UCT vice-chancellor is cleared of bully claims

FAR from being a bully, embattled University of Cape Town vice-chancellor Professor Mamokgethi Phakeng was incorrectly accused by the “overly sensitive” husband of an academic at the centre of a May 2020 race row, according to a new report into allegations of bullying against her.

Professor Jeremy Seekings, the husband of Professor Nicoli Nattrass, whose controversial article in the South African Journal of Science in May 2020 was criticised for being offensive to black South Africans, complained to the university council chairperson, Babalwa Ngonyama, on August 2 last year, about bullying and inappropriate action from Phakeng regarding his wife’s article.

But he was described as “overly sensitive” and trying to influence the university’s handling of its investigation into the furore over his wife’s article. Professor Nattrass had asked: “Why are black South African students less likely to consider studying biological sciences.”

This resulted in widespread condemnation on campus, with the Black Academic Caucus saying the paper had drawn “disturbing conclusions”.

Before formal proceedings to investigate the allegations of bullying started, Seekings and Phakeng had informally met at first. They then tried to address the bullying claims to resolve the complaint through a confidential mediation process.

But after failing to find a solution, Seekings, who was among a group of academics who made bullying allegations against the vice-chancellor before the former ombud Zetu Makamandela-Mguqulwa in 2019/2020, had asked Ngonyama to intervene, claiming he had been bullied at a senate meeting on March 5 last year.

The council chairperson advised Seekings that she would appoint an independent advisory panel to assess the complaint, in terms of UCT’s Human Resources Policy.

Ramushu Mashile Twala Inc attorneys in Sandton were engaged to put together a three-member panel – made up of Ms Gcwalisile Makhathini, Graeme Fourie and Kwandokuhle Ncube – to probe the complaint and make recommendations.

However, concerning the allegation of bullying at the senate meeting, the panel said it had considered the recording of the meeting provided, with the accompanying 42 minutes.

Although Phakeng mentioned Seekings by name in response to the questions asked by Nattrass, the panel believed this was not without cause. The panel struggled to compute how the reference to Seekings by name, in the current circumstances of this factual matrix, was analogous to bullying and was offensive or hostile to at least the reasonable person in the position of the complainant.

According to Seekings’s assertion that he had been belittled, degraded, and disrespected when answering his wife’s questions, the panel found no evidence of this when considering the tone and the tenor of Phakeng.

“These fail on all accounts to show any element of language which amounts to bullying on any reasonable interpretation. It is difficult in the circumstances to believe that any other person, acting remotely reasonably, would perceive the respondent’s response in the manner that the complainant has.”

But the panel said Phakeng had come across as professional and contrite in her response, and it was the panel’s opinion that this was how the respondent’s conduct would have been received by any other person acting reasonably.