UCT asked to provide clarity on NPO links
THE alleged instigators of the July unrest have demanded clarity from UCT about its relationship with the Centre for Analytics and Behavioural Change.
Social commentators Sphithiphithi Evaluator, as well as Thabo Makwakwa, Modibe Modiba and Land Noli – through their lawyer Godrich Gardee – have written to UCT Vice-Chancellor Professor Mamokgethi Phakeng seeking clarity on the matter.
Last year, the commentators filed court papers for the research unit to review and set aside various adverse findings it made against them.
Initially in a written affidavit, the four requested that the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, grant an order in terms of the notice of motion, to set aside the first and second reports of the entity which they said were unlawful, unreasonable and unfair.
Included in the May report was an assertion that Sphithiphithi Evaluator was involved in content creation for the Radical Economic Transformation (RET) forces believed to be aligned to former president Jacob Zuma.
Following the July unrest, the unit cited the social commentators as having played a role in inciting the violence through their social media accounts.
Now the four are seeking answers from the management of UCT about the nature of the relationship that the university has with the entity.
In the letter written to Phakeng’s lawyers Fairbridge, Arderne and Lawton, Gardee gave the law firm 10 days to respond to the questions.
The letter states: “We are instructed to get clarity on the circumstances of the relationship between UCT and the Centre for Analytics and Behavioural Change, which listed the university as its research unit and partner.
“We need to get clarity whether your client (Phakeng) intends to file notice to abide, or pursue opposition of our papers.”
Responding to a tweet by social commentator Lukhanyo Vangqa addressed to her, Phakeng said it was not a university entity.
The tweet from Vangqa reads: “Dear deputy mother, please take this as my official complaint against the Centre for Analytics and Behavioural Change, they list UCT as their Domicilium citandi et executandi.
“The research report they produced lacks the sine qua non characteristics of a research document and has caused me great harm today.”
To which Phakeng replies: “Centre for Analytics and Behavioural Change is not a UCT entity.”
Gardee further said that UCT was cited in its capacity as the parent organisation of the business school.
In its initial response to the court papers filed by Gardee, the university’s lawyers, Fairbridges Wertheim Becker, stated: “The decisions complained of do not amount to administrative action that necessitates a review application.
“The university has no legal ties with the Centre for Analytics and Behavioural Change that confirms jurisdiction to have it cited as a party to the litigation. It is a separate legal entity over which the university has no jurisdiction.
“No relief is sought against the university save for the cease and desist order, but no factual basis has been made out on the papers to justify such an order.
“The insinuation that the university is somehow vicariously liable for a separate legal entity because the entity operates from its premises is misplaced and has no basis in law.”