Univen Council Fights Assessor Bid As Questions Over Governance Remain

JOHANNESBURG — The University of Venda’s governing Council has mounted a legal challenge against Higher Education and Training Minister Buti Manamela’s decision to intervene in the university’s affairs, arguing that the statutory conditions for appointing an Independent Assessor were not present when the minister moved to invoke Section 44 of the Higher Education Act.

In its formal representation to the minister, obtained by The African Chronicle, Council argues that it has already taken steps to address allegations of maladministration, governance failures and financial irregularities at the university.

“The statutory requirements necessary for the appointment of an Independent Assessor do not exist in the present matter,” Council states.

The representation follows the precautionary suspension of Vice-Chancellor Professor Bernard Nthambeleni and Chief Operating Officer Botwe Kraziya on July 16.

The Department’s proposed intervention, first reported by The African Chronicle on July 21, would give an Independent Assessor broad powers to examine Univen’s governance, management and administrative systems.

Council’s central argument is that such an intervention would duplicate a forensic investigation it has already commissioned.

Council: We have not failed

Council’s defence rests largely on its interpretation of the legal threshold for ministerial intervention.

It argues that the Higher Education Act contemplates intervention where there is serious maladministration or a serious threat to an institution’s effective functioning, together with a failure by the university council to address those circumstances.

Council says that threshold has not been met.

“These actions demonstrate that Council has neither ignored nor failed to address the allegations,” its representation states. “On the contrary, Council has taken decisive, proportionate, and lawful steps designed to ensure that the allegations are investigated independently and objectively.”

Among the steps cited are the finalisation of terms of reference for an independent forensic investigation, the appointment of investigators through a procurement process and the precautionary suspension of Nthambeleni and Kraziya.

Council is also careful to distinguish the suspensions from any finding of wrongdoing.

“The precautionary suspension does not constitute a disciplinary sanction or a finding of misconduct or guilt,” it says.

Council Chairperson Rudzani Mushweu confirmed to The African Chronicle that the appointment of the forensic investigators had been completed through the university’s internal procurement processes.

However, he declined to identify the investigators or disclose details of their professional backgrounds, citing the sensitivity of the investigation.

“The appointment of the independent forensic investigators has been undertaken through the University’s internal processes. The relevant procurement process has been concluded,” Mushweu said.

“Given the nature and sensitivity of the investigation, Council considers it appropriate that the University’s internal processes, including the formal commencement of the investigation and engagement with affected parties, be allowed to proceed before further details are publicly communicated.”

Mushweu said the investigation had been given 60 days to complete its work.

R980 million surplus under scrutiny

Council has also placed Univen’s financial position at the centre of its argument against further ministerial intervention.

According to unaudited management accounts for the year ended June 30, 2026, the university recorded an unaudited surplus of R980.3 million. Council says this represented 4.6% growth compared with the previous year and was 6.3% above the approved budget.

Revenue increased by 5% year-on-year to R1.9 billion, driven by enrollment growth and tuition income, while expenditure remained below budget, according to Council.

READ MORE: Government Moves to Take Over Univen as R163 Million Scandal Forces Top Executives Out

It also points to a current ratio of 3.30:1, cash and investments exceeding R2 billion and three consecutive years of clean audit outcomes.

Council says these figures demonstrate “prudent financial management and long-term sustainability”.

It argues that the university remains financially stable and capable of fulfilling its statutory mandate, with no financial basis for ministerial intervention.

But the university’s financial position does not by itself resolve questions surrounding specific projects and decisions that are now under scrutiny.

A whistleblower dossier raised concerns about the Main Administration Building project, whose cost reportedly increased from an initial R64 million to R163.2 million.

Asked how Council reconciles that escalation with the R980.3 million surplus, Mushweu said the figures relate to different financial periods.

“The two figures referred to relate to different financial periods and should therefore be considered in their proper context,” he said.

“The expenditure relating to the Main Administration Building project arose during the 2025 financial year, whereas the unaudited surplus of approximately R980.3 million relates to the 2026 financial year.”

That explanation, however, does not settle the separate question of whether the building project was properly authorised.

Internal records cited in the whistleblower allegations indicate that the project proceeded without approval from the Executive Management Committee, Executive Committee and Council.

Council says those questions must be tested through the forensic investigation.

Council refuses to prejudge allegations

Council’s representation does not seek to make findings on the substantive allegations against university officials.

Instead, it repeatedly argues that the allegations should first be subjected to an independent forensic process.

That position also applies to questions surrounding the Chief Operating Officer position.

The whistleblower complaint questioned whether the COO position is properly recognised under the university’s statute.

Mushweu said the position currently exists within the university’s governance framework, but acknowledged that questions about how it was created and filled form part of the investigation.

“The position of Chief Operating Officer is provided for within the University’s current governance framework,” he said.

“However, certain allegations and concerns relating to the position, including matters surrounding its establishment, appointment and associated governance processes, form part of the issues being considered through the independent forensic investigation.”

