The Stellenbosch University (SU) Council has referred the findings of an investigative panel on Wilgenhof Residence for further scrutiny, as allegations emerge of possible interference by senior university officials, Cape {town} Etc reports.
Also read: Stellenbosch University to close controversial Wilgenhof residence
This decision follows claims by SU Chancellor Justice Edwin Cameron, who alleges that two senior university staff members altered the contents of the investigation report without notifying the council.
The Wilgenhof panel’s findings are expected to return to the council for its next meeting on December 2, where further action may be decided. An urgent council meeting was convened after Cameron submitted an affidavit as part of ongoing legal proceedings, accusing SU Rector and Vice-Chancellor Professor Wim de Villiers, along with SU Council member Dr. Nicky Newton-King, of making unapproved changes to the report.
Cameron claims that this modified report was subsequently presented to the council, with the alleged changes withheld from its members.
Professor de Villiers, in a statement, acknowledged the complexities surrounding the decision to close Wilgenhof in its current form and replace it with a new residence in 2026, a decision that generated mixed reactions across the SU community.
Many saw the closure as a transformative step away from outdated traditions, a decision later met with resistance when an out-of-court settlement was reached with the Association for the Advancement of Wilgenhof Residents (AWIR).
This settlement, which some have viewed as a reversal of SU’s initial decision, emerged following legal challenges from AWIR and the Wilgenhof Bond, an alumni association. Both organisations opposed the closure of Wilgenhof and filed for legal reviews of the panel’s report, further adding to the complexity.
AWIR sought an immediate interdict, arguing that current Wilgenhof residents would be adversely impacted by the closure. They also filed to review the panel’s report, with the Wilgenhof Bond seeking similar review measures, aiming to have the report set aside.
The urgency of AWIR’s interdict prompted SU’s leadership to negotiate a settlement, acknowledging that a successful interdict could have halted council’s initial decision, posing potential setbacks for the university’s transformation goals. This compromise, however, has not satisfied all stakeholders.
CIRCoRe (the Committee In Response to the Khampepe Commission’s Recommendations) expressed disappointment, with its Steering Committee (Steercom) criticising the settlement process. The Steercom, feeling sidelined in the decision-making, has since chosen to withdraw from its formal activities within CIRCoRe, though they remain committed to advancing institutional transformation.
Professor de Villiers recognised Steercom’s efforts, expressing appreciation for their contributions to SU’s transformation journey while acknowledging the challenges ahead. ‘Our transformation journey is certainly not perfect and far from easy,’ he remarked. ‘We have come a long way and undoubtedly have a few mountains to climb still. But through our combined efforts and shared passion we can deliver the future Stellenbosch University that we want.’
As SU awaits the Wilgenhof panel’s updated findings in December, the university stands at a pivotal moment in its journey toward inclusive and progressive change.
Also read:
Stellenbosch University to close controversial Wilgenhof residence
Picture:Stellenbosch University
