Professor Themba Mthembu the vice-chancellor and principal of Durban University of Technology.
TENDERS, infighting and a dodgy forensic report have been blamed for the turmoil at Durban University of Technology resulting in the suspension of its vice-chancellor (VC) and a slew of legal challenges over the past few weeks.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday Tribune the institution’s VC and Principal Professor Thandwa Mthembu said his determination to run a clean administration and commitment to employment equity meant that he had to be surrounded by bodyguards 24 hours a day.
He said the need for security started a few years ago when he stopped the “nefarious (tender) activities” around student accommodation and was told that he had ”touched the wrong person” who could make him disappear.
“I was given certain mandates about how the institution needs to be transformed and I’ve been on that trajectory ever since and we’ve been able to change quite a number of things. A number of stakeholders, whether internal or external, have not been too happy about the changes that have taken place,” said Mthembu.
Central to these issues is a multi-billion rand construction project known as DUT355 which involves the erection of a new engineering building and lecture halls at its Indumiso Campus in Pietermaritzburg and construction of a student centre, multi-purpose halls and a parking garage at the Steve Biko Campus in Durban.
“For example, I found a situation where certain groups of business people used to have almost total control as service providers to the university. We had to open that space up for many others around the country, and those people who, in my view, had captured DUT for many years before my arrival, would not possibly be happy that they couldn't continue with that captured state of DUT.”
Disgruntled staff members told Sunday Tribune that the cost of the DUT355 project ran into billions of rands and the “opportunity for corruption was very high.”
They also alleged that Mthembu was “connected” to the building contractors and other DUT service providers.
The first public sign of tension in the university’s top echelons came at the beginning of September when its executive management released a statement saying that over the past 18 months “rumour, innuendo and slander” was rife about Mthembu’s “imminent” suspension as a result of DUT355.
The executive management said it only learnt late in 2022 that project DUT355 would not be completed on time and within budget.
Last year it approached the institution’s finance committee for additional funds. The request was approved by DUT’s Council but it requested a forensic investigation into the ongoing delays.
“Something very unfortunate and scandalous happened with the procurement process leading to the appointment of the audit firm which conducted the forensic investigation.
While the procurement process started in accordance with DUT’s procurement policy and procedures, it, sadly, ended in their transgression,” the executive management said.
It claimed that the bid adjudication committee’s recommendation for the forensic investigation was “eerily” rejected by a task team which preferred an audit firm “which had been legitimately” disqualified.
This company had submitted its proposal about 9 1⁄2 hours after the deadline and “with the highest cost nogal”.
According to the executive management the forensic investigation which started last June wreaked havoc. “...its disrespectful, unfair, unprofessional and unaccountable conduct during the forensic investigation is too ghastly to recall.”
It said that the audit firm investigating DUT355’s delays and cost overruns, could, itself, not complete the investigation on time and at what was already the highest cost.
The executive management stated that three legal opinions declared that the forensic report which recommended that the VC should be suspended and disciplined were “irrational, unjustifiable and illegal.”
However, according to Mthembu external and internal members of DUT’s council were at odds with the external members pushing for his suspension. That letter of suspension arrived on September 5.
However, in its response to Sunday Tribune, the executive management said that Mthembu’s “purported suspension” was not a decision of Council but by “rogue elements” amongst external members of Council, led by members of convocation and a few others.
“They first excluded internal members of Council, ejected the Chair of Council and then usurped the authority of Council, which consists of 60% external and 40% internal members. Even though at face value external members are a majority, as we went to court on September 17 and 18, only about 7 of the 19 Council members supported the decision to suspend Professor Thandwa Mthembu.”
The executive management said that it then launched an urgent High Court application, on the basis that the audit firm’s appointment was irregular and at the adoption of its forensic report, despite legal opinions advising otherwise, had to be tested in court.
It said a counter-application was made at the Labour Court which sought to enforce the purported suspension since Mthembu had continued doing his job.
“The September 17 hearing at the Labour Court was a damp squib as the applicant’s attorney and legal team was nowhere to be seen. In fact, they had hurriedly withdrawn the matter on the morning of the hearing.”
The executive management said that the High Court order granted to them last week interdicted the forensic report and the decisions and their implementation.
It said that Part B of the High Court application which entailed the review of the audit company’s appointment and its report would be heard in January 2025.
“In short, DUT has had some external members of Council running amok, usurping the authority of Council in an attempt to fire the VC. Some of those leading this faction, especially those from Convocation/alumni, have over the years demanded ‘business opportunities’, a euphemism for tenders, demanded certain appointments of their comrades, and so forth.”
The executive management added that if Mthembu and his team were forced to go, then the “gates would then be open for what South Africans know best – kidnap, capture and plunder.”
Mthembu said in his view, it was “the Council, internal fighting and disagreement within council that is really behind all of this”.
Meanwhile, the National Education, Health and Allied Workers’ Union (Nehawu) has called for the immediate removal of Mthembu who it called an “autocratic and rogue” vice-chancellor.
The union’s provincial secretary Ayanda Zulu said they had written numerous letters to the Chairperson of DUT’s to raise their concerns about the state of the University, the council’s inability to provide oversight and supervision because of its “cosy” relationship with the VC.
“The union has witnessed maladministration and instability at the university under his leadership. We have witnessed the continuous abuse of power and total disregard to governance. We have witnessed union bashing and victimisation of our shop-stewards which have led to mass dismissals of our shop-stewards and members”
Zulu said that DUT had spent millions trying to defend these unfair dismissals after Nehawu won all these cases at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). He said DUT also wanted to retrench at least 152 workers without following the law. He said the VC was guilty of bullying and racism and responsible for an exodus of experienced staff under the pretext of BEE.
Mthembu told Sunday Tribune that the issue was “really between black Africans and Indians”. “Indian people at DUT are over-represented three times. They constitute 25% of our staff complement.” Mthembu said they were in very senior positions while black Africans only made up 62% of the staff complement and were mostly in lower level positions.