Johannesburg - NGO Right to Justice (R2J) has rebutted Unisa vice-chancellor Professor Puleng LenkaBula’s comments about various news media channels, but particularly a Newsroom Afrika interview in which the NGO says LenkaBula was simply being “untruthful”.
The Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology, Dr Blade Nzimande, is to place Unisa under administration after an investigation by independent assessor Themba Mosia. Mosia found a plethora of irregularities at the institution and under LenkaBula’s leadership.
Unisa VC’s assertion on SABC Unfiltered, Newzroom Afrika and eNCA:
1. The independent assessor did not declare that he had worked with other executives at Unisa (Professor Steward Mothata and Dr Phasoane Mokgobu).
The VC has expressed disappointment with the report after questioning the impartiality of Musia’s report, saying Mosia previously worked with members of the current Unisa executive committee.
Rebuttal:
Independent assessor Prof Themba Mosia was a chairperson of the Council of Higher Education, and he knew many people in the higher education sector. The view that he might have been biased during the investigation is misplaced for the following reasons:
• The independent assessor recommended putting Unisa under full administration, where council and executives are relieved of their duties, including the alleged executives with whom he worked; therefore, bias does not arise.
• The independent assessor highlighted serious challenges in the registrar’s portfolio and other departments, and his recommendations were not limited to the vice-chancellor but included relieving the entire executive of their duties; therefore, bias does not arise.
2. The vice-chancellor claims and/ or indicates that Unisa has A+-rated professors and that academic projects are running smoothly at Unisa.
Rebuttal:
• Unisa has more than 200 academics who did not conduct research or produce articles for a period longer than three years.
• The failure rate at Unisa contradicts the vice-chancellor’s assertion: more than 70 000 students failed their first module in 2022-2023.
• MyUnisa and MyModdle are always down (offline), affecting academic projects. Recently, MyUnisa was offline for days, and that does not reflect ICT systems that are functioning optimally.
• The Unisa application process contradicts the vice-chancellor; Unisa did not reach its enrolment plan for two consecutive semesters due to the ICT Infrastructure and system that can serve the entire student body of Unisa
• The independent assessor provided proof of the nightmare experienced by Unisa students during the registration period. The report of the assessor shows the number of complaints by students through social media platforms and newspapers (Daily Maverick), Derby Show, Twitter, and Facebook
3. The vice-chancellor denies the fact that a culture of bullying, victimisation, and intimidation exists at Unisa.
Rebuttal:
More than 150 000 assignments were not marked in 2022, and the number increased to 350 000 in 2023. The claim by the vice-chancellor that the Unisa system is in place is misleading.
Unisa never had a problem with 350 000 assignments not marked per semester for two consecutive years; this is the new norm.
5. The VC acknowledges that assignments were not marked and that Unisa dismissed the registrar, Prof Mothatha, for the incident.
Rebuttal:
The suspension of Prof Mothatha and summary dismissal do not talk to under-performance; they talk to alleged breaches of policies that were not disclosed, and the VC used the dismissal of Mothatha to escape accountability. Unmarked assignments are a result of a shortage of markers and a shortage of academic staff, including interference with academic work by the vice-chancellor.
The dismissal of Prof Mothatha has nothing to do with 350 000 unmarked assignments, but it has to do with management without a plan to address challenges and steer the ship in the correct direction.
6. VC claims that Unisa students write physical exams in the examination centre.
Rebuttal:
• Unisa examinations are online from the first level to the third level; the claim that Unisa has physical examinations is a pure lie and aimed at misleading the public to hide the challenges of Unisa examination proctoring tools.
• Common sense dictates that students cannot write physical examinations using proctoring tools such as IRIS and the Invigilation app.
• The Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) cited the same problem about the unreliability of the Unisa Examination online system, which led to the withdrawal of CTA students by AGSA.
• Unisa closed all examination centres and terminated contracts with invigilators; therefore, the claim by the vice-chancellor is aimed at misleading the public into believing that students have the option to choose between an online exam and a physical examination.
• Unisa has a serious number of cases of plagiarism, more than 12 000. In most cases, the failure of the Unisa ICT system and proctoring Tools is the cause. If Unisa is unable to deal with such cases, the number will increase because of its lack of appetite to eradicate the problem.
7. The vice-chancellor claims that she saved R15 billion.
Rebuttal:
The vice-chancellor claims that she saved R15 billion; that information is aimed at misleading the public. Unisa, in 2020 and 2021 did not spend because of Covid-19; the savings are the result of underspending due to the following:
• Changes from venue-based examinations to online.
• Salaries of invigilators and chief invigilators.
• Hiring of venues across the country for examinations.
• Hiring of chairs for examinations.
• Cost of courier for delivery of examination scripts and collection of scripts.
• Cost of printing materials.
• Lower consumption of electricity and water.
• Bill of printer usage by staff and students.
• Additional security personnel costs for venue-based examinations.
• Diesel and petrol for trucks that collected printing materials.
• Overtime for examination administrators, registration, etc.
• Giving staff members’ salaries that are below the CPI 2021-2022.
• More than 1 000 vacant positions for over four years.
8. False allegations pertaining to the renovations at Cloghoreen, the official residence of the principal and vice-chancellor of Unisa.
The vice-chancellor claims that renovation started during the tenure of Professor Mandla Makhanya, a misleading statement in the media.
Rebuttal:
The Cloghereen report and emails from University Estate contradict the VC’s assertion that she did not interfere with supply chain management processes; the VC made demands on the type of furniture from SHF and other brands.
The Unisa statement of January 4, 2023, contradicts the vice-chancellor: renovations started upon the arrival of the vice-chancellor, the vice-chancellor misled the public to escape accountability, and the trail of emails proves that the vice-chancellor demanded special furniture from abroad, which led to the delay in finishing the renovation project.
9. Vice-chancellor’s denial of maladministration and circumvention of Supply Chain Management Policy (SCM) policies.
The vice-chancellor claims that the report of the Independent Assessor reduced her to a curtain, misleading the public on Newzroom Afrika.
Rebuttal:
• The vice-chancellor paid her staff back pay of R2.9 without HR processing.
• The vice-chancellor exceeded the budget of a vehicle by more than 80% by purchasing a car for R2 million instead of R1.2 million.
• The vice-chancellor paid the salary adjustment without an approved budget and without approval from the Council, at a cost of R178 million.
• Renovation escalation from R1 million to R3 million because of interference with SCM
• Procurement of laptops without approval from Council
• R15 million was paid to service providers in ICT for services not rendered and goods that were never delivered.
• The audit firm Ernst and Young terminated its services at Unisa because it did not want to associate itself with Unisa because of serious financial malpractices, corruption, etc.
The report finds that the vice-chancellor:
• Leadership style, which is not good for a university as big as Unisa.
• Financial misconduct.
• Violations of procurement processes, non-compliance with Delegation of decision-making authority, taking decisions of the Council.
• Bullying and intimidation of staff and executives.
• Vice-chancellor, who accountable to herself.
• Vice-chancellor who disregards investigations commissioned by Council like Bowman’s Investigation.
• Vice-chancellor who misrepresents facts to escape accountability.
10. Negatives and Positives.
Rebuttal:
The vice-chancellor uses rankings as a defence where there are challenges; she blames subordinates.
Where Unisa did good was with her; where Unisa failed was with others.
The Star