FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Stellenbosch University and Wilgenhof Alumni Association (WAA) reach agreement 26 February 2025

26 February 2025

Click here for the joint media statement.

The parties announced that an impasse has been resolved as to the naming process of the residence, which has paved the way for the settlement of the matter. This brings to an end to the litigation of the Wilgenhof Alumni Association (WAA) against SU.

The parties have reached a settlement of the court application by agreeing to:

  • Make good faith acknowledgements on the way the matter was handled
  • Provide for the restoration of archival material as agreed upon
  • Certain issues related to the naming process of the residence.

The Wilgenhof Alumni Association (“The Wilgenhof Bond”) instituted an application to review and set aside inter alia the decision of the Council, taken on 16 September 2024, to close Wilgenhof in its current format and to replace it with a reimagined male residence.

SU acknowledged that residents and members of the WAA experienced the handling of the Wilgenhof matter within the University, and by the media, in a negative manner. It has apologised for the damage to reputation and emphasised that Wilgenhoffers are not tainted in a negative way because of their association with the residence.

The WAA recognised that the contents of the two rooms, and how these rooms were portrayed by the media and the Wilgenhof Panel report, was experienced as disturbing and painful to many in the SU community. It has apologised to all stakeholders of SU for the distress caused.

Although no harm was intended, and although many Wilgenhoffers have a different perspective on elements of the matter, the WAA acknowledges that the contents of the two rooms, seen from an outside perspective, are not acceptable nor in-line with the norms of today’s society, as well as SU’s 2040 vision and its values.

All parties agreed that the student-led rejuvenation process - of which naming considerations are but one element - must be given the time and opportunity to run its course.

If the facilitated naming process yields no consensus name SU’s Council agreed with the request that a multilingual version name, that acknowledges the heritage and history of Wilgenhof, should be the residence name.

In such an event, the Residence’s name will be Wilgenhof-Willows-Indawo. Where only one name is used to refer to the Residence, the default name will be Wilgenhof.

No, in October 2024, the Association for the Advancement of Wilgenhof Residents (AWIR) and Stellenbosch University (‘SU’) settled litigation concerning the SU Council’s decision to close the Wilgenhof residence in 2025.

As part of that agreement, the 2025 Wilgenhof students, together with new first year students who were allocated to the residence, were entitled to move to a new residence together and to retain the current House Committee during which time SU will conduct as much of the necessary renovations as possible.

The archival material currently in SU’s possession will be assessed as part of the current facilitated rejuvenation process agreed upon between inter alia the University and the Association for the Advancement of Wilgenhof Residents (“the AWIR”) in their settlement agreement reached in October 2024.

The material will form part of the new archive. The intent of the new archive will be to curate the history and culture of the Residence sensitively and accurately.

In terms of the settlement between the WAA and SU, upon completion of the renovations to the Residence and the new archive venue, SU will hand over private and historical archival material deemed appropriate by the parties, to the Wilgenhof community for inclusion in the new archive. SU will avail its experts to support the Wilgenhof community to conceptualise and manage the archive.

Stellenbosch University's Council decided, in terms of clause 10(3)(g) of the University's Institutional Statute at its meeting on 16 September 2024 to close the Wilgenhof men's residence in its current format and to replace it with a reimagined and rejuvenated male residence student community.

See the Timeline.

All parties agreed that the student-led rejuvenation process - of which naming considerations are but one element - must be given the time and opportunity to run its course.

The Council will decide on the name for the residence in accordance with the following process: The participants in the facilitated process shall by consensus, propose 4 (four) names to the Council (which may include retention of the name "Wilgenhof").

If the facilitated naming process yields no consensus name SU’s Council agreed with the request that a multilingual version name, that acknowledges the heritage and history of Wilgenhof, should be the residence name.

If this happens, the Residence’s name will be Wilgenhof-Willows-Indawo.

As part of its the settlement with the AWIR, the Council agreed to accommodate Wilgenhof residents by shortening the period of closure to one semester at the start of 2025 and by allowing those students who wish to do so, to stay in the larger of the two new north Campus residences.

SU will conduct as much of the necessary renovations of the building as possible during the first semester. The students, including the new first years, will be entitled, should they wish to do so, to return in the second semester even if some of the upgrades need to be completed after the residents have returned.

Yes, they are.

