University Capture - A Decades-Long Problem
Previous councils failed to act and hold the Vice-Chancellor accountable. Those councils bear great responsibility for much of the challenges now facing Fort Hare.
By Grant Abbott
For years, concerns have been raised about governance failures at the University of Fort Hare in particular. These concerns did not start now with the recent suspension of the Vice-Chancellor.
They were flagged by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Higher Education in November 2024, and by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) as far back as 2018.
Below I will outline the seldom-reported occurrences of failed adherence to good governance practices, and how this historic institution got to where it is now. There is a disturbing pattern of ignoring policy and there is a common denominator in all of these cases.
I will conclude with a few ideas on how we can get Fort Hare back to being an institution that can focus on developing our leaders of tomorrow and be a place people from all walks of life would be proud to associate with once again.
During a Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training meeting in November 2024, Sakhela Buhlungu (the Vice-Chancellor) was questioned on why the university was flouting proper appointment processes.
This followed revelations that Isaac Plaatjies, Director of Vetting and Investigations in the Vice-Chancellor’s office, had been brought in on multiple short-term contracts before being appointed to a senior position without a proper interview process.
It is worth noting that the NTEU wrote to the VC about Plaatjie’s appointment in 2018 raising concern about the fact that no vetting had been done as no recruitment and interview process took place as per policy. That letter went unanswered.
It also emerged, during the same PCC meeting, that the Chief Financial Officer’s wife was appointed into a role in HR without following due recruitment procedures.
In offering an explanation to these irregular appointments, the VC said he was “poorly advised” by people, who are now under arrest and no longer within the university system. Assuming this is true, how then are the current irregular appointments justified if those who “poorly advised” the VC are no longer there?
But the issues go beyond irregular appointments.
Another issue of irregular conduct involves the Vice-Chancellor’s erstwhile Office Manager, who was also on multiple short contracts within his office. On 30 January 2023, she asked the Vice-Chancellor for a pay rise. He approved it on the same day and within days, her salary was pushed to R1.47 million per year, along with R531,000 in backpay. There was no proper process. No job evaluation. No benchmarking.
Instead, the numbers were worked backwards to justify the increase. Furthermore, evidence suggested the pay slip used to support the increase may have been falsified. Even then, action was delayed.
The Supply Chain Manager, (a former PRASA employee whose name came up in the Zondo commission), was appointed on short term contracts with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor and CFO.
He was also later arrested on corruption charges.
A separation agreement seen by NTEU records that the Vice-Chancellor would have signed off on a separation package of R1.59 million in the employee’s favour
one month after his arrest on murder and corruption-related charges.
An article published by Ground Up on 17 October 2025, reported that an employee allegedly involved in siphoning approximately R17 million for undelivered work was appointed ICT Director in 2025.
Despite the Vice-Chancellor reportedly being warned by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) about serious findings against this employee, he nonetheless proceeded with the employee’s appointment to the executive position of ICT Director.
The university, in response to reporting on the matter, dismissed the report as “doctored” or inaccurate, stating that the final report was still on the Vice-Chancellor’s desk. However, when the article was later updated, it noted that the SIU confirmed that the document in question was in fact a draft affidavit prepared by one of its investigators, even though it was an earlier version.
These are not isolated incidents. They point to a deeper problem: weak oversight, delayed accountability, and protection of insiders.
The pattern remains the same and the common denominator is Buhlungu.
The real question one needs to ask is not about how serious the current allegations are, but rather how did it get this far?
Previous councils failed to act and hold the Vice-Chancellor accountable. Those councils bear great responsibility for much of the challenges now facing Fort Hare. Critical questions around decisions that were made outside normal processes (often called “deviations” signed by the VC), financial interventions that don’t follow proper controls, protection of favoured insiders, and a leadership style that operates above institutional rules were not asked or answered.
Simply put, governance systems appear to have been bypassed.
The question must be asked: would the institution be in its current turmoil had proper recruitment and related processes been followed for Plaatjies, and the above employees? Add to that the further executive appointments made without following due process.
