents provided.

Mr Letsie asked if Council was of the view that its own internal processes would not yield the desired outcome, hence it opted for the appointment of the service provider instead of re-advertising?

Ms Rambauli confirmed.

Mr Letsie sought clarity on ethical considerations stipulated in the recruitment agency statement.

Ms Rambauli replied that the agency told Council that because there are very limited people that they place, they have placed some of the Vice Chancellors in other universities and they did not want to be seen to be hopping Vice Chancellors from one institution to the other. They felt uncomfortable with that.

Mr Letsie said the Higher Education Transformation Network had written to the Committee indicating that the SMU Council refused to furnish them with information requested in terms of the PAIA Act. This was the records of the Prof Mbati appointment process, including any relevant information.

Ms Rambauli replied that the SMU Council would not refuse any request for information.

As Ms Rambauli lost network connectivity, the Committee moved on to the next witness.

Witness: Prof Lekan Ayo-Yusuf - SMU Deputy Vice Chancellor
Prof Ayo-Yusuf submitted that he was asked to cover two broad questions, which was the appointment process of the Vice Chancellor while he was the former Senate Chairperson and awareness of the Department Report on poor infrastructure governance at Univen during the tenure of Prof Mbati (see witness statement).

The Chairperson noted that although he is still with SMU and he was here to testify on his boss, the Vice Chancellor, he was protected by the Powers and Privileges Act.

The Chairperson said the Senate deliberated and decided to support the appointment of Prof Mbati. What is his view about the absence of the totality of the information? Do you think that this information was material to the process?

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied that in hindsight, it is material.

The Chairperson said the non-disclosure of this information to the Senate, in his view, does it constitutes a procedural error in terms of transparency and information relevant to the process?

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied that he could not speak much on the process because it relates to the verification of the CV of the candidates and as Senate chairperson that is what he checked.

The Chairperson asked why there is involvement of the Senate in the selection process.

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied that a Vice Chancellor provides academic leadership in the university and the Senate functions to ensure that the academic activities of the university were in accordance with university rules. The reason the Senate has to pronounce on the suitability of the Vice Chancellor is probably related to the academic enterprise and the ability to lead that.

The Chairperson said if the Senate did not see the candidate as suitable, what then happens?

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied that information will be put to a vote, which vote will be presented by the Registrar to the selection panel. The panel in its deliberations would consider the position of the Senate. At that stage, the position of the Senate does not affect the process.

Mr Letsie commented that both NUMSA and SADTU raised concerns about the recruitment process and conducting interviews via Skype. Is he of the view that their concerns had merit?

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied he was not certain under which capacity he should answer the question – in his capacity as Senate chair? He had made a separate submission as a Council member.

As a Council member, in his opinion, given the circumstances the country was facing, there was little room other than a virtual engagement. If indeed, there was a choice, it would not be the first consideration to conduct the interviews virtually.

Mr Letsie asked if the Senate submitted nominations during the nomination process.

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied that there was no forum in which the Senate submitted a nomination. Senate members may make nominations directly to the director of human resources without the Senate chair knowing. The Senate itself did not submit nominations but individual members might have done so.

Mr Letsie asked at what point the Senate gets involved in the recruitment process.

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied that it gets involved once the selection panel has sat to deliberate on the candidates they have received in totality, irrespective of how they came through. Once the selection panel shortlists the candidates, it sends that shortlist to the Senate to decide and vote on the suitability of the shortlisted candidates presented by the selection panel.

Mr Letsie asked if the Senate had any concerns with conducting interviews virtually.

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied that the Senate did not express any concern.

Mr Letsie asked if the process that was followed was fair and transparent, as the Senate.

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied that when the Senate had its sitting, at that stage the interviews were not going to be conducted virtually, but the situation in the country changed after that sitting. The Senate did not have an opportunity to express concerns on the decision to go on a virtual platform.

Mr Letsie said that the Council Chairperson indicated that Council members would have been briefed about the sexual harassment allegations against Prof Mbati. As a Senate or Council member, was he aware?

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied as a Council member he was aware as he picked it up in the interviews. The candidate stated this at the end of the interviews when he was asked about additional information that the candidate wanted to share. Also, Prof Ayo-Yusuf was the Deputy Vice Chancellor in a previous application that Prof Mbati made to the University.

