Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Cape University of Technology v Mail & Guardian

, ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint number: PCSA 000658

Author: Edwin Naidu

Headline: Universities South Africa sounds alarm on rising campus governance risks

Publication Date: 11 May 2026

Date lodged: 2 June 2026

Link to story: https://www.google.com/search?q=Universities+South+Africa+sounds+alarm+on+rising+campus+governance+risks

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on correspondence by Dr Garth van Gensen, Director of Marketing and Communications at the Cape University of Technology (CPUT), who complains on behalf of the university, and by Japhet Ncube, Editor-in-Chief of the M&G.
  2. The article is published both in print and online.

Disclaimer

  1. In its rejoinder, CPUT mentions a possible case of plagiarism. I have disregarded that, as it was not part of the complaint – and therefore the newspaper did not have an opportunity to defend itself.

The article

  1. The article says that higher education leaders describe governance problems at South African universities as systemic and not confined to isolated incidents. Universities South Africa (USAf), representing all 26 public universities in the country, says restoring integrity and safeguarding universities from political and commercial interference are priorities.
  2. A USAf report reportedly warns that the extent of “institutional capture” has shocked higher education leaders.
  3. The story then focuses on the situation at various universities. The section on CPUT reads as follows:

a. “The CPUT is under strain from labour disputes, internal factionalism and contested leadership authority. Prolonged conflicts between management and staff unions about working conditions and disciplinary processes have contributed to institutional instability.

b. “Accusations of authoritarian management are met with counterclaims of disruptive union behaviour. Campus disruptions linked to student accommodation, security contracts and procurement have further intensified tension.

c. “Council divisions over disciplinary processes and executive accountability reflect deeper mistrust between management and labour, compounded by procurement-related pressures and inconsistent conflict-resolution mechanisms.”

The complaint

  1. CPUT complains that the article alleged, with no context provided, that it had:

a. been under strain from labour disputes;

b. contested leadership authority issues;

c. suffered institutional instability;

d. an authoritarian management; and

e. procurement related pressures.

8.Van Gensen says that CPUT’s spokesperson, Lauren Kansley, did engage directly with Naidu telephonically on the day of publication, and he agreed that the story gave no context for the above, blaming space constraints.

9. He submits that the M&G is in breach of Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.7 (and 1.8, which he does not mention) of the Press Code, mainly because the article presents a narrative of the institution “which is summarisation, with no context and no attempt was made to contact CPUT prior to publishing”.

10. He argues that:

a. all unions at CPUT signed and wholeheartedly agreed to the 2026 wage increase which was announced in March. This compared to UCT where operations shut down in February 2026 because of wage disputes;

b. CPUT’s Vice-Chancellor is in his second term and enjoys the support of staff and students;

c. CPUT does have instability related to residence issues, like most universities in South Africa. However, “We also have the largest footprint of university residence beds in South Africa which shows that we are meaningfully tackling the issue”;

d. CPUT’s audits are consistently unqualified. “Accusations of procurement irregularities are unsubstantiated”, he submits; and

e. The lingering issue with the SA Dental Technicians Council (SADTC) is a long-standing dispute with it and involves three universities. It is currently in court for arbitration. The journalist “did not reference this issue in his article”.

      11. Van Gensen said CPUT is not amenable to a suggestion by Naidu that he be given an exclusive interview with the Vice-Chancellor                       “based on the mischaracterisation of the university in this piece”.

Relief sought

  1. CPUT asks for a public apology and for the removal of the references to it in the online article.

Reply to the complaint

In general

  1. Ncube emphasises that the article was not an investigation into CPUT, nor did it purport to make findings about the institution – rather, “it was a sector-wide governance story, reflecting broad concerns publicly raised by … USAf, labour representatives, and governance experts about rising risks across the higher education system”.
  2. He adds that CPUT was referenced only in that context, “and only where issues had already been placed in the public domain through official processes, regulatory actions, or public reporting”.

No context

  1. Ncube says that CPUT was mentioned alongside several universities because:

a. USAf explicitly warned of serious systemic governance strain across the sector;

b. Multiple institutions, including CPUT, have experienced governance-related events in the past 12 months that are publicly documented, including the public occurrence in April 2026, when CPUT students marched to Parliament and formally requested the Portfolio Committee to summon CPUT and others over the Dental Technology crisis;

c. Dental Technology students have been unable to study properly since June 2025 due to unresolved accreditation and facility compliance issues between CPUT and SADTC; and

d. NSFAS funding for many affected students was cancelled because the university could not provide marks or progress. After three years of deliberation, the year began with students in limbo. Some students previously suspended during protests still have no clarity on disciplinary charges or hearing dates.

16. The editor concludes: “The context was therefore the national governance environment, not internal CPUT dynamics alone, and the article did not go into detail, as other institutions were also mentioned.”

No right of reply

  1. Ncube says the allegations made in the article did not require a right of reply as it merely summarised publicly available information, including the:

a. SADTC’s formal suspension of CPUT’s Dental Technology programme and the regulator’s published reasons;

b. shutdowns and protests at the Bellville campus, which CPUT itself publicly confirmed;

c. ongoing dispute between CPUT and the SADTC;

d. infrastructure and compliance issues raised in official correspondence between the regulator and the university; and

e. labour tensions reported by unions and acknowledged in previous CPUT statements.

