Follow-up meeting with VUT on response to Committee questions

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks

The Chairperson said the Committee would be receiving a briefing from the leadership of the Vaal University of Technology (VUT) on issues that had not been adequately responded to in the previous engagement. After he went through the presentation yesterday, he had been highly disappointed because he was expecting the follow-up document to have the kind of detail that had been requested. The presentation he perused had lacked the details that had been raised by the whistle-blower and the Committee.

He was wondering whether the VUT had submitted a narrative report. The report had been submitted, but he had not received it. He hoped that all the issues were addressed in the narrative report.

When he was going through the presentation; there was an issue raised regarding the appointment of two advisors. One involved Mr Andile Nongogo, and he expected the presentation would address the allegations against him at Services Sector Education and Training Authority (SSETA). The other involved the former Vice Chancellor from the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT).

He was also uncomfortable with the fact that there were no adequate details provided in the presentation.

There were multiple issues raised by the whistle-blower regarding the laptop and security tender; and the appointment of the law firm, but there was no specific response on this other than denial. This made Members uncomfortable, because all legal cases of the university were dealt with or handled by that law firm, but no specific detail had been provided in response to the allegations made. Members needed to know the facts of this matter and useful information, such the number of cases that the university had and the number of cases that the law firm was handling on behalf of the university. This should be accompanied by how the procurement process was conducted, and all the processes followed.

Members had been dealing with general denials that were not helping them, only to find out that down the line those allegations were true.

Mr W Letsie (ANC) said that the narrative report was exactly the same as the PowerPoint presentation, but in Word form. He expressed his disappointment with this.

The Chairperson suggested that the Administrator make a submission.

Altercation with VUT Administrator

Prof Ihron Rensburg, VUT Administrator, said that he was deeply concerned that this was turning into an inquiry, and about the role of oversight. It seemed the accountability to the Department and the Minister was now blurring. He was deeply concerned that allegations that had been submitted by the whistle-blower were being dealt in this manner by the Committee, and the constant shift in the questions it was asking. If information was confidential, that information could not be provided.

He was keen to have a sense of the ground rules of this engagement.

The Chairperson asked what the Administrator thought Parliament’s job was, and whether he was beyond accountability in Parliament. Matters had been brought to the Committee’s attention, and it had granted the Administrator the opportunity to go back and provide it with the details that were not provided in the previous engagement. The Administrator was basically telling Members what questions they should or not ask.

The Administrator said that he had submitted the presentation, with the responses, to the Members. This was an act of affirmation of his respect to the Committee. Some of the information was confidential, and what had been provided in the presentation was what the team could provide.

Mr Letsie said the Administrator had implied in his presentation that Parliament was wasting everyone’s time. He reminded Prof Rensburg about what the Constitution said about Parliament’s role, specifically its oversight role.

Prof Rensburg had implied nothing short of telling Members that they were wasting their time. They could not allow him to tell them how they could or could not do their job. This was utterly unacceptable, and anyone from the Department who was present needed to record this.

Dr S Thembekwayo (EFF) agreed with Mr Letsie, and added that Prof Rensburg’s attitude was coming across in a disrespectful manner to the Chairperson of the Committee.

Ms J Mananiso (ANC) said that this was the last time a person invited to Parliament would come and ridicule and undermine the role of this Committee and Parliament. He needed to note that what the Committee was doing was within its rights, as backed up by the Constitution. The Committee could not accept that when it required serious information that implicated him…  [connection lost]

Mr S Ngcobo (IFP) said that the Administrator was telling Members that they were now overreaching by referring to this as an inquiry. He was fully aware of all the issues happening at that institution. Why did he not list all the things that he could not branch into, so that Members……  [connection lost]

He agreed with the sentiment that Prof Rensburg was displaying a very discomforting arrogance.

Ms D Sibiya (ANC) lamented that this was a difficult matter. The Administrator could not come here and tell Members only now that he could not respond to some of the issues.

The Chairperson emphasised that Prof Rensburg was out of line. Both the Minister and the Department understood that they were accountable to Parliament. When Members asked them questions, responses were provided. The Minister’s advisors were present today, and this matter would be elevated to the Minister. He was basically giving the Committee the middle finger.

Prof Rensburg was leading a public officer and a public institution. It was public money -- taxpayers’ money -- and they were here to hold him accountable for the funds that Parliament appropriated to him. They were not asking for details of confidential information. Instead, they had made it clear that information had been brought to the Committee, and it was its responsibility to ensure that it followed up on them and established whether they were of substance or not.

