Two motions of no confidence against members of Stellenbosch University’s executive committee of the convocation have been tabled for a meeting on Thursday. This comes after exco members requested that the rector and vice-chancellor, Wim de Villiers, resign in light of charges of nepotism. The allegations are being investigated.

One motion is against the vice-president of the executive committee, Dr Rudi Buys, while the other is against the remainder of the executive committee, excluding Buys. The committee consists of five members.

Stellenbosch University’s convocation is set to hold an extraordinary meeting on Thursday, 1 June. (Photo: Rebecca Pitt)

The motion against the exco members, excluding Buys, would remove all members who supported a request for De Villiers’ resignation in April. This would leave the executive committee in the hands of Buys, who said that he was opposed to the resignation request.

The convocation consists of all SU graduates, full-time and retired academic staff and diplomats. Members of the convocation elect the executive committee and can remove executive members.

No confidence in Buys

The motion of no confidence in Buys was called for in a letter by Daniël Gerhardus Ras and signed by 135 other convocation members. The letter is dated 16 May.

The letter’s claims include that Buys supported a decision in April – along with other executive committee members – to ask De Villiers to resign. The letter further states that Buys distanced himself from this decision, has driven a campaign against his fellow committee members, sown division within the convocation and damaged the image of SU.

Members of the convocation represented by the letter have lost trust in Buys and want him to vacate his position as vice-president.

No confidence in executive

The motion of no confidence against the executive committee, excluding Buys, was called for in a letter by Dr Louise van Rhyn and seconded by 247 members. The letter is dated 2 May.

The motion was made due to the executive committee’s decision on 14 April to call for the resignation of De Villiers and registrar, Dr Ronel Retief.

According to a statement by the executive committee, the resignation request came after considering several instances of “poor judgment and the management style of the rector”.

These include:

“a) the instances of nepotism; b) the Registrar’s acceptance of responsibility for the Rector’s nepotism; c) The unacceptable misuse of communication channels with alumni in favour of those who condone the Rector’s behaviour; and d) the SAHRC’s findings of 15 March 2023 regarding various human rights violations on campus.”

Regarding the “instances of nepotism”: allegations emerged against De Villiers that he used his discretionary right to secure a place for two family members at the university. According to reports, the second placement was withdrawn.

The letter from Van Rhyn claims that the executive committee “acted in an undemocratic and unconstitutional manner”.  The letter stated that their “unlawful decision caused serious harm to the University’s reputation and integrity”. 

Convocation members represented by the letter have thus lost faith in the executive committee, excluding Buys.

The letter also requested that Jan Heunis, president of the executive committee, and Dr Leon Schreiber, DA MP, be relieved of their roles and duties as SU council members. Schreiber also tabled a motion to dismiss De Villiers from his duties at SU in a previous meeting.

Two motions of no confidence are expected to be heard at a Stellenbosch University convocation meeting. (Photo: Joel Ontong)

Van Rhyn told Daily Maverick that the executive committee did not engage with members of the convocation on De Villiers’ resignation request.

“There was no attempt to call for views or initiate consultation forums, which, reasonably, members would appreciate,” Van Rhyn added. Ahead of Thursday’s meeting, Van Rhyn hopes that they can have “a frank, open and pragmatic discussion, irrespective of the outcome of the vote”.

Van Rhyn also clarified that the motion of no confidence against executive members is not about protecting De Villiers.

“We are not in favour of protecting the [Vice Chancellor] in any way. If he is guilty of nepotism, he needs to carry the full consequences.” 

‘Opportunity to express’

“I was the only member of the meeting that [was] not in support of a call for the rector and registrar to resign,” Buys told Daily Maverick.

There was not a vote for the motion, but rather a debate, in which he opposed the call for the resignation request, he said.

“As a matter of democracy, I however remain bound to the majority decision of the meeting,” he added.

Buys also stated that he has engaged in initiatives that “do not sow division but engage members, and invite them to do the same”.

Buys considers Thursday’s meeting significant and calls it an “opportunity for convocation members to express themselves on matters of concern”.

“As far as I am concerned, the motion of no confidence in me and the [other executive members] is inspired by a need or a perception that the rector needs protection,” said Dr Jan Heunis, president of the executive committee. Heunis also called Buys a “driving force” behind the motion of no confidence in him and the other executive committee members.

Though members of the executive committee wanted De Villiers to resign, another three-person committee was nominated to investigate his nepotism charges, said Heunis. The committee consists of two SU council members and Justice Carole Lewis. After investigating the matter, the appointed committee will make recommendations to the council, he said.

The executive committee’s request for De Villiers’s resignation took several controversies into account, according to Heunis. He mentioned the allegations against De Villiers of interference during the Constitutional Court case regarding SU’s language policy in 2016.

De Villiers was accused of approaching Justice Edwin Cameron with a chancellorship to influence the court ruling. Cameron presided over the case and is the current chancellor of SU.

However, an independent investigation cleared De Villiers of wrongdoing in the matter, and it was found he did not interfere in the court case.

“The reason why they say the motion against me and my colleagues should be supported is because we didn’t consult with members of the convocation,” said Heunis. To this, Heunis responds that the convocation entrusts decision-making to its executive committee. 

Heunis added: “The rector and the chair of council have insisted that I cannot communicate with my members using the university’s database unless the rector and the chairperson of the council approve what I want to communicate.” 

When the decision for De Villiers’ resignation request was adopted, he wanted it to be communicated to the convocation, he said.

“I asked for it to be distributed to all the members of the convocation and that was declined.” DM

The headline of this article was amended to accurately reflect that the divisions are within the Convocation.