Stellenbosch University governance, administration, teaching and learning and related matters

Video The Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training met with the leadership of Stellenbosch University, comprising management, the Council, the Institutional Forum, and the Student Representative Council, to receive a comprehensive briefing on the university's governance, administration, financial health, teaching and learning, research and innovation, student accommodation, and related matters. The Department of Higher Education and Training and the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) were also in attendance. At the outset, the Committee raised two matters of immediate concern before the presentations commenced. It placed on record serious disquiet about reports that certain institutions had withheld NSFAS living allowances from students while misrepresenting to those students that NSFAS had not disbursed funds, noting that NSFAS had made an upfront payment of approximately R6.2 billion to institutions at the start of the year. It emphasised that students qualifying for government funding were from households with no capacity to absorb delays, and that leaving such students without allowances exposed them to severe vulnerability, including food insecurity and exploitation. The Committee also raised a longstanding concern about the Department's practice of retaining infrastructure grants and releasing them to institutions only in the final quarter of the financial year, which rendered meaningful planned expenditure impossible. It welcomed the NSFAS delegation and noted that the Committee routinely included NSFAS at institutional engagements so that disputes between the scheme and institutions could be resolved in one forum. It noted that it had been informed that morning that the interim NSFAS board chairperson had resigned. The Department confirmed that Stellenbosch University had maintained an unqualified audit opinion for three consecutive years, with no material findings of non-compliance and no significant control deficiencies, and that annual reports had been submitted within prescribed deadlines consistently from 2022 to 2024. It described the university as financially sound, noting a 2024 surplus of approximately R1.7 billion, operational income of R8.7 billion against expenditure of R7.4 billion, and total reserves increasing from R19.4 billion in 2023 to R21.44 billion in 2024. The Department told the Committee that litigation arising from the council's 2024 resolution to close the Wilgenhof residence had concluded through a February 2025 settlement establishing a structured renewal process, encompassing refurbishment, a consultative renaming process, and a student-led cultural renewal programme. Considerable work remained to ensure zero tolerance for racism and discrimination was realised through institutional practice, rather than expressed only on paper. The University confirmed that all statutory governance structures were fully constituted and functional, with council maintaining 60% external membership and no indicators of systemic dysfunction. First-year newcomer enrolments for 2026 reached 6 451 against a target of 6 074, comprising 3 160 white, 1 651 black African, 893 Coloured, 163 Indian, and 385 international students, within total enrolment of 36 578 across ten faculties. Undergraduate throughput rates ranged from 71.8% to 77% for three-year degrees and 74% to 77.2% for four-year degrees, with honours programmes approaching or exceeding 90%, and average undergraduate module success rates at 85.1% in 2024. The university provided approximately 8 299 institutional beds across its Stellenbosch and Tygerberg campuses, with accommodation fees ranging from R61 376 to R84 796, depending on room type, with total student demand significantly exceeding supply. Outstanding student debt at 31 December 2025 stood at R1.12 billion, of which R454 million was attributable to NSFAS non-payment, with 1 429 degree certificates withheld due to outstanding fees. On research, the university held 480 National Research Foundation-rated researchers, 53 research chairs, a QS world ranking of 302, and had processed 1 937 research contracts in 2025, representing 100% growth since 2018, supported by 363 international partnerships across 72 countries. Infrastructure completions since 2021 totalled 198 projects valued at R3.8 billion, including the R1.2 billion Biomedical Research Institute at Tygerberg. The Institutional Forum raised concerns about the absence of black African representation on two senior appointment selection panels during the year under review, the lack of measurement matrices at transformation summits and indabas, the absence of formal institutional homes for the Student Debt Working Group and the Emergency Accommodation Task Team, and persistent recruitment barriers arising from below-market remuneration and cultural perceptions about the university and the town of Stellenbosch. The SRC identified NSFAS administrative failures as its primary concern, citing a R299 million gap between claims submitted and payments received in 2025, a dysfunctional and inaccessible appeals portal, and annual uncertainty arising from the absence of a fixed NSFAS classification for the institution. The SRC further highlighted a significant accommodation affordability crisis, with the R5 200 monthly NSFAS accommodation allowance falling far short of private rental costs in Stellenbosch of between R9 500 and R15 000 per month, driving students into surrounding areas including Cloetesville, Ida's Valley, and Kayamandi, where crime profiles placed them at material risk without adequate daytime transport or institutional safety support. The Majuba House incident was a central focus of the Committee's engagement. The factual background established during the meeting was that the alleged victim, a Coloured male student, had found on returning to his room that his bed frame, mattress, and couch had been removed and placed in the residence's central quadrangle following a heated inter-residence soccer fixture. The preliminary investigation had identified three white male students as having been involved. No interim protective measures had been taken against the implicated students and the primarius had stepped back from his role, having acknowledged being present during the incident. The alleged victim had subsequently requested accommodation in an alternative residence. The Committee rejected the framing that the student had voluntarily chosen to relocate, arguing that a student whose room had been violated, whose belongings had been removed, and against whose alleged perpetrators no immediate action had been taken, had been left with no viable alternative. Members identified a fundamental inconsistency in the university's approach -- it had been willing within approximately two days of the incident to communicate in writing a preliminary conclusion of