In terms of the settlement between the WAA and SU, upon completion of the renovations to the Residence and the new archive venue, SU will hand over private and historical archival material deemed appropriate by the parties, to the Wilgenhof community for inclusion in the new archive. SU will avail its experts to support the Wilgenhof community to conceptualise and manage the archive.

Council meeting of 2 December 2024

Council noted and considered the Kriegler Panel’s findings, as well as written submissions from attorneys on behalf of the De Jager Panel, additional documentation and input supplied by the Vice-Chancellor and input by the Chair of Council.

After a robust discussion, Council adopted a motion through majority vote which acknowledged that the Vice-Chancellor and Chair of Council had erred in not informing Council about amendments to the De Jager Panel report. The minority dissenting votes against the motion were recorded as requested.

Council accepted that neither had acted “maliciously, or in bad faith, or with any intention of influencing the decisions made by Council related to Wilgenhof residence, and only did what they believed to be in the best interests of Stellenbosch University”.

The motion was critical of the Vice-Chancellor sharing the De Jager Panel report with Chancellor Edwin Cameron. In Council’s view, this represented a “governance lapse” which should not be repeated.

Similarly, Council noted the Chair’s apology for an error of judgment related to the non-disclosure to Council of the amendments that had been made to the De Jager Panel report. Council was critical of this lapse of judgment and urged the Chair to avoid a recurrence.

Extraordinary meeting of Council

(1 November 2024) - recent developments, media reports and allegations

Stellenbosch University (SU) convened an extraordinary meeting of Council on Friday 1 November 2024 to consider the recent developments following the release to the media of the Chancellor’s affidavit alleging improper interference in the findings of the independent panel that was tasked to investigate the contents found during an audit of the spaces and amenities of the Residence and to report to the Rectorate on its findings and recommendations. (Click here to read the panel’s terms of reference.)

The Stellenbosch University (SU) Council decided to refer the matter of the Wilgenhof Panel’s report for further investigation. Council tasked the Social and Business Ethics Committee ("SBE") and the Audit and Risk Committee ("ARC") of the Council to appoint and co-ordinate appropriate independent expert(s) ("The Panel") to investigate (1) the circumstances in which the Wilgenhof Panel report was changed, (2) whether the Executive Committee of Council decided at its 4 June meeting that Wilgenhof should be closed, and (3) whether the Chair of Council should have disclosed the Chancellor’s concern around the changing of the final paragraph of the Wilgenhof report to Council at its 24 June 2024 meeting.

The Panel will present its findings to Council in time for its meeting scheduled for 2 December 2024, for Council to decide on appropriate action.​

The independent expert(s) ("The Panel") will investigate (1) the circumstances in which the Wilgenhof Panel report was changed, (2) whether the Executive Committee of Council decided at its 4 June meeting that Wilgenhof should be closed, and (3) whether the Chair of Council should have disclosed the Chancellor’s concern around the changing of the final paragraph of the Wilgenhof report to Council at its 24 June 2024 meeting.

Information on this Panel will be made available as soon as it is finalised internally. The University is expected to release the names of the independent experts appointed by the two committees by this week (4-8 Nov)

The Panel will present its findings to Council in time for its meeting scheduled for 2 December 2024, for Council to decide on appropriate action.

Read the University’s full statement here.​

​

Council meeting of 16 September 2024​ & associated developments

The settlement with the AWIR should be regarded as a positive step in finding resolution and commitment in breaking with unacceptable practices at Wilgenhof and the University’s transformation journey of SU and its residences. ​

The AWIR’s application comprised two parts – first, an urgent interdict to prevent the implementation of the Council decision of 16 September 2024 and second; an application to review and set aside amongst others the Council decision of the 16th. The implications of a successful interdict might have prevented the implementation of the decision of Council – in such event the residence may have thus remained open, the facilitation process towards a reimagined, rejuvenated and renewed student community, and the upgrades to the bathrooms, would have all been stalled until such time as the review of the decision had been completed. This process could have taken several years as we know, given timelines of procedure, the availability of hearing dates and the various appeal processes to the disposal of the parties to pursue up to the Constitutional Court. ​

With the settlement, Council agreed to accommodate Wilgenhof residents by shortening the period of closure to one semester and by allowing those students who wish to do so, to stay in the larger of the two new north Campus residences.

It is important to note that the settlement does not compromise on the crux of the recommendation, i.e. to close the residence in its current form and have a facilitated process towards a reimagined, renewed and rejuvenated student community.