Mr Letsie said that there were certain Council members who said that they were never informed about the sexual harassment matter in its entirety. Can he remember when the information packs were issued to Council members?

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied he could not remember.

Mr Letsie asked if it was uncommon for a senior position appointment to be done so hastily.

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied that the appointment of a Vice Chancellor is itself an uncommon process. At SMU we have had only one Vice Chancellor and it took a little longer between the interviews and appointment. He was not involved with the appointment of the first Vice Chancellor and therefore could not comment on how long it ought to take. However, this process was faster than normally expected.

The Chairperson asked if the information packs containing all the information was available only to the selection panel and Council.

Prof Ayo-Yusuf confirmed.

The Chairperson asked to what extent the background information or history of an individual, particularly their background in previous employment not their academic acumen, impacts on the Senate decision.

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied that education without character would not have any worth, so the character of the person behind the education matters. The Senate also vests itself in the integrity of academic leadership.

The Chairperson suggested that the absence of that information is material.

Prof Ayo-Yusuf replied it could go both ways to the extent that if the full information was available, the Senate could have made a decision that the information was immaterial given that the person was cleared or it could have gone the opposite direction. However, in hindsight, it would have been a useful addition to the decision of Senate.

The Chairperson thanked Prof Ayo-Yusuf for his input. He was very helpful as he was not evasive in providing answers.

Witness: Ms Maria Rambauli - SMU Council Chairperson (resumed)
Mr Letsie asked if it was true that the Higher Education Transformation Network (HETN) was refused information on the records of the Prof Mbati appointment process.

Ms Rambauli replied that she was not aware of that and the Council did not refuse. The Council had several engagements but she would have to consult to get the exact details. The Council indicated to HETN that it must follow the PAIA process to get the information.

Mr Letsie asked if she was aware that HETN approached a court of law on an urgent basis and the matter was put on the roll for 26 May 2020.

Ms Rambauli replied she was aware but that matter never ran.

Mr Letsie said that HETN alleged that the records were then delivered the day before the matter was scheduled to be heard in court.

Ms Rambauli replied that in essence HETN does have the documents.

Mr Letsie asked if Council instructed the University lawyers to deliver the documents the day before the court date.

Ms Rambauli replied that she was not aware of that. The detail can be confirmed at a later stage.

Mr Letsie did not understand how the Council Chairperson would not know that HETN wrote to the Council requesting this information.

Ms Rambauli replied that as stated before Council has had many engagements with HETN. She would come back to the Committee with the details. She did not see a reason Council would have rejected the request if HETN followed the PAIA process.

Mr Letsie was perplexed that HETN would approach the courts and how she as Council chairperson did not know there was an instruction to the lawyers to provide these documents – unless it was the University management that did so.

Mr Letsie asked why the Senate was not informed of the Prof Mbati sexual harassment allegation and how it was concluded.

Ms Rambauli replied that the Senate is included on the selection panel, it has a representative in that structure. The sexual harassment matter permeated through the entire process, even at the first pre-selection meeting.

The process governing the selection of candidates from the Senate point of view is managed by the Registrar. She will contact the Registrar to understand why this was the case and then provide that information in writing to the Committee. For transparency, the Senate should have been informed.

Mr Letsie asked if she was part of the selection panel.

Ms Rambauli confirmed that she was part of the selection panel and there were 12 members from different structures.

Mr Letsie asked if she remembered her nomination.

Ms Rambauli replied that she did not nominate anyone and she will provide a list of the people that were nominated.

Mr Letsie asked if the nominated names from the selection panel were provided in order of priority.

Ms Rambauli replied that the selection panel dealt with only three candidates who presented at the joint sitting. All members of the selection panel voted on those three and ordered their preferred candidate. Upon completion, she took this report to Council.

Mr Letsie asked if the same agency conducted the voting for the Council.

Ms Rambauli replied it was a different process for the Council meeting. The Council had an external auditor that came to manage the Council process but it was conducted virtually. It was appointed through the normal supply chain management process.

Mr Letsie asked if this appointment was conducted through a SCM process from 16th to the 24th. Were they appointed before or during this short period?

Ms Rambauli replied the appointment was done through the emergency procurement process to ensure that it was done properly.

