On 23 July, the Constitutional Tribunal (Student Court) held UP’s second quarter Student Forum: one of four quarterly meetings where the channels of communication between the wider student body and the UP Student Representative Council (UP-SRC) are opened. As is often the case, the evening was host to political tension, constant interruptions, and unanswered questions. However, the forum was also radically different this time around, with administrative reform that resulted in an arguably more streamlined and efficient meeting. Most notably, the forum formally concluded, completing every item on the agenda and only lasting about two hours – a stark contrast to the usual four-hour, unfinished affair. But despite its shortened runtime, the evening was not scarce with memorable moments.
Beyond the administrative hiccups, the meeting commenced under an altered structure that seemingly aimed to improve efficiency and ensure that attendees were able to depart at a reasonable time. Traditionally, each of the 19 SRC members took to the podium to read their individual reports, detailing notable changes made, challenges faced, and future plans. However, this time around, SRC Deputy President Mosa Motloutse gave a comprehensive, condensed overview of all notable portfolio improvements. This allowed for a greater focus to be placed on the questions brought forward with and without notice. The latter, however, proved slightly difficult due to a few absentees. Three SRC members were granted leave, namely SRC President Khutso Manyaka, who was attending a fundraising event at the time, Security Officer Makahdo Ramphefa, who cited family obligations, and Day Students and External Campus Affairs Officer Terrence Shiri, who was in poor health. However, Residence Officer Jaun Oosthuizen was absent without leave, citing “academic commitments” as the reason for his absence, with repercussions for his invalid leave left undisclosed. Notably, the House Committees of UP’s residences were also absent as they were preoccupied with the lively activities of House Week.
Despite the altered schedule, Media, Marketing, and Communications Officer Mahlodi Mabitsela failed to submit her report to be included in the overview. She was, therefore, held to account and required to personally read it in its entirety for the record. Mabitsela detailed that the reason for this, along with other shortcomings apparent within her portfolio, was the result of technical difficulties across all of her devices. The explanation was met with scepticism and critique from attendees, with a South African Students Congress (SASCO) delegate pointing out the abundance of technological resources across campus, including internet and computer lab access. The delegate also said that her conduct should not only constitute incompetence – with another remarking that she was Ms “One Post Per Year” – but that it also constituted a breach of the SRC Code of Conduct. She further explained that she was unable to utilise the university’s resources because she was on Groenkloof campus completing her teaching practicals, as is required by her degree. Later in the evening, SASCO would ironically chant “Viva Mahlodi” and “That’s why I voted for you” when she sharply responded to a question without notice posed by the EFF Youth Command (EFFYC) – the political party that delegated her.
Following Mabitsela’s report, the Chief Justice opened the floor for questions with notice. Proceedings began with SRC Treasurer Lethabo Pahlane speaking on behalf of President Manyaka, who had provided a written response in his absence. The bulk of Manyaka’s address was spent disclosing the contents of his engagements with Thrive Student Living earlier this year. The president detailed that communications with Thrive took place formally and informally over an unspecified period of time, specifying that discussions largely centred on advocating for student interests. Interestingly, Manyaka briefly remarked that legal action had been taken against him and several other student leaders, most probably by Thrive, in response to the protests against “top-up” fees that took place back in March. The president continued to recount his discussions with Thrive, stating that there were extensive talks on the eradication of “top-up” fees for NSFAS-funded students and for Thrive to align its pricing models with the NSFAS accommodation guidelines. Manyaka reported that the abovementioned engagements resulted in the removal of “top-up” fees across basic sharing rooms within Thrive buildings. He concluded by providing that in the spirit of long-term collaboration between Thrive and the SRC, Thrive Student Living has pledged R100 000 to the SRC’s fundraising initiative A Re Ageng Bokamoso – an announcement that was met with audible suspicion from SASCO, with several members exclaiming that Manyaka was a “sellout”.