He had been appointed as the Administrator precisely because the institution was collapsing, and his job was to restore public confidence in that institution. The Committee was here to make sure that there was accountability and oversight. It would hold him accountable and would engage with him, and he would respond. If he was not happy with that, he could tender his resignation and go to the private sector.

They were appealing to him to refrain from coming before this Committee with a condescending attitude. He should read the rules of Parliament – they were supposed to ask questions, and there was nothing that was stopping this Committee from turning this into an inquiry. Prof Rensburg had just wiped away all the respect that Members had for him.

Administrator’s response to Committee’s follow-up questions

Prof Rensburg made a presentation to Members, which was the VUT’s response to the specific questions that they had raised. In the responses, he touched on:

• The security tender;
• Student laptops, and how the bidding was conducted;
• A report on academia;
• Members of the Administrator’s task team and the appointment of Mohamed Attorneys;
• The suspended students’ representative council (SRC) members;
• The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) funding and allowances to students;
• Progress on the implementation of the Sizwe Ntsaluba Gobodo (SNG) Forensic Report; and
• Consequence management implemented against employees responsible for the late submission of student registration data to NSFAS, and those implicated in the forensic report.

(For specific and detailed responses as outlined in the presentation, please refer to document)

Discussion

The Chairperson felt that he had not received an adequate response on the student accommodation and whether the validity period had expired or not, as well as whether the letter was submitted to the landlord……  [connection lost]

Mr Rajen Moodley, Director: Control Systems Management, VUT, said that the bid was awarded on 22 March 2019, and the bid letter had then been submitted to the seller to inform them that he had been successful. However, he was uncertain about the validity period -- whether it had expired or not -- but this information could be provided to the Committee.

The Chairperson said that the Administrator had denied any allegations relating to the appointment of the law firm. He had said a process had been followed, but had not elaborated on that process. He asked for the details of the tender process.

Prof Rensburg apologised for the lack of those details, and asked to be allowed to provide them in the follow-up.

The Chairperson also suggested that in the follow-up, the Administrator should indicate how many cases of the institution were being handled by Mohammed Attorneys.

There was an SNG forensic investigation report, and that of the Assessors. There were about 35 employees who were implicated in those investigation reports. The Committee had received information about only seven of the employees who were implicated. Members had requested full details of the employees who were implicated in both reports, and how far the implementation of the recommendations in those reports pertaining to the implicated employees was.

Prof Rensburg said that were nine employees implicated in the SNG report, and only seven that had been included in the presentation because two of the employees had resigned. He proposed that the Committee be presented with a full schedule from both reports.

The Chairperson said that the report of the assessor had highlighted the need for stakeholder engagement and the establishment of a stakeholder forum where these stakeholders would participate, but this had been missing in the report submitted today. The Committee would also appreciate an indication on how far the process to establish that platform was. This had not been mentioned.

Prof Rensburg said that various forums had been established, which included a range of public forums prior to the commencement of the national lockdown. In addition, regular engagements were held with labour organisations. This included the interim SRC, and the elections which would be held next year.

For the institutional forum, the team had just completed a detailed review of the institutional statute, as advised by the assessors. The process of engaging labour and the Senate was under way, as well as engagement with the student leaders. Hopefully, this would be taken to the Department in the next two weeks and discussed with the Minister, and subsequently with the Committee.

The Chairperson sought clarity on what the whistle-blower said regarding Mr Andile Nongogo, who had been employed by SSETA. He had been dismissed by SSETA following allegations of wrongdoing and irregularities. There was no indication on whether follow-up had been done with SSETA to ascertain whether there were any outstanding issues implicating him. Why was a background check not done, even though the allegations had surfaced to the Administrator?

Prof Rensburg said that as far as he was aware, the allegations were only in the media, but he would contact the Services Seta to obtain that information. Once received, it would be provided to the Committee.

The Chairperson clarified that the response had to restore confidence regarding the allegations that had been raised. Members were raising these issues so that they could be cleared. These were public institutions, and the public’s trust must be restored.

Dr Thembekwayo asked whether Members could receive information that he had been hired on the basis of experience, implying that qualifications were not considered. If there was an advert relating to that position, Members need to be provided with it to see whether qualifications were a prerequisite for the position.

She said Members needed the transcripts that would be given to the lawyers of the students, in order to judge the concurrence and the reasons behind their suspension.

There were about 178 students who had not received NSFAS payments, and Members had previously been told that these payments would be made in two weeks. They needed to know whether this had been done or not, or if it would be possible.

Was there no way that all the missing and required information that had obliterated the payment of allowances could be retrieved?

Members had been told that officials from the Department had been invited to be members of the bid adjudication committee. Which officials had been part of that committee?

