University of Pretoria governance, administration and related matters (with Ministry)

Video The Committee met in Parliament to interact with the University of Pretoria (UP) on governance, teaching and learning, financial management, administration, and related matters. The meeting brought together the institution's Council, management, the Student Representative Council (SRC), organised labour, and the Institutional Forum (IF), alongside the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) and the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS). At the outset, the Committee raised several concerns, including the University's failure to provide a structured breakdown of its staff complement that would allow the Committee to assess the qualifications and classification of international staff and to distinguish permanent from temporary appointments. The Committee also addressed the spread of false social media claims alleging that the University employed 80% foreign nationals, a figure inconsistent with the approximately 12 400 reported to the Committee by the Department. It noted that neither the University nor the Department had moved to debunk those claims. The Special Investigating Unit's (SIU) recent briefing to the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs was referenced, which had revealed close to 10 000 fraudulent student visas obtained using fake documentation from institutions. The Committee also noted that it had been invited to a SADC Protocol meeting on 27 April to account for South Africa's implementation of the commitment to reserve 5% of institutional spaces for SADC students, and would use that platform to assess whether the protocol remained relevant given capacity constraints. The Committee was unequivocal that it supported the internationalisation of institutions, but that its central question was whether the Employment Services Act, the Immigration Act, and the Internationalisation Policy Framework were being followed when foreign nationals were recruited and retained. The Committee warned that institutions and the Department could face serious consequences, including possible referral to the SIU, if legislative compliance were not demonstrated. The University presented on academic performance, student financial challenges, accommodation, gender-based violence response, and sustainability risks. African student enrolment in contact programmes grew from 54.8% in 2022 to 63% in 2026, enrolments from school quintiles 1 to 3 increased by 31% over the same period, and throughput rates across all programme types outperformed the national average. Student financial pressure was identified as the most urgent institutional challenge, with student debt having grown to R1.1 billion in 2025, an 18% year-on-year increase, partly attributable to delayed NSFAS payments. The University committed R231.5 million of its own funds to bursaries, supplemented by R2.3 billion from external sponsors, yet 565 graduates had their qualification certificates withheld due to outstanding debt. Sustainability risks were also noted, including declining third-stream income, ageing infrastructure, and escalating cybersecurity threats. The Council Chairperson outlined the University's new strategic vision, Thrive at UP, covering the period 2026 to 2038. The SRC presented on the lived experiences of students, identifying persistent structural misalignments between institutional systems and student financial realities. The core concern was the mismatch between the academic calendar and NSFAS appeal timelines, which left students without confirmed funding, accommodation, or allowances at the start of the year. Historical student debt was identified as an active barrier to registration, with existing debt relief mechanisms, including a requirement for 50% upfront payment before entering into an acknowledgement of debt, inaccessible to most financially vulnerable students. The SRC raised concerns about unlawful fees charged by private accommodation providers to NSFAS-funded students, warning that the private accommodation market was characterised by monopoly-like pricing behaviour and that any increase to the NSFAS cap would likely be absorbed through equivalent provider rate increases. The SRC called for accommodation reform, alignment of institutional timelines with NSFAS processes, meaningful debt relief, and a strengthened formal role in access decisions. The three recognised unions, the National Education, Health and Allied Workers' Union (NEHAWU), the Academic and Professional Staff Association (APSA), and Solidarity, jointly presented on working conditions, employment equity, governance transparency, and disciplinary consistency. Of 142 disciplinary cases recorded in 2025 and 2026, African staff accounted for over 95% of offences and sanctions, a racial concentration the unions flagged as a systemic concern requiring independent scrutiny. Labour raised concerns about exclusion from senior appointment processes since 2023, the continued use of long-term fixed-term contracts disproportionately affecting African professional staff, delays in the resolution of whistleblower matters involving senior officials, and the absence of a finalised remuneration policy since 2018. Unions called for annual parliamentary oversight engagements with higher education institutions and for the University to recommit to consistent policy application and transparent governance. The Forum noted that