no overt racism, yet had declined when asked directly whether entering another student's room without authorisation and removing belongings constituted a violation of institutional rules. They placed on record that institutional inaction in such matters was not a neutral administrative position, but an active decision against the victim, and drew a direct connection between this failure and the documented pattern of under-reporting of racism, gender-based violence, and sexual harassment across the sector. Members called on the university to provide the alleged victim with psychological support and to report the outcome of the 12 May disciplinary hearing back to the Committee. Transformation was the second major area of sustained engagement. The Committee questioned why the university's presentation had specifically highlighted growth in black African enrolments without applying equivalent emphasis to Coloured and Indian students, given that the university had confirmed it regarded both groups as African. Members noted that the combined enrolment of black African, Coloured, and Indian first-year students remained below the white student total, and that in the Western Cape, where Coloured residents constituted the majority of the provincial population, this did not reflect the demographics of the community the institution served. Two specific admissions cases were examined. A Coloured male student had been formally declined for the Bachelor of Arts programme, despite the programme being below enrolment capacity, and was admitted only after his mother had challenged the decision two days later, with the Registrar conceding that the reversal followed from the appeal, rather than from any change in available space. A Coloured female student from Bellville who had graduated in the top ten of her matriculation class had been rejected on grounds of space, with her rejection letter making no reference to her academic standing. Members argued that both cases were inconsistent with a genuine commitment to growing Coloured and Indian representation, and called on the university council to review the admissions threshold model, noting that a system allocating the overwhelming majority of places on academic merit alone left the transformation categories structurally insufficient to produce meaningful change, given the cumulative educational disadvantages facing students from previously marginalised communities. Concerns were also raised about the appointment of a foreign national as Dean of Agrarian Sciences over a qualifying South African citizen, and the Committee questioned compliance with the Immigration Act, the Employment Services Act, and the Department's Policy Framework on Internationalisation. A discrepancy was also noted between the 200 foreign nationals reflected in the university's staff profile and the 53 staff members for whom work permits had been declared. On student funding and financial sustainability, the Committee noted that the university had recorded its first cash flow deficit from operations at the end of 2024, with the 2025 shortfall expected to be significantly larger given the R454 million outstanding from NSFAS. The university was commended for advancing student allowances from its own budget ahead of NSFAS reimbursement, and for permitting NSFAS students to register against outstanding balances, though the long-term sustainability of this practice was questioned. The Committee identified a structural funding crisis underpinning the numbers, as the NSFAS income threshold had not been meaningfully revised since approximately 2019 and had eroded in real terms to the point where it effectively reached only the very poorest households, leaving a growing missing middle cohort in a compounding debt spiral that by the third or fourth year of study frequently became insurmountable. The practice of withholding degree certificates was characterised as a demonstrably failed debt recovery mechanism, as sector-wide student debt had grown from hundreds of millions to between R20 and R30 billion over the period during which the practice had been in place. The Committee made a substantive policy proposal -- that the Department enter into a national agreement with the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and the Department of Home Affairs in terms of which all qualifying graduates would receive their certificates unconditionally, with each graduate's identity number linked to their tax number to enable structured debt recovery upon employment or business registration. The university indicated it would consider the proposal through its governance structures, and it was noted that similar recommendations had been made following the Fees Must Fall commission of inquiry and in a 2014 ministerial working group, with current improvements in SARS and Home Affairs systems making implementation more feasible than at any prior point. The Committee decided that the following documentation and actions were required from Stellenbosch University: The university must report back to the Committee in writing following the conclusion of the Majuba House central disciplinary committee hearing on 12 May, providing the outcome and the sanction imposed. The university must submit its current student disciplinary code, the draft code under review, and the applicable residence house rules across all residence categories. The university must provide full written accounts of the admissions processes followed in the cases of Mr Kylo Laru and Ms Haley Jacobs, including all formal correspondence, the factual basis for the initial rejections, and the basis on which Mr Laru was subsequently admitted. The university must respond in writing to the Committee's original correspondence regarding Mr Maurice Hendricks, addressing the circumstances of the lease cancellation, the subsequent allocation of the premises, and the conditions imposed upon his return. The university must provide a breakdown of outstanding NSFAS amounts by category, distinguishing between unpaid tuition, accommodation costs, and student allowances, and must confirm the number of withheld certificates attributable to NSFAS-funded students specifically. The university must clarify in writing the fee and registration arrangements applicable to Southern African Development Community (SADC) member state students and confirm compliance with South Africa's obligations under the SADC Protocol on Education and Employment. The university must provide a full breakdown of the visa and residency status of all foreign national staff members by category, and must clarify the specific immigration status of the recently appointed Dean of Agrarian Sciences. The university must provide a written breakdown of the cost drivers supporting its ring-fenced accommodation budget, to allow the Committee to assess the basis for the cost differential between Stellenbosch University's accommodation expenditure and that of comparable institutions.