Council is legally opposing the Wilgenhof Alumni Association (or Wilgenhof Bond) review application which seeks to set aside the report of the Panel appointed to investigate the content found in two rooms at Wilgenhof. The University trusts that through the Council and legal processes it will remain on course in its endeavours to effect decisive change.

​

Based on the many submissions received from interested parties and considering all the information before it, it is Council's view that a properly facilitated process that involves SU management, current Wilgenhof residents, other student leaders, and residence heads, to shape a renewed, reimagined, and rejuvenated residence is critical.

Council also noted that this is intended to be the starting point of meaningful and systemic change in the University's desire to foster an environment where all students can thrive in a community that upholds the values of inclusivity, respect, and excellence and that is aligned with SU's Vision 2024, SU values, Code 2040, the spirit of its Restitution Statement, and the South African Constitution.

A renewed residence intends to acknowledge the constructive aspects of Wilgenhof while making a decisive break with the unacceptable and secretive practices of the past, as we move forward in fostering an environment where all students can thrive, in a community that upholds the values of inclusivity, respect, and excellence.

Yes. Members of the Rectorate and Council had access to all the submissions.

The intention of a renewed residence is to acknowledge the constructive aspects of Wilgenhof while making a decisive break with unacceptable practices. To this end, a facilitated, student-led process will also consider the name of the residence.​

The residence will be upgraded to align with SU's aspiration to create learning and living spaces that promote excellence and in doing so comply with the DHET's Policy on the Minimum Norms and Standards for Student Housing at Public Universities.

Prof Deresh Ramjugernath, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching), informed the students on Monday afternoon 16 September 2024 at the residence. Staff members of the Division for Student Affairs were also present.

Yes. Wilgenhof alumni received an e-mail. Communication was distributed via internal e-mail and the University's website.

Council Meeting of 24 June 2024​ and Council’s call for written submissions

The Stellenbosch University (SU) Council met on Monday 24 June 2024 and extensively debated the recommendation made by the Rector, unanimously supported by the Rectorate, that the Wilgenhof Residence in its current form should be closed, based on the principal recommendation in the report from the Panel that was tasked to investigate the contents found in two rooms at the Wilgenhof Residence. The Rector's additional recommendation was that the building should be retained as an upgraded residence.

The discovery of disturbing contents in the rooms at Wilgenhof earlier this year has elicited strong and diverse reactions from students, parents, alumni, and other stakeholders. The Council recognised that opinions on the future of Wilgenhof are deeply divided. This involves several issues including the interpretation of tradition and the need for all university practices to enable an inclusive university where all stakeholders feel they belong. These issues must be thoroughly considered in the interest of fairness, transparency, and administrative justice, aligned with SU's vision and values.

Against this background, the Council concluded that the Rector's recommendation warrants further consultation and consideration.

Therefore, the Council invited all interested and affected persons and stakeholders to submit written representations on: The issues that the closure or non-closure of Wilgenhof would raise and that would need to be considered; What the implications would be of the acceptance of the Rector's recommendation regarding the redesign of Wilgenhof in a different and/or upgraded form of residence; Whether there are alternatives to the closure of Wilgenhof that are reasonably likely to address the concerns set out in the Panel's report and what these are; and, What Council should set as indicators for the success of these alternative measures.

The period for the submission of written representations started on Wednesday 26 June 2024 at 09:00 and ended on Wednesday 31 July 2024 at 17:00

Yes. Communication was distributed via internal e-mail and the University's website: English and Afrikaans

The Panel's report and recommendations to the Rectorate

The discovery of the items in two rooms at Wilgenhof and the appointment of the Panel to review these items follows SU’s consistent affirmation of its position on ensuring the human dignity of all our students and staff, and a commitment to continue unabated to eradicate unacceptable practices from our campuses and SU student accommodation.

The aim of the Rectorate in appointing the Panel was to ensure that it acts towards assisting in the realisation of the transformation of the University culture, consistent with SU’s Vision 2040.

The SU Rectorate has received and considered the final report of the Panel appointed to review the Wilgenhof Residence matter.

The Rectorate accepted the principal recommendation of the Panel that the Wilgenhof Residence should be closed.

The Rector recommended to Council that Wilgenhof Residence should be closed and that alternative uses be considered for the buildings. Council considered the Rector’s recommendations at its meeting of 24 June 2024.

Yes. Communication was distributed via internal e-mail and the University’s website. English en Afrikaans

Yes, the report is available here​ and o​n the University's website.

​


​

​