On 26 March, the UP-SRC and Constitutional Tribunal held the first quarter’s Student Forum, a platform in which student leadership can be held accountable by the greater student body. The proceedings were led by Chief Justice Realeboga Chidi of the Constitutional Tribunal, with each SRC member reading out their quarter one report. As is custom, the annual meeting was couched with controversy and disruption, with members getting into multiple arguments throughout the proceedings.
Following Chidi’s opening address, the evening commenced with immediate pushback from various student bodies. The South African Students Congress (SASCO) challenged the forum’s quorum and, thus, legitimacy. Additionally, concern was raised after alleging that the event was only advertised nine days prior as opposed to the stipulated two-weeks notice with physical posters for greater visibility. Ultimately, these allegations were dispelled by Chidi who asserted that the fourteen-day advertising period was adequately met and supported by proof through the UP-SRC’s Instagram and WhatsApp posts on 12 March.
A large point of contention was also raised by the EFF Youth Command (EFFYC) regarding the prevalence of security at the forum. The organisation expressed that having students scan their student cards at the venue’s entrance was redundant as students would have already scanned their student cards to enter the university’s campus. The Youth Command also contested the presence of security inside the venue during the proceedings, providing that they felt harassed by their excessive presence and that students should not be denied entry for not having their student cards. Chief Justice Chidi rebutted, providing that the scanning of student cards was necessary in order to take attendance as stipulated by the forum’s codified rules. However, the EFFYC still felt that taking attendance in this manner was unnecessary and inappropriate.
SASCO representatives raised that the EFFYC’s points of order were disruptive and a poor use of the forum’s time, which was the catalyst for the multiple heated exchanges between the two groups that took place throughout the evening. EFFYC representatives provided that the forum’s rules and proceedings being conducted in English may be the reason for the miscommunication and misunderstandings. They went on to label the proceedings as governed by “the coloniser’s language”. SASCO rebutted with barbed comments towards the EFFYC, providing that the organisation might better comprehend the forum’s rules if they were drafted in vernacular languages, particularly Tsonga, as a personal jab against Nxongotelo Mgabini, an EFFYC member who had raised the aforementioned point of order. Mgabini, along with many EFFYC members in attendance, challenged SASCO’s comment as a tribalistic remark and called on Chief Justice Chidi to take action, expressing that the forum cannot be expected to continue after such a comment had been made.
During the heated back and forth between the EFFYC, SASCO, and the Chief Justice, a majority of the student structures in attendance, particularly TuksRes structures, had taken their leave. Chidi ultimately provided that no member’s dignity was disrespected as per the forum’s rules and therefore proceedings could continue as normal. Mgabini concluded that he will file a complaint with the Transformation Office regarding the remark.
Proceedings continued with presentations by each SRC member, which were generally met with mixed reviews from the audience. In the latter half of the evening, during the questions without notice section, an escalation occurred between Study Finance Officer Lungisani Ngubeni and an attendee. The attendee submitted a detailed question via the provided Google form pertaining to the increased need for financial assistance among postgraduate students, which went unrecognised and unanswered. Ngubeni ultimately dismissed the question, which was a stark contrast to his political affiliation that strives for “free education, in [their] lifetime”. Furthermore, significant points were communicated by SRC Deputy President Mosa Motloutse, including a focus towards discussions of rebranding the UP logo to promote inclusivity and diversity.
Deputy Secretary Elovuyo Makohliso elaborated on the fate of the infamous test weeks. Makohliso detailed a meeting with the university’s timetable committee in which a proposed timetable of two test weeks per year would take place over the course of two weeks. This proposal was rejected on account of there being evidence of academic performance improving since the implementation of test week. According to Makohliso, the mental health and wellbeing of students is of no concern to the committee as concerns regarding test week were ultimately disregarded as “petty”. It should be noted that this resolution is still being contemplated and awaiting approval from the Senate. Makohliso further remarked that the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) has expressed growing calls to reduce the amount of assessments imposed onto students.
Following the conclusion of the student forum, PDBY spoke with Mgabini, who reiterated that he will report SASCO’s tribalistic remarks to the Transformation Office. Mgabini expressed that he felt that the Chief Justice did all he could with regard to addressing the remark. Mgabini provided that the EFFYC’s tension with SASCO stems from SASCO’s failure to fight for student wellbeing, detailing that the organisation has a history of “selling out students” and engaging in politics of extortion. Mgabini also said that SASCO’s behaviour within the forum serves as an example of their lack of care for students, highlighting their focus on making inflammatory comments as opposed to acting in the interest of students. Mgabini concludes by providing the lack of seriousness in which SASCO treats discriminatory comments such as the aforementioned tribalistic remark, saying that had an EFFYC member made the same comment, they would be expelled from the organisation.
As many expected, last quarter’s student forum was rife with heated debates, unsatisfactory resolutions, and informal conduct. The mass exodus of UP Residence representatives less than halfway into the meeting may be cause for concern, which raises the question of whether said representatives were in attendance to ensure the wellbeing of their residents, or merely to fulfill an executive obligation. Additionally, the consistent chaos of the student forum raises concerns regarding the meeting’s effectiveness as a means of communication and accountability, with the conference often acting as a battleground for opposing organisations and frustrated students. Ultimately, quarter one’s student forum, while not in complete disarray, was still far from successful, causing many to wonder if the Constitutional Tribunal truly has the means to create an effective and efficient space for student to student-leadership communication.
Kofi Donkor