Cape Town - The Executive Committee of the Stellenbosch University’s Convocation has revealed that more than a month ago they asked the council to have insight into the restructured report on the future of Wilgenhof residence but that they were disregarded in the process of so-called transparency.
This week, former Public Protector, Advocate Thuli Madonsela allegedly told another media house that she supported SU’s Vice-Chancellor and Rector, Wim de Villiers after he was accused of doctoring the report relating to the male residence.
The university’s council was due to meet yesterday following allegations. The decision was made following the allegations and an affidavit which SU’s Chancellor, Justice Edwin Cameron filed, claiming De Villiers and Dr Nicky Newton-King, Chair of SU’s Council allegedly altered the contents of the report which was part of an independent investigation.
Jaco Rabie, spokesperson of the Wilgenhof Alumni Association, said the council would meet on Friday following the allegations.
He said both Cameron’s affidavit, as well as Advocate Nick de Jager’s recent answer to it, were filed in relation to a court application brought by the Wilgenhof Alumni Association last month Rabie said.
“It is important to note the Alumni Association’s court application is distinct from legal action initiated by the Association for the Advancement of Wilgenhof Residents (AWIR), which was recently settled.
“AWIR consists of over 360 current residents and their parents. Because of AWIR’s settlement, the disruption to current Wilgenhof residents will be kept to a minimum and the community will not be broken up and scattered,” he said.
The Alumni Association’s court action is still ongoing. The Convocation said they would not stand in the way of dishonesty and called for full disclosure, having previously requested it.
“The apparently dishonest amendment of the report of the Wilgenhof panel, on the basis of which the University Council made the controversial decision on the closure of the residence, cannot be excused in any way,” they said.
“The damage to the reputation of the university, the impact on current residents just before the exams and the insulting of former residents is extensive, and forces the Council to take firm action.
Attempts by panel members to offer excuses for the amendments are refuted by documented testimony from donors, and other communications with the rector, and cause further embarrassment for the university.
“We cannot see that the breach of trust between the Rector and Chairman of the Council on the one hand, and the students, staff, donors, convocation and the community around SU on the other hand, can be repaired simply under the current leadership. As the Convocation, we were already aware of an amended version of the report.
“This is why we pertinently asked in letters on 25 September and 10 October to the Chairman of the Council, among other things, which version of the report served before the Council, and insisted on seeing a copy. This was flatly refused, and the secrecy about it was obviously suspect.”
AWIR and Stellenbosch University settled the litigation between them concerning the SU Council’s decision to close the Wilgenhof residence in 2025.
The parties acknowledged the need to make a decisive break with unacceptable and secretive practices of the past and that the events that have occurred since the discovery of the two rooms and their contents in Wilgenhof should be seen as a pivotal moment and used as a catalyst for the transformation of SU and its residences the university said.
In September, SU’s Council revealed the decision to close the doors of Wilgenhof for a year for its new rejuvenated and reimaged residence.
The submissions of the fate of Wilgenhof followed social media’s and the media’s exposure of the initiation ‘chamber of horrors’ at the 120-year-old male residence of Wilgenhof.
Shocking images showed that of was of Ku Klux Klan-like hoods, and drawings of men involved in violent sexual acts and former students also shared their horror stories with the media.