Cape Town - The Executive Committee of Stellenbosch University’s Convocation has disclosed that over a month ago, they requested access to the revised report concerning the future of the Wilgenhof residence, yet their appeals were overlooked in what was purportedly a process of transparency.

Recently, former Public Protector Advocate Thuli Madonsela reportedly expressed her support for SU’s Vice-Chancellor and Rector, Wim de Villiers, amidst allegations that he tampered with the report related to the male residence.

The university council convened yesterday in response to these allegations. This meeting was prompted by claims made in an affidavit filed by SU’s Chancellor, Justice Edwin Cameron, which asserted that both De Villiers and Dr. Nicky Newton-King, Chair of SU’s Council, allegedly modified the contents of a report stemming from an independent investigation.

Jaco Rabie, spokesperson for the Wilgenhof Alumni Association, indicated that the council would reconvene on Friday following these developments. He clarified that Cameron’s affidavit and Advocate Nick de Jager’s recent response were submitted in connection with a court application initiated by the Wilgenhof Alumni Association last month.

“It is crucial to distinguish the Alumni Association’s court application from the legal action pursued by the Association for the Advancement of Wilgenhof Residents (AWIR), which has recently settled,” Rabie noted. