The worst kept secret of Wilgenhof — residents claim the rooms were never a secret

The residence head and house committee members of Wilgenhof men’s residence at Stellenbosch University have come forward to claim that their practices – and the rooms in question – were never a secret from either its residents or university management.

Stellenbosch University appointed a three-person panel in February to investigate Wilgenhof’s practices after the contents of two rooms, referred to in the media as Hool 88 and Toe Argief (“closed archive”), were revealed.

The panel’s June report alleged that rituals associated with the Nagligte (disciplinary committee) included symbols linked to white supremacy and argued that Wilgenhof embodied elements of the university’s racist history. The report recommended shutting down the residence permanently.

After a backlash from alumni and residents, the university amended its decision. Instead of closure, the residence would be renovated and reopen under a new name in 2026, and its current residents would temporarily relocate.

In the report on its findings, the panel said “the degree to which the staff throughout that reporting line might have come to know about the Nagligte (Nighties) activities is not apparent to the panel”.

However, it stated that the residence heads were fully aware of the activities.

“In Wilgenhof, [the rooms were] widely discussed, and everyone knew in Wilgenhof. It was not a secret on the inside,” said primarius (head of house committee) Neil Botha.

Botha described Hool 88 and Toe Argief as integral parts of the residence’s history, and claimed these rooms were never hidden from the university’s management either.

He also said he felt abandoned by the university, recounting an interaction with officials when the news broke in January. “Stellebosch University management told me, ‘No one is prepared to take the fall for you’,” he said.

Botha claimed that while most of the university’s upper management may not have been aware of the rooms, “many management in Wilgenhof’s direct line have known for years now”.

Claims of transparency and betrayal

On 25 January, News24 published an article describing Hool 88 and Toe Argief as “two locked rooms in a highly secretive residence”.

However, current and former residents, including Botha, house committee members Ziyaad Patel and Stephen Tiku and resident Jack Kroukamp, have all said their practices were well known in the university.

Botha cited a prior complaint from 2014 as evidence of this knowledge.

“When a parent lodged a complaint, the residence head at the time contacted university management and said, ‘Listen, we have these practices – come help us and take part in our renewal’. They did not accept the opportunity.”

The panel cited a similar situation in 2019 when a complaint was shared with the division of student affairs, but it was not escalated to senior management level.

Tiku described how these rooms and their history were shared openly with residents. “In my first year, [we] were shown the rooms and given a brief history of what used to happen.”

A resident who attended the programme in 2022 added: “We were in the Wilgenhof pub chatting with senior residents when we were introduced to the disciplinary committee [Nagligte]. We had the option [of visiting] the TA [Toe Argief], where we saw the archives... It felt like a history lesson.”

Former resident Samora Menze, who lived in Wilgenhof between 2005 and 2008, corroborated this, saying that first-year residents were introduced to the Nagligte as part of learning about Wilgenhof’s history.

Some residents claimed that they felt abandoned by the university when the news broke in January. Patel claimed that the university had stabbed the residence and the students in the back by not helping them to deal with the backlash.

Botha said the residence only received the news about the investigation at the same time as the rest of the world.

Botha also claimed that the university only spoke to them a handful of times, but that residents had to deal with the backlash of the residence’s history by themselves.

Tiku said the university did not keep the residents informed about what was happening to their home.

“Sometimes we would find out about developments from news outlets instead of from the university [itself].”

Stellenbosch University responded to these claims: “Students and student leaders in all residences are encouraged to engage with their residence heads and to establish a communication and feedback channel.”

Read more: Why the Wilgenhof debate matters 

It further explained that Wilgenhof’s residence head regularly had multiple engagements with the house committee during the year and was still in constant contact with the Wilgenhof house committee.

“Wilgenhof students have been provided with all the official statements and communication from the university.”

Hool 88 and Toe Argief

The infamous Hool 88 served as a space where the Nagligte performed initiation rituals. Items found in the room reportedly included condoms filled with vinegar and sour milk used in a ritual known as the “Golden Handshake”.

The room’s walls bore the names of previous Nagligte members, dates of their service and paintings of the committee’s hoods, marked with the number 88.

Menze recalled only entering Hool 88 at night during his time at Wilgenhof and admitted he had little knowledge of the room’s appearance in daylight.

Unlike Hool 88, Toe Argief acted as an archive for Wilgenhof’s history and was more accessible to residents. The room contained Nagligte costumes, photographs of members wearing hoods, and a casket with a doll dressed as a member of the committee. It also displayed images of residents participating in initiation traditions.

Allegations of tampering

The Association for the Advancement of Wilgenhof Residents, founded by Botha and Patel, joined forces with the Wilgenhof Alumni Association to challenge the university’s decision. In October, a settlement was reached allowing residents to relocate temporarily for no more than six months.

That same month, retired Constitutional Court judge and university council member Edwin Cameron filed an affidavit alleging that the original panel report had been tampered with to focus solely on shutting down the residence. As a result, the university commissioned a new investigation into these claims.

Read more: ‘Window Dressing’ – Wilgenhof alumni call for answers after Justice Cameron says report was altered 

The findings of this investigation will be presented to the council on 2 December, determining the next steps for Wilgenhof and the handling of the controversy. DM

Sherie Vollenhoven has covered Wilgenhof for SMF News.

This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.