Are these not the very processes designed to ensure proper governance and vetting?
The new council has inherited quite a mess and this moment is bigger than just one suspension. It is a test.
Will the new leadership confront the full extent of these governance failures which
occurred under the watch of this Vice-Chancellor, or will the pattern continue?
This situation did not appear overnight. It was allowed to happen either through deliberate maleficence or gross incompetence.
Buhlungu enjoys a wide media coverage that positions him as a courageous corruption buster. This is no doubt a curated public relations campaign which has clouded the ability of the tax-paying public to critically consider a difficult view – that Buhlungu himself may be the corruption mastermind.
Perhaps his intentions were good in the beginning, but as the saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. One cannot root out corruption by creating more corruption.
There are further critical questions that must be asked of this Vice-Chancellor and he must be made to answer them – regardless of the prevailing perception of his well-meaning attempts to root out corruption.
How did 20-something employees and service providers get appointed under Buhlungu’s watch? Make no mistake, almost all those arrested in the on-going corruption and murder trial came into the Fort Hare system AFTER Buhlungu got appointed.
If those who were “poorly advising” the VC, are now out of the system, why is the pattern of irregular appointments still continuing?
How did he approve a R1m salary increase to his office manager the same day the request was made?
Why would the VC allegedly appoint an ICT Director knowing he may be implicated in serious irregularities?
Why has the Vice-Chancellor not met with stakeholders as directed by the Minister in June 2023?
The final overarching question that must be asked again is who is the common denominator here? And there is only one answer to that question. Buhlungu. The suspension and disciplinary process is necessary to clear the air and place formally before an impartial chairperson his complicity in the past 8 years.
We must now address the critical importance of transparency and accountability.
The 1997 White Paper on Transformation in Higher Education outlines critical steps for public accountability of our university institutions. The crucial element that has been eroding slowly at many institutions, not least of which at Fort Hare, is meaningful consultation with stakeholders.
Public Higher Education institutions are funded by the taxpayers through funding allocation from the National Treasury. Students, staff and the wider community have a right to know what is happening in these institutions with their money.
Yet, institutional autonomy – a concept constructed to ensure the integrity of the constitutional right of academic freedom – is being used as a tool to evade public accountability.
Years ago, NTEU coined the phrase “university capture” to describe how executive management and councils of institutions are side-stepping fiduciary responsibility to contrive crises so that “deviations” can be approved for dodgy service providers linked to themselves or close family or friends.
Millions are spent on private security without proper tender processes, and this is all done by systematically inserting questionable individuals into key positions who will do the necessary bidding of VCs and others who wish to “rob the public purse”.
The University of Fort Hare is a case study on how corporate governance should not be done. But it can also be a case study on how to fix it once we have identified the problem.
And we do not need to re-invent the wheel. The 1997 White Paper provides the framework. All we need is to get back to that process.
A simple five-point plan to bring Fort Hare back to an institution of good governance again can be as follows:
Council must immediately establish a multi-stakeholder consultative forum as a sub-structure of itself. This will allow stakeholders such as unions, student formations, alumni, convocation and others to have a place to voice concerns and solutions.
Immediately start the recruitment and selection process for a new VC, while simultaneously securing experts and stakeholders for the shortlisting and interview panels.
Appoint an investigation firm to look at all currently suspended staff and student cases.
Have all the buildings inspected for habitability, starting with student residences and use this as the baseline for critical repair work.
Quality check all academic programmes and qualifications so that repeat incidents such as the debacle around the Speech Therapist qualifications will not re-occur.
And overall, across the sector, Vice-Chancellors’ powers need to be curtailed and councils must be dragged before Parliament for failing to hold the institutional management accountable.
The problem is complex, but the solution is simple if we get back to the basics of policy and procedure adherence and reignite constructive stakeholder engagement.
Grant Abbott is General Secretary of the National Tertiary Union.
© Higher Education Media Services.