Later in the evening, SRC Deputy Secretary Elovuyo Makohilso had taken the floor, answering questions on behalf of absent Facilities, Safety, and Security Officer Makhado Ramphefa. At the end of his address, a point of order was raised by Palestinian Solidarity Committee (PSC-UP) Chairperson Ayesha Essop regarding an unanswered question. Essop detailed that she had submitted a question to the Security Officer within the deadline, but this question was not addressed. Chief Justice Chidi provided that there is no reason for a question to not be read out at all. Makohilso replied to Essop, providing that he had sent each SRC member their relevant questions the previous morning and that he would be willing to submit his laptop for auditing. Chidi concluded the enquiry by advising Essop to resubmit her question via the QR code projected at the front of the venue. The code led to a Google form, allowing attendees to submit questions that were unanswered during the forum. It should be noted that throughout the rest of the evening, Makohilso sat next to Essop, displaying his laptop, most probably attempting to resolve the issue. Following the forum, Essop provided that it seemed to be a simple technical mix-up.
Exchanges between Societies Officer Lihle Moncina and EFFYC exhibited an unmistakable breakdown between herself and the party that delegated her during her campaign and election season. Her initial refusal to address questions on behalf of the absent Shiri until the EFFYC had hushed was justifiable. However, her composure was replaced with irritation when questions were directed to her own portfolio. The EFFYC challenged her allocation of funds and accused her of hoarding the funds as if they were her own. This triggered her catchphrase of “The beautiful thing is…” as she countered that she had never promised disbursement of funds in her Plan of Action or any other official documents, citing that the onus rests solely on the Department of Student Affairs to do so. An innocent attendee caught the smoke that the EFFYC had flamed when Moncina provided unnecessarily harsh responses to his questions. She explained that she has been understanding, even refraining from giving deadlines when it came to the appointment of society leadership, largely due to the IT department’s failures. She further said that “the beautiful thing” about her term in office is that she has laid the foundation for whoever her lucky successor is, which yielded little in resolving the immediate concerns of current societies’ executive boards.
A further display of political tensions was observed when another female SRC delegate from the EFFYC took to the floor and was honoured – as is custom for their female leadership – with a song contrasting her to the late Winnie Madikizela-Mandela. SASCO then retorted that they should not “disrespect Mama Winnie’s name like that”. Moreover, when Makohilso had stood up earlier in the evening, he was met with taunting from an EFFYC member, to which a SASCO member could be heard calling them “useless” and saying that he “has never led anything in [his] life, not even a relationship”.
PDBY spoke with SASCO Deputy Secretary Eclayton Nwandzule who provided further insight on the EFFYC-SASCO rivalry. Nwandzule said that although SASCO and the EFFYC share similar sentiments, their differences lie in their morals and values. Nwandzule noted that SASCO consistently advocates for student interests, specifying that the organisation often helps students with matters that get less attention. The deputy secretary further explains that SASCO is not concerned with gaining recognition from assisting students. Instead, the party simply does so because it is their duty. Finally, Nwandzule elaborated on the comments made regarding the funding the SRC received from Thrive Student Living. He questioned why the donation was only announced at a student forum and whether the president was being honest about the amount of money received, especially regarding “the history of the EFF”. Although Nwandzule was hesitant to accuse the EFFYC of stealing money, he said that, based on anecdotal evidence, there is a possibility that members may pocket funds for their own personal use and enjoyment. He concluded, explaining that this is all alleged.
This year’s quarter two forum marks a monumental shift in how the meeting is conducted. The increased focus on questions as opposed to the reading of reports provided greater opportunities for open communication between students and the SRC. The Constitutional Tribunal’s restructuring is admittedly a large improvement, allowing the forum to be a more effective means for meaningful student-to-leadership communication than ever. However, the constant back and forth between political parties and the combative and oftentimes unprofessional conduct of some SRC members highlighted how student forums tend to devolve into a battleground for competing views and unsatisfied resolutions as opposed to remaining a venue for accountability and awareness.
Quarter two’s student forum brought up the question of whether student leaders may be the ones responsible for hindering the university’s parliamentary meetings.
Kofi Donkor