Professor Morojele's response to UKZN's media statement

Introduction

I acknowledge the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s (UKZN) published response to my letter of 10 November 2025, which raised concerns about governance integrity within a public higher education institution.

As my letter made clear, my intention has never been to litigate personal matters in the media. My purpose is, and remains, to affirm the principles of transparency, accountability, and ethical governance that must undergird public universities in a constitutional democracy.

UKZN’s reply situates my letter within the narrow parameters of an employer–employee dispute before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). This framing is incorrect. The issues I raised concern the integrity of doctoral examination processes, the protection of a vulnerable student, and the proper stewardship of public resources. These are governance matters of national importance, not private labour issues.

Public universities are accountable to the public. It is therefore appropriate, indeed necessary, to address UKZN’s statement and clarify the governance concerns that have been placed before the public record.

UKZN’s Position on Public Engagement vs. CCMA Processes

In its published statement, UKZN expresses “regret” that I elected to write publicly while a CCMA process is ongoing. This position rests on several incorrect assumptions.

The issues raised are governance concerns, not labour grievances

UKZN’s response conflates two distinct matters:

1. A labour dispute, which is confined to the CCMA, and
2. Governance failures, which implicate the integrity of doctoral examinations, Senate processes, and financial stewardship.

The latter cannot be adjudicated by the CCMA; nor can they be contained within its procedural boundaries. Governance concerns belong in the public domain, and in oversight structures such as Parliament, Council, and the national higher education system.

Public universities are accountable to the public, not only to tribunals

UKZN is a public entity funded by taxpayers. Its decisions, processes, and adherence to governance norms fall squarely within the purview of public oversight and scrutiny.

The CCMA does not adjudicate:

• doctoral examination integrity,
• treatment of postgraduate students,
• financial governance relating to public bursary funds,
• or the ethical conduct of executive leadership.

These are matters of national governance relevance.

Freedom of expression on public governance cannot be restricted

The Constitution protects the right to engage publicly on issues affecting society, including the governance of public institutions. No institution possesses the authority to limit the platforms or channels through which such engagement occurs. UKZN’s suggestion that concerns should be confined to the CCMA is therefore inappropriate in law and contrary to basic democratic norms.

What UKZN’s framing reveals about governance culture

The attempt to contain governance issues within a labour process reflects a troubling governance ideology, characterised by:

• a preference for containment over transparency,
• individualising structural problems as private disputes,
• an erosion of democratic accountability, and
• a reluctance to confront substantive concerns openly.

These tendencies mirror patterns noted in the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee’s ongoing inquiry into governance failures at UKZN.

A Forensic Analysis of UKZN’s Media Statement

While asserting that it cannot comment on a matter before the CCMA, UKZN proceeds to make substantive, public claims about the “factual basis” of my concerns. This contradiction undermines the credibility of the response.

Bare denials without evidence

UKZN labels my concerns “factually incorrect” yet provides no facts, no counter-evidence, and no policy grounds to substantiate this assertion. A bare denial does not amount to a refutation.

The suggestion that no evidence was provided is incorrect

My letter referenced matters that are already documented within:

• Senate and College records,
• formal memoranda,
• examination processes,
• internal committee reports,
• and the student’s own documented experiences.

These materials exist within the institution’s own files. UKZN’s omission of this context misrepresents the factual position.

Claiming non-use of whistleblowing channels misstates the law

The Protected Disclosures Act defines protected disclosure by content, not channel. A staff member need not invoke a specific administrative pathway for a disclosure to be protected. Moreover, all concerns were raised internally through established reporting lines well before the dismissal process commenced.

Threatening post-CCMA legal action is inconsistent with principles of public accountability

UKZN states that it “reserves its rights” and will consider legal options after the CCMA process. Such statements risk being perceived as attempts to deter public engagement on governance matters. The Constitutional Court has held consistently that dialogue on matters of public interest must remain free from threats of institutional retaliation.

UKZN’s commitment to transparency is not demonstrated in its statement

While affirming a commitment to “lawful governance”, the published response does not address:

• doctoral examination irregularities,
• contradictory instructions issued to a Dean,
• the forced rewriting of a PhD thesis,
• the bypassing of Senate processes,
• concerns relating to a R16 million postgraduate bursary fund, or
• deviations from established procedures.

These omissions leave the core concerns untouched.

Governance Breaches: A High-Level Summary

The governance concerns raised in my initial letter fall into three interconnected categories.

These issues are documented and form part of the public interest.

PhD examination integrity

Among the concerns are:

• the initiation of plagiarism allegations months after legal submission,
• irregular parallel processes during confidential examination,
• non-recognition of official examiner reports,
• pressure to tamper with an examination in progress,
• the forcing of a student to construct a new thesis while the original was still under examination, and
• the sidelining of Senate-aligned governance structures.

These matters undermine doctoral degree integrity.

Financial governance (R16 million postgraduate bursary fund)

Questions requiring transparent answers include:

• the criteria for allocation,
• the identities and numbers of beneficiaries,
• the amounts disbursed, and
• whether public funds were allocated in a fair, transparent, and auditable manner.

Abuse of authority and maladministration

Concerns include:

• interference with statutory responsibilities of a Dean,
• redirection of authorised investigations to unauthorised individuals,
• pressure to participate in irregular processes, and
• administrative actions inconsistent with Senate norms.

These point to systemic rather than individual governance failures.

Critical Governance Questions Requiring UKZN’s Clarification

The doctoral examination

• Which thesis did the student ultimately graduate with?
• Where are the approvals for the new thesis?
• Were examiners informed why their official reports were disregarded?

The R16 million bursary fund

• What were the approved criteria?
• How many beneficiaries were identified?
• Was disbursement properly audited?

The plagiarism allegations

• Who initiated them and on what basis?
• Why was the Plagiarism Advisory Committee’s report disregarded?
• Which policy clauses were invoked?

Transparent answers are necessary to restore public trust.

Alignment with Parliamentary Oversight

The concerns I raised are consistent with patterns under examination by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Higher Education.

While each case differs in detail, the broader concerns are similar:

• abuse of authority,
• procedural manipulation,
• opacity in governance,
• and erosion of institutional norms.

It is in the national interest that these matters be confronted openly.

Conclusion

My letter to the public was grounded in a commitment to governance integrity, student protection, and ethical leadership within a public university. UKZN’s media statement does not address the substantive governance issues raised. Instead, it seeks to situate them within a labour dispute, thereby avoiding the broader questions of institutional integrity that remain unanswered.

The CCMA will address its part of the matter. The public, Parliament, and the higher education sector must address the rest.

My hope remains not to harm UKZN, but to contribute to restoring public confidence in the governance of a vital national institution. I remain committed to truth, integrity, and the strengthening of ethical governance in higher education.

Professor Pholoho Morojele is a former Dean of Research: University of KwaZulu-Natal.

SUNDAY TRIBUNE