Universities South Africa sounds alarm on rising campus governance risks

Universities South Africa (USAf) warns that systemic governance failures and institutional capture are threatening the integrity of the nation's public universities, requiring urgent reforms to protect academic independence.

Governance-related tension at several universities across South Africa is systemic rather than episodic, higher education leaders in the country say.. Restoring integrity and protecting universities from political and commercial predation are priorities for Universities South Africa (USAf), the membership body representing all 26 public universities in South Africa.. The extent to which institutional capture has taken root — not only through corruption but also through weakened governance cultures, blurred boundaries and leadership failures that hollow

out the academic project itself — has shocked higher education leaders, according to a USAf report.. Governance snapshot at some institutions The University of Fort Hare faces pressure from political and criminal capture and claims about the validity of degrees awarded to more than 30 people in the Eastern Cape; Mangosuthu University of Technology suffers from leadership instability and factional councils; Cape Peninsula University of Technology is strained by management–labour conflict and procurement tension; and

Walter Sisulu University battles structural governance fragility and financial weakness.. University of Fort Hare The UFH is experiencing one of the most severe governance crises in the sector, marked by violent contestation, political interference and heightened risks of institutional capture.. Its vice-chancellor, professor Sakhela Buhlungu, is on precautionary suspension.. The institution has faced assassination attempts and threats against senior staff linked to anti-corruption efforts, alongside council instability and factional battles over appointments and procurement.. Allegations

of political interference in academic processes, including claims of degree fraud involving high-profile politicians, have further eroded trust between management, council and external stakeholders.. Fort Hare sits at the intersection of criminal networks, political patronage and weak governance boundaries, making it a national flashpoint for institutional capture.. Mangosuthu University of Technology The MUT has faced persistent leadership instability and factionalism, often spilling into public conflict.. This includes frequent suspensions and acting appointments in senior management,

as well as repeated council–management breakdowns marked by allegations of interference and counter-accusations of insubordination.. Labour and student unrest has been closely tied to governance disputes and procurement battles, while weak internal controls have triggered repeated ministerial scrutiny.. The institution’s governance is characterised by leadership vacuums, factional council politics and unstable executive structures, creating a cycle of crisis and intervention.. Cape Peninsula University of Technology 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.. 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.. 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.. Walter Sisulu University WSU

continues to experience chronic governance instability rooted in historical mergers and uneven institutional cultures.. Persistent financial management weaknesses and audit concerns are compounded by leadership turnover and reliance on acting executives.. Council fragmentation and inconsistent oversight have weakened institutional coherence, while student unrest linked to the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, accommodation and service delivery failures continues to disrupt operations.. The university’s governance challenges stem from structural instability, weak financial controls and fragmented leadership, leaving

it vulnerable to external pressure and internal drift.. USAf reflections on governance Looking back on its USAf–LMSG webinar on 23 March and the report released on 13 April 2026, the report highlights specific examples of poor governance, both in institutions and among council chairs and offers solutions to restore integrity and protect universities from external interference.. At the heart of the failings and reason for institutional instability, is a blatant disregard for the Higher Education

Act, where “vice-chancellors [are] making governance decisions, council chairs making management decisions, [and] students being placed on tender committees”, professor Jonathan Jansen, the former vice-chancellor of the University of the Free State, says.. The law regulates the tertiary education sector, establishing a single coordinated system to transform institutions, manage public funding and set quality standards.. Jansen stressed the need for strict adherence to governance roles, smaller councils and the appointment of individuals of “exceptional integrity”

to leadership positions.. Dr Whitty Green, the chief executive of the Council on Higher Education, said there was a weak translation of strategy into practice, highlighting the recurring systemic failure: universities adopt ambitious strategies but “these are not always aligned with budgets, quality systems or execution frameworks”.. To hold the academic project at the centre, Green suggested integrated planning, stronger monitoring systems and a governance ecosystem to keep the sector honest.. Fear, low trust and

weak communication In January, Buti Manamela, the minister of higher education and training, said he would be conducting an overdue review of the legislation governing tertiary education in the country.. Green noted that many institutions were operating with “policies [that] are often outdated, poorly reviewed, weakly enforced or insufficiently tracked”, creating space for practices outside policy to flourish, echoing a need for universities to modernise policy frameworks, strengthen compliance and embed risk management into quality

assurance systems.. That had created environments of institutional cultures characterised by “fear, low trust, and weak communication”, which discouraged whistleblowing and enabled malpractice to take root unchecked.. Green recommended that universities focus on building cultures of transparency, strengthening consequence management and empowering middle management — the layer that often carries institutional memory.. While avoiding naming specific individuals, Jansen said capture accelerated when council chairs exceeded their mandate, noting examples of “council chairs making management decisions”

— a direct violation of governance boundaries that destabilised institutions.. A case in point was the governance crisis at UFH, where council–management tension had intensified.. Jansen said there should be rigorous vetting of council chairs and deputy chairs, especially to avoid appointing individuals from “corrupt or dysfunctional municipalities”.. Ahmed Essop, the former chief executive of the Council on Higher Education, said that inevitably, there were glaring examples in which councils were dominated by factional or

constituency interests.. The 1997 stakeholder model had produced councils where internal conflicts were reproduced at the apex.. He noted that “internal conflicts… [are] often replayed at council level rather than resolved within the institution”, underscoring the need for proposed smaller councils, clearer criteria for membership and public nomination processes to ensure independence and competence.. Governance guardrails imperative An example of council chairs enabling convocation or external groups to exert undue influence was raised by professor

Phumla Mnganga, the former chair of the University of KwaZulu-Natal Council.. She described a case where a convocation grouping attempted to “position itself as though it could determine the chair of council”.. Mnganga said that was an early sign of capture and institutional distortion.. That made it necessary, she cautioned, for governance guardrails, including conflict of interest frameworks, vigilance against disproportionate power and early warning systems.. Council chairs lacked grounding in academic purpose, admitted professor

Lungisile Ntsebeza, the former chair of the UFH Council, revealing that many council chairs did not understand the university’s core mission.. He insisted that “anyone involved in university governance should begin with the core business of the institution” — teaching, research and community engagement.. Ntsebeza emphasised the need for rigorous induction programmes that anchored council chairs in academic freedom, institutional autonomy and the scholarly project.. Speakers agreed that the country’s higher education system was buckling

under pressure and that was one of the reasons governance was failing, adding that failures were not isolated incidents but symptoms of deeper structural and political pressures.. Global and local pressures Professor Tandi Lewin, the deputy director-general for universities at the department of higher education and training, said universities faced global and local pressures — from inequality to political interference — that was eroding autonomy.. She cautioned that “if universities do not speak for themselves,

others will do so for them”.. Echoing Lewin’s concerns, professor Thandwa Mthembu, the vice-chancellor of Durban University of Technology, said universities were facing a “quadruple crisis” of hegemony, legitimacy, institutional being and capture.. Mthembu warned that “universities weaken gradually through small compromises and blurred boundaries”.. Both emphasised that governance failures could not be separated from the wider sociopolitical environment — poverty, patronage networks and declining public trust.. The closing message was clear: South Africa’s universities

are at risk of losing their academic identity if governance failures continue unchecked.. Lewin warned that “a captured university ceases to act like a university”, becoming instead a political arena or a patronage network.. The sector, she argued, knew the risks; the challenge was whether it had the collective will to act.. While solutions are not in short supply, the university sector needs the courage to implement them before institutional capture becomes not a risk

but a defining feature of South African higher education.. ©Higher Education Media Services.. — www.ednews.africa

Universities South Africa, campus governance, institutional capture, higher education, academic integrity, USAf, South African universities