Mr Letsie asked whether a security service provider had been appointed for that tender. If so, who had been appointed, and when? On the laptop tender, Members had been told that every supplier that had applied could not guarantee delivery of the required quantity at the time. When the institution went back to the drawing board and decided on a way forward; how long did the delivery take for the 3 500 laptops to be delivered?

When the specifications were reviewed, what kind of specifications were reviewed? The whistle-blower alleged that those laptops were not really up to standard.

On the student’s appeals, the institution claimed that it had concluded the process on 21 July 2020. When were these students charged, because in February, when the Committee went on an oversight visit, the SRC president and secretary general were suspended? The Committee needed to be informed on what the institutions’ policy was on the suspension procedure for students.

How much was NSFAS paying students for student allowances per month? Did the amount paid to different universities differ, or was it the same? How much was VUT in turn disbursing to students from the NSFAS allowances?

On the students not being paid, students had written to them as Members, complaining about their allowances. He had forwarded these complaints to the Administrator to look into them. The In response, the Administrator had said that students should forward their complaints to the SRC. However, the institution did not have an SRC.

Ms N Mkhatshwa (ANC) commented on the SRC matter at VUT, and how it tied in with the work of the Members of Parliament (MPs). They were in Parliament to represent the issues that South Africans experienced on the ground in public institutions. If students brought up matters, it was incumbent on MPs to follow up on them. If the SRC election was held now, and another election was held in April, did this mean the SRC that got elected in October would have only a short term in office?

She said it was not the first time that Members had experienced an individual coming before the Committee and disrespecting the process.

She was livid about the issues involving NSFAS, because there was no proper plan of action. The year was about to end, and examinations were looming. Timeframes about when this should be resolved had been clearly stipulated. The fact was, this should not be happening. It was extremely frustrating, and could affect these students.

When was this going to be resolved, and how far was the process to resolve it? The excuses about the lack of, or incorrect, banking details were just not viable anymore.

She urged everyone to start taking their jobs seriously, and as diligently and responsibly as possible.

VUT’s response

Prof Rensburg indicated that some of the matters raised by Members overlapped with confidentiality concerns. However, as indicated, he would submit in detail all the other information that he had promised to provide to the Committee to further clarify any outstanding issues.

Prof Margaret Linington, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (DVC): Teaching, Learning and Student Support Services, VUT, clarified the SRC matter, and said that the establishment of the interim SRC had not been rushed. A call had been made to recognised student bodies to constitute an interim SRC, but the current constitution had not allowed for the establishment of an interim SRC in the same way an SRC was constituted, as a result of Covid-19.

Around May or June, the administration had met and held a discussion on the establishment of the interim SRC, and out of this discussion a consensus had been reached. That consensus was clear on the fact that each member of the interim SRC would come from one recognised student organisation. The condition was that the nominated student must be of good standing academically, and of good judicial conduct. This was agreed to, and all nominations were submitted.

The Chairperson interjected, and asked what Prof Linington meant by “good judicial conduct.”

Prof Linington said it meant that the student did not have any on-going cases against them within the institution. This had been agreed to by all the structures early September. The administration had then had a meeting to constitute the interim SRC, and an independent person was invited to oversee the process. The structures had also requested that the interim SRC be constituted for a year but this had then been changed to a maximum of six months, after which -- once an evaluation had been made -- a determination on the way forward would be decided on.

The mandate of the interim SRC was to fix the constitution of the SRC pertaining to the electoral code, which was where the problems lay. As soon as this task was completed, elections would be held. It was hoped that this would be finalised at the latest by February 2021, ahead of the elections. The only concern was that the academic year would ends in February, and start again in March. The logistics would be ironed out with the interim SRC.

The gender and demographics of the SRC was of concern to her. She had asked previously about this, and been told that the constitution of the interim SRC had been done by the structures. The administration had not had much say on how it should be put together.

She conveyed condolences to the families of students that had passed away. The matter was still under investigation, and anything that had come up so far had been based on speculation. Once the investigations had been concluded, the university would be aware of the cause of death, which would then be officially conveyed.

Prof Rensburg assured Members that Mr Andile Nongogo was not in the employ of the university, and this would be the case for the specific reasons that had been raised. However, he was a member of the task team.

Detail on the academia matters would be provided in a seven-day window period.

Prof Riana van der Bank, Acting DVC: Research, Innovation, Commercialisation and Internationalisation, VUT, responded to the security tender issue. She told Members that the tender had been awarded through the BAC, and had subsequently been referred to the Management Committee (ManCom), which had approved the award for the specified bidder. It was awarded to the bidder around October, and ManCom had approved the award then. The process to sign the contract and finalise the service agreement was still under way. She was uncertain whether the contract, or the service agreement, was already signed.