On specific points raised by CPUT

Labour relations

  1. Ncube says the article did not state that CPUT was in a wage dispute. Rather, it referenced labour strain – which is accurate, given the:

a. shutdowns at Bellville in 2025; and

b. public statements by student and labour groups regarding working conditions and infrastructure.

19. “These events are part of the public record,” he adds.

Leadership authority

  1. The M&G says the reference to contested authority was based on the:

a. SADTC’s formal rejection of CPUT’s graduation processes for Dental Technology students;

b. regulator’s insistence on joint assessment panels, which CPUT had declined; and

c. resulting governance standoff, which has affected students and programme accreditation.

21. “This is a governance matter, not a comment on the Vice-Chancellor’s popularity or Council’s support,” the newspaper argues.

Institutional instability

  1. Ncube says the article referred to sector-wide instability, including at CPUT, based on:

a. repeated campus shutdowns;

b. the suspension of an academic programme by a statutory regulator; and

c. students who were unable to graduate or register professionally.

23. “These are objective indicators of instability,” he opines.

Procurement pressures

  1. The editor denies that the article alleged procurement irregularities at CPUT – instead, it referenced sector-wide procurement pressures, which USAf itself highlighted. “CPUT was mentioned only as part of the broader national picture,” he points out.

Dental Technology

  1. Ncube remarks that this matter is not “evidence of malfeasance” – rather, it was cited as a regulatory governance dispute, “which is factually correct”. He says that the SADTC’s actions, CPUT’s responses, and the court process are all in the public domain.

Exclusive interview

  1. The editor explains that this was offered in good faith as a constructive way to provide CPUT with space to contextualise its governance environment and to highlight its successes – it was not proposed as a condition or remedy. “If CPUT wishes to provide additional context or highlight governance improvements, we are open to publishing a follow-up piece or an op-ed from the Vice-Chancellor or Council Chair,” he offers.

In closing

  1. Ncube concludes that the article did not allege wrongdoing by CPUT, nor did it present unverified claims as fact. “It placed CPUT within a national governance discussion that USAf itself initiated,” he says.
  2. He adds that Kansley confirmed that Naidu’s report was accurate.
  3. In summary, the editor says that “over the past 12 months, CPUT has faced a major regulatory governance crisis due to the programme suspension, non-compliance findings, court action and students unable to graduate or register professionally. This continues with the court battle. There has been institutional instability with campus shutdowns, violent protests, arrests and students left without academic progress for nearly a year. Many have alleged administrative breakdowns, repeated meetings with no solutions, a lack of communication and students in disciplinary limbo. In fact, Mr Naidu feels he has not done his job well by covering this matter fully, considering the severe human impact, lost job opportunities, NSFAS funding cancellations, graduation delays, and mental health strain.”

Rejoinder

  1. Van Gensen argues that, whenever a subheading is used, as in this case, everything below that subheading is assumed to be directly linked to it. “This is common practice in journalism and academic writing.”
  2. He also refutes Naidu’s assertion that Kansley told him that his reporting was correct. In fact, in a WhatsApp exchange she categorically says that the reporting is “inaccurate”.
  3. He adds that the editor’s belief that the article “did not allege any wrongdoing by CPUT” simply cannot be true, given the serious nature of the allegations. “It is further our opinion that lifting copy from another publication warrants a right of reply.”
  4. Van Gensen concludes that the journalist has conflated student protest action with labour strain. “CPUT has had no labour related protest action. Claiming that campus shutdowns are linked to labour matters, security matters or procurement is baseless and unfounded,” he remarks.

Analysis

  1. The complaint is twofold:

a. Information about CPUT was published without the necessary context; and

b. CPUT was not given a right of reply.

Context

  1. The central question is whether the reference to CPUT in the article (consisting of three paragraphs) lacked context.
  2. The focus of the article is USAf’s concerns about “risks across the higher education system” – which provides the wider context. The references to the universities merely serve to illustrate the perceived wider problem.
  3. After I have googled recent news reports about CPUT, I am convinced that the issues addressed in the article were indeed in the public domain.
  4. Even if CPUT in the meantime has rectified or solved some of the problems, the newspaper still was justified to mention them as they were part of a bigger picture.
  5. I also note that CPUT does not complain about inaccuracies in the text.
  6. My recommendation would be that CPUT takes up the editor’s offer to publish a follow-up piece or an op-ed from the Vice-Chancellor or Council Chair.

Right of reply

  1. The Press Code does not require the media to seek comment if the information they are reporting on is already publicly available and well-documented.

Sub-heading

  1. Van Gensen’s argument that everything beneath a subheading “is assumed to be directly linked to it” does not hold water in this case. While it is generally true, in this instance the problems at every university were confined to that particular institution.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

Appeals procedure

The Complaints Procedure stipulates that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at khanyim@presscouncilsa.org.za

Johan Retief

Acting Press Ombud

13 July 2026

Related Posts