Ms J Mananiso (ANC) asked about infrastructure project management. What mechanisms did the SMU Council put in place to ensure that the appointed Vice Chancellor exercised oversight over infrastructure projects.

Ms Rambauli replied that the Council will hold to account anyone found wanting where there has been mismanagement of infrastructural projects. The Council holds people responsible through following its human resources policies. Should it happen that there is a gap, the Council will act and ensure that people are held to account.

The Chairperson said Ms Rambauli has conceded she did not have all the information on the sexual harassment case against Prof Mbati. You knew the CGE report was taken on review and certain parts were taken out but not that CGE report recommendations were not set aside. You also did not know that Prof Mbati took the mediator's report on review and it was set aside. Council never exonerated him.

After knowing all these matters of the sexual harassment case, do you think this information should have been available to the Council and selection panel? If the totality of this information was disclosed, it could have changed the view of the selection panel. Do you think this information was relevant to the selection committee and Council?

Ms Rambauli agreed that if that information was available to the selection panel, it would have been a mechanism of creating transparency to allow it to make an informed decision. We used the relevant information available at that time to make a decision, which is why we are here today. Should it happen that the facts of the matter are put before Council, it will review the content of the information on the sexual harassment case against Prof Mbati and make a decision on that. Once the Committee has deliberated and followed its process and provided information to the Council, it will act on it.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was concerned about the incomplete information given to Council – this is the main point of contention.

He was aware of resignations in the Council since the appointment of Prof Mbati. How many Council members have resigned since the appointment of Prof Mbati?

Ms Rambauli replied that she would have to provide details on this. There was a resignation in August 2020 and later on in December 2020 there were more resignations. She was not aware if it was because of Prof Mbati.

The Chairperson said that the people who have resigned was a direct contestation to what has happened. He asked her to provide the letters of resignation to the Committee. Do you think that matters of reputation are prime preoccupation for the SMU Council?

Ms Rambauli replied that she believed that they are pertinent to the development and building of SMU. When she came in as Council Chairperson she was very clear about what she wanted to achieve. You cannot build the brand of the university based on the reputation, this is must be done through the output.

Witness: Prof Siphiwe Madiba - SMU Institutional Forum
Prof Madiba read out her statement on whether Institutional Forum members were aware of and who informed them of the sexual harassment allegations against Prof Mbati and at what point of the recruitment process they were informed. It also answered if they were aware of the Department report on poor Univen infrastructure governance.

The Chairperson commenced with the information available to the Institutional Forum on Prof Mbati. Do you believe that information was material to the Institutional Forum deciding on the suitability of Prof Mbati? He asked if she agreed with the Council Chairperson that the information was material for decision-making.

Prof Madiba confirmed.

The Chairperson asked how many members constituted the Institutional Forum.

Prof Madiba replied that there were 15 members from various functions of the institution.

The Chairperson asked why she did not support any of the candidates.

Prof Madiba replied that during the deliberations, most people were basing their choice on the presentations by the candidates. People had different views about how good those presentations were. The majority of the people did not support any of the candidates.

The Chairperson asked what she thought of the reputational matters of the institution but he was reluctant to proceed with his question based on the fact that she was still an employee of the institution.

Prof Madiba interjected and told the Chairperson that she would love to answer any question. She loves the institution and has devoted her life to educating the black child and she was passionate about her work and the institution she works for. The reputation of the institution is affected by a lot of things and SMU has gone through a lot of reputational damage, not limited to the appointment of Prof Mbati. She hoped that the Committee would ensure that it fights to restore the reputation of the institution. There are SMU members that love the institution and would love to see it flourish and many members have stayed even during the tough times. Hopefully, the Committee will not focus only on one bad move but all the other difficult issues that it is subjected to.

The Chairperson agreed with Prof Madiba that SMU must be supported. It is one of the institutions at the cutting edge in the production of health professionals as well as activists that came to occupy leadership positions in the country. It was the pride of black excellence in the past.

The Committee had written to the SMU Council Chairperson outlining a number of concerns the Committee wanted to engage with the institution on and find solutions to those. Unfortunately, the appointment came and now we have an inquiry.

The Chairperson said the Committee will be meeting on 14 May but two witnesses have pulled out. With regards to Part A, there are a lot of matters that have come up and these matters may require an extension of Part A. As for Part B, it looks like the Committee will be concluding it sooner.

The meeting was adjourned.