Ms Nontando Mgobo, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), VUT, said the security tender had been awarded on 7 October 2020.  

Prof Rensburg said that the date had been established, and the potential service provider would be engaged to finalise the service level agreement. Once these processes had been concluded, the institution would provide this information to the Committee.

The Chairperson said that Members understood how the processes worked. The question that had been asked was when the bid was awarded, and who had been awarded the contract. Members believed that once this had been concluded, the detailed level of information could be provided.

Prof Rensburg said that all other questions that were not answered today would be responded to in writing within seven days.

The Chairperson stressed that it was concerning Members greatly that there were a number of students who had still not received their allowances.

SRC’s input

Mr Kevin Mawila, Students’ Representative Council, VUT, referred to a number of issues, such as the lack of WiFi connection on campus and in student residences, and asserted that the number of students who had still not received their allowances had been manipulated and did not reflect the true number of the affected students. This problem was created by the university’s student aid office, because it created an impression that students were funded when in actual fact they were not. There was a lack of a clear and actual plan on how this matter would be addressed. Once the funding was pulled from those students, what were they expected to do now?

On student governance and the SRC, he disagreed with Prof Linington, and said that the university had hijacked the process and it had not been conducted by an independent body. The interim SRC candidates did not even meet the academic requirements mentioned by Prof Linington. He also alleged that some of the candidates were not students of the institution.

The SNG report had not yet been made public. The report needed to be made public.

There had been contracts with service providers two years ago to accommodate students, but the university had not paid some of them, and suddenly it was claimed some of those service providers did not meet the required specifications. Due to the lack of payments, the service providers had cut essential services for students, such as Wifi, hot water and maintenance. There had to be a specific response as to why the university was not paying the service providers, because this affected the students.

VUT’s response

Prof Rensburg said all members of the interim SRC qualified in terms of the criteria indicated by Prof Linington earlier. The administration was now close to constituting the SRC.

The arrangement with service providers for student accommodation was to distribute the NSFAS allowance, spread over the period leading up to February. This had been communicated to the service providers. At the moment, the university paid 100% for the occupation, and nothing for beds that were not occupied. Instead of making the payment period over 12 months, it was made over 12 plus two months. It was unfortunate, because some service providers were playing hard ball with the university. There would be a meeting the following day with those student residence owners to address the problems that Mr Mawila had raised.

What Mr Mawila had said was in dispute, particularly regarding the matter of the student aid office. The university had been paying for those students, but unfortunately in 2020 the university had been unable to do so. However, these matters were being resolved.

In the new SRC, there were five females and 10 males.

The students who had passed away had been privately funded – they were not funded by the university or by NSFAS.

Ms Nthuseng Mphahlele, Chief Operating Officer, NSFAS, said they had shared the list of the funded students to VUT, and this information would be submitted with the pack that would be coming to the Committee.

The NSFAS allowance covered meals and personal care (R2 900), transport and accommodation, but these were different at an institutional level.

The allowances were standardised across different universities. Each student got a R5200 learning material allowance, which was paid to the institution. If the student was in a residence that belonged to the institution, and it was a catered residence, the food component of the living allowance was also paid directly to the institution. The student would then receive a R290 personal care allowance, which amounted to R2 900 per year. The transport allowance was also standardised at an amount of R7 500. This was determined at the institutional level, based on the circumstances that the student would have submitted.

Prof Rensburg apologised for any aspersions that may have come across in the earlier engagement, and thanked the Members for the interaction.

The Chairperson thanked the Administrator and the team. He reiterated that the Committee was mandated to conduct oversight and that was what it would do. However, Members accepted the apology regarding the earlier interactions.

The Committee expects the promised responses within the said window period, and based on those responses, the Committee would determine whether VUT would be invited again or not. If the responses were satisfactory, there might be no need to call the Administrator again. This institution had been placed under administration for the third time, and the Committee was hoping that this would be the last time.

The Committee intended to create a platform where all these matters crippling the technical and vocational education and training (TVET) colleges and institutions were discussed, and at the centre of that discussion would be the institutional autonomy of universities. The Committee did not want these public institutions to be abused. This colloquium would be convened before December, for various stakeholders to come and have a conversation with Parliament around this matter. Their experience was that these institutions got abused.

Oversight, in its very nature, was an irritating exercise and it was not personal. Members were doing the work they had been sworn in for. He was happy that the meeting had been concluded in such a manner, given how it had commenced.

The meeting was adjourned.