New twist as Fort Hare Council Turbulence Exposes Deep Governance Fault Lines
As divisions harden inside the university’s highest authority, questions of process, power and accountability come sharply into focus
The crisis over suspended Vice-Chancellor Professor Sakhela Buhlungu at University of Fort Hare (UFH) has taken a new twist.
Two serving Council members have written to their fellow councillors on 3 April warning of a governance crisis marked by contested authority, procedural strain and unresolved tensions at the very apex of decision‑making.
In a forthright letter circulated to fellow councillors, Judith Favish and Kuselwa Marala, both appointed members of Council, warn that emerging patterns threaten the integrity of governance at UFH.
“We wish to express our express our displeasure about several things pertaining to recent operations of Council. These revolve around:
The marginalisation of minority voices in Council;
Council overreach into operations and non-adherence to meeting procedures; and,
A growing tendency to establish task teams reporting to Exco for conducting the work of Council “
The letter states that the regional context of UFH, with its high levels of poverty and unemployment and limited opportunities in the formal labour market provides a context within which the contestations in Council and within the university community play out.
“The VC’s efforts to investigate and act against corruption have been widely applauded within and beyond the University but there are also many who are angered by these efforts for various reasons. We believe that the campaign mounted towards the end of 2025 demanding that “Buhlungu must go” cannot be disregarded as a factor that has contributed to the environment within which the Council operates and that is not healthy. “
The authors locate these tensions within UFH’s wider socio‑political context. Anchored in the Eastern Cape – a province defined by structural unemployment, deep poverty and limited economic opportunity – the university is inevitably enmeshed in contestation and competing interests. These pressures, they argue, have intensified following Professor Buhlungu’s high‑profile drive to confront corruption, a stance widely applauded but also generating resistance within parts of the institution and beyond.
Against this backdrop, the late‑2025 campaign calling for “Buhlungu must go” is presented in the letter as a destabilising undercurrent shaping Council deliberations. The campaign, they suggest, cannot be divorced from recent governance decisions or from the increasingly charged environment in which they are taken.
The immediate flashpoint centres on Council’s handling of disciplinary steps arising from a breach of Section 19(1) of the UFH Statute in executive appointments – a violation first disclosed by the Vice‑Chancellor himself. While Council unanimously agreed that disciplinary action was necessary against all implicated parties, unity fractured over the proposal to place Buhlungu on precautionary suspension.
Supporters of suspension framed it as a neutral administrative step. Opponents argued it was disproportionate, given the Vice‑Chancellor’s voluntary disclosure, absence of malice and the already fragile institutional climate. More troubling for the letter’s authors, however, was the process: refusal to entertain a counter‑proposal, insistence on a single motion, and resistance to recording that the decision was taken by majority vote rather than consensus.
Similar concerns were raised over the structuring of a Vice‑Chancellor selection panel and revised recruitment procedures that expanded political and stakeholder representation while shrinking the role of academics and students – decisions critics warned risk politicising the process and undermining institutional autonomy.
At its core, the letter is less an act of dissent than an appeal. Favish and Marala reject characterisations of themselves as an “old guard”, insisting they support innovation but not at the expense of procedural fairness and transparent governance.
As UFH stands at a critical crossroads, grappling with leadership, accountability and direction, the warning is stark: expedience cannot substitute for due process. A strong Council, the authors argue, is one that can accommodate dissent, deliberate rigorously, and safeguard the long‑term integrity of one of South Africa’s most storied universities.
UFH Council Chair Dr Siyanda Makaula said last week that Deputy Vice‑Chancellor for Research, Partnerships and Innovation, Dr Nthabi Taole‑Mjimba, was appointed Acting Vice‑Chancellor with immediate effect.
The appointment follows the council’s decision to place Prof Buhlungu on precautionary suspension pending the outcome of a disciplinary process linked to findings of a forensic investigation into executive appointments.
In a statement to the university community, council chairperson Dr Makaula said the appointment was intended to ensure stability and continuity in the institution’s operations while due process unfolds.
Dr Taole‑Mjimba will serve in the acting role until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Comment could not be obtained from the Council chair at the time of writing.
©Higher Education Media Services.