Council therefore considers it “prudent not to prejudge the investigation” and says it will be guided by its findings and recommendations.

Who is running Univen during the suspensions?

With both the Vice-Chancellor and COO suspended, questions have also been raised about who currently exercises executive authority at the university.

Council says experienced senior managers have been appointed to act in the positions during the precautionary suspensions.

“The University has capable and experienced senior leaders who have been appointed to act in the relevant positions for the duration of the precautionary suspensions and pending the finalisation of the forensic investigation,” Mushweu said.

He said the arrangements were intended to ensure “continuity of leadership, institutional stability and the uninterrupted functioning of the University while the investigation proceeds”.

Council has not publicly identified all the officials currently acting in those positions.

Council’s offer to Nthambeleni

Council’s representation also refers to an attempt to resolve its dispute with Nthambeleni outside court.

It says its lawyers proposed providing the suspended Vice-Chancellor with additional information and extending the period for representations “with a view to taking the matter out of court”.

Council says the proposal was rejected.

Asked for details about the offer and whether Council disputes Nthambeleni’s account of why it was not accepted, Mushweu declined to provide specifics.

“I am not in a position to share much details but it is safe to say that this was to minimise court interference and to allow Council to deal with areas of interest,” he said.

The dispute between Nthambeleni and Council remains one of the central legal dimensions of the wider crisis.

Questions about governance remain

Council’s reliance on the forensic investigation means it has not accepted institutional responsibility for the governance environment described in the whistleblower complaint.

The complaint raised, among other issues, claims that a R43.6 million budget escalation had been identified internally as early as September 2023 but was never formally approved.

Asked whether Council accepts responsibility for such alleged governance failures, Mushweu said it would be premature to make findings before the investigation was complete.

READ MORE: UFH Vice-Chancellor Placed on Precautionary Suspension Pending Disciplinary Process

“Council takes allegations concerning governance, financial management and compliance seriously,” he said.

“It would, however, be premature for Council to make findings regarding institutional or individual responsibility before the independent forensic investigation has been completed.”

That leaves several of the most serious allegations unresolved.

The questions Council’s representation does not answer

The representation does not establish what happened to the specific allegations that triggered the current crisis.

These include claims, previously reported by IOL and covered by The African Chronicle, concerning the appointment of infrastructure consultant Simeshi “Sue” Govender on a reported R382,000-a-month retainer without competitive procurement.

Questions have also been raised about whether KwaZulu-Natal-linked service providers were favoured, as well as allegations concerning Kraziya’s access to university accommodation, vehicles and a university credit card.

Another issue requiring scrutiny is an Audi A6 belonging to the university that was involved in an accident while allegedly being driven by someone who was not employed by the institution.

Council has not pronounced on the merits of these allegations.

Instead, it says they fall within the scope of the independent forensic investigation.

That creates a critical test for the process now under way: whether the investigation will provide clear answers to the allegations and whether its findings will result in disciplinary action, governance reforms or other corrective measures.

What will be made public?

Mushweu confirmed that the investigation has a 60-day timeframe, but did not indicate whether the terms of reference or the identities of the investigators will be made public.

“The investigation is given 60 days, and the procurement process has been concluded,” he said.

Council’s representation, however, commits the institution to providing the minister with the investigation report and Council’s decisions arising from its findings.

The minister must now determine whether that undertaking addresses the concerns that prompted the proposed intervention.

Council challenges its critics

Council is also critical of some of the external pressure surrounding the university.

In its representation, it describes much of the litigation, correspondence and social media commentary as coming from “a limited number of individuals and organizations who have consistently opposed Council’s decisions”.

It stresses that these individuals and organisations are not part of the university’s internal governance structures or stakeholder constituencies.

Council also rejects the suggestion that complaints from people outside the university automatically amount to the kind of reputational damage contemplated by the legislation.

Receiving “multiple emails, complaints, or representations from individuals or organizations outside the University”, it argues, does not by itself establish sufficient reputational harm to justify ministerial intervention.

Minister appoints independent assessor

The dispute has now moved beyond Council’s representation.

Manamela had given Council 14 days from his notice to make representations before deciding whether to appoint an Independent Assessor.

Council put its case before him, arguing that it had acted, that Univen remained financially stable, that interim leadership arrangements were in place and that an independent forensic investigation was already under way.

However, earlier this week, Manamela appointed Professor Norman Duncan as the Independent Assessor for Univen.

Duncan has been tasked with conducting a 90-day inquiry into ongoing governance, management and administrative challenges at the institution.

The appointment means the central question is no longer simply whether Council believes the statutory threshold for intervention has been met, but whether the assessor’s inquiry will uncover governance failures that require action beyond the measures already taken by Council.

The African Chronicle has sought comment from the Department of Higher Education and Training and suspended Vice-Chancellor Professor Bernard Nthambeleni on the contents of Council’s representation and the issues raised in this article.