Nust re­futes claims on Pro Vice Chan­cel­lor’s ap­point­ment

Chronicle (Zimbabwe) - - National News - Pamela Shumba Se­nior Re­porter

THE Na­tional Univer­sity of Science and Tech­nol­ogy (Nust) has re­futed claims that the Min­is­ter of Higher and Ter­tiary Ed­u­ca­tion, Science and Te c h n o l o g y De ve l op­ment , Pro­fes­sor Jonathan Moyo, was frus­trat­ing the ap­point­ment of Dr Gat­sha Mazithulela as Pro Vice Chan­cel­lor at the univer­sity.

The NewsDay re­cently re­ported that Prof Moyo thwarted the ap­point­ment of Dr Mazithulela, who is em­ployed at Nust Technopark, a busi­ness de­vel­op­ment unit of the in­sti­tu­tion.

The pub­li­ca­tion also re­ported that Prof Moyo’s in­ter­fer­ence on Nust ap­point­ments was un­law­ful.

Nust di­rec­tor of com­mu­ni­ca­tion and mar­ket­ing Mr Felix Moyo yes­ter­day said the process of se­lect­ing the univer­sity’s Pro-Vice Chan­cel­lor was be­ing done in ac­cor­dance with the Nust Act.

“The univer­sity wishes to put the record straight and en­lighten the writer of the ar­ti­cle, the news­pa­per’s edi­tor, the news­pa­per’s read­ers and the gen­eral pub­lic. As Nust, we fol­low the Nust Act to the let­ter. The Univer­sity was es­tab­lished by an Act of the Zim­babwe Par­lia­ment of 1990. The in­sti­tu­tion has a coun­cil as con­sti­tuted in terms of Sec­tion 10 of the Na­tional Univer­sity of Science and Tech­nol­ogy Act 1990.

“In­ter­views were con­ducted and the chair­man of the coun­cil wrote to the Min­istry of Higher and Ter­tiary Ed­u­ca­tion, Science and Tech­nol­ogy De­vel­op­ment as re­quired by the Nust Act, but did not write to any ap­pli­cant,” said Mr Moyo.

He said this was to ini­ti­ate the long se­lec­tion process which was, in this case, con­cluded in ac­cor­dance with the Nust Act.

“The fact that no can­di­date was ap­proved does not in­val­i­date the process and cer­tainly, does not re­move the func­tion and pow­ers of “ap­proval” from the Min­is­ter. Among its many func­tions, the univer­sity coun­cil is key in the process of ap­point­ing se­nior of­fi­cers of the univer­sity, in­clud­ing the ap­point­ment of Pro-ViceChan­cel­lors. “Ac­cord­ing to the Nust Act, and, for the pur­pose of con­sid­er­ing ap­point­ments to the of­fice of the Pro-Vice-Chan­cel­lor, the univer­sity forms a joint com­mit­tee of the Coun­cil and Se­nate whose chair­per­son shall be the chair­man of the Nust Coun­cil,” said Mr Moyo. He added that the word “ap­point­ment” used in the ar­ti­cle re­ferred to the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of a can­di­date se­lected and fil­tered through to the next level in the process of ap­point­ing a Pro-ViceChan­cel­lor. “That is why, in the same breath and only three words fur­ther, the word “ap­proval” is used... “with the ap­proval of the Min­is­ter”. Any process that is sub­ject to ap­proval by a Higher Of­fice can ei­ther be ap­proved or not ap­proved.

“There­fore, “ap­point­ment” in the text is more to give the con­cept of iden­ti­fi­ca­tion for fur­ther scru­tiny on those can­di­dates, or fur­ther scru­tiny on that can­di­date, found wor­thy to go to the next level in the process of se­lec­tion where the Min­is­ter, as the fi­nal au­thor­ity, will ex­er­cise his pre­rog­a­tive of fi­nal ap­proval or fi­nal veto,” said Mr Moyo.

He said ac­cord­ing to the Sched­ule of Statutes (Sec­tions 2 and 27) of the univer­sity, the joint Com­mit­tee of Coun­cil and Se­nate shall “con­sider each ap­pli­cant for ap­point­ment to a va­cancy in the of­fice of Pro-Vice-Chan­cel­lor and shall make rec­om­men­da­tions thereon to the Coun­cil”.

“The coun­cil, after con­sid­er­ing the joint com­mit­tee’s rec­om­men­da­tions, shall make the ap­point­ment con­cerned with the ap­proval of the Min­is­ter.

“While we ac­cept that our ca­pac­i­ties to un­der­stand and in­ter­pret Univer­sity Acts are dif­fer­ent, we refuse to ac­cept the de­featist con­clu­sion that such short­com­ings can be used as ex­cuses for one to mis­lead self and go down the wrong and dark al­ley with mul­ti­tudes of in­no­cent read­ers,” said Mr Moyo. He said it was mind bog­gling how se­cu­rity doc­u­ments ended in the hands of the me­dia.

“What is clear is that they were ob­tained in a clan­des­tine and un­of­fi­cial man­ner there­fore, they were ob­tained il­le­gally,”

said Mr Moyo.

Mr Felix Moyo

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Zimbabwe

© PressReader. All rights reserved.