key findings from the 2021 Institutional Culture Survey, including language as a dividing force, barriers to open debate, and a submissive institutional culture, had not been adequately acted upon. It called for the development of a People and Culture Charter under the Thrive at UP 2038 strategy, greater transparency in executive appointments, and dispute resolution mechanisms genuinely oriented toward a non-discriminatory and intimidation-free environment. The Committee raised serious concern about delays in disbursing NSFAS living and accommodation allowances at the start of the academic year, with direct consequences including food insecurity, inability to access academic materials, and the vulnerability of students, particularly women, to exploitation. The Committee pressed NSFAS and the University on why administrative verification was applied after NSFAS had completed its own eligibility determination, and called for a pre-vetting process to enable immediate disbursement once funds arrived. NSFAS confirmed it had processed its March payment on 3 March and had met with the University's financial aid office following the Hatfield protest. The Committee interrogated the structural mismatch between the NSFAS accommodation cap and actual housing costs at urban campuses, questioning why the gap was being passed on to NSFAS-funded students as monthly top-ups, effectively generating debt for students who were supposed to be fully subsidised. The Committee challenged whether a commercial revenue model applied to university-owned residences was consistent with the University's stated commitment to serving lower-income students. NSFAS is committed to physically inspecting accommodation in and around Hatfield to assess whether provider rates are proportionate to quality. The Committee also noted allegations of corruption in the accreditation process, including reports that university officials had solicited payments of up to R300 000 from providers. It proposed a unified hybrid accreditation system under which NSFAS would independently verify all student accommodation before releasing payments. The Committee raised serious concern about the withholding of qualification certificates from 565 graduates with outstanding debt, noting that this practice prevented the very employment through which debt might be repaid, particularly in a context where automated recruitment systems disqualified candidates without verifiable qualifications before any human review. The Committee challenged the logic of continuing to withhold certificates where debt had been categorised as irrecoverable, and proposed a broader mass graduation exercise covering students going back 15 years, with debt recovery pursued through the SARS IRP5 system. The University confirmed approximately R30 million in student debt was formally written off in 2025, but could not confirm what proportion of the 565 withheld certificates corresponded to already written-off debt. The Committee also proposed that a portion of the University's application fee revenue, estimated at between R108 million and R120 million annually, be considered as a funding source for releasing withheld certificates. The Committee pressed the University on whistleblower protection arrangements and on concerns that cases involving senior officials were being resolved far more slowly than those involving lower-level employees. The University confirmed the use of an external service provider to receive complaints. It attributed the delay in one senior-level case to a staff member who had relocated, indicating resolution was expected by the end of March. Organised labour disputed this account, noting that equivalent investigations involving lower-level staff had been concluded rapidly by the same internal audit function, and that one case had required three separate requests before any action was taken. The Committee directed organised labour to submit detailed documentation, including submission dates, current status, and outcomes, for the institution to respond to formally. The Committee resolved to write to the University with a structured information request covering disaggregated staff data, fixed-term contract details with justifications for non-conversion, postdoctoral arrangements, and NRF funding administration. The Committee resolved to write to all SRCs at universities and Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges, directing them to report instances of accommodation providers demanding admin fees or deposits from NSFAS-funded students, with the Department required to act against identified providers. The Committee undertook to share the SIU's Home Affairs presentations on fraudulent study permits with the Ministry of Higher Education and Training. The University was directed to provide a detailed timeline of outstanding whistleblower cases, including submission dates, current status, and outcomes, for each case at both senior and lower levels. The People and Culture function was directed to conclude the remuneration policy review within five months, submit the finalised policy to Parliament, and engage organised labour throughout the process. The Committee indicated it would write to the University with specific questions on the sexual harassment policy and its application in a current matter involving a senior official, and on allegations of improper conduct in a recent appointment process, with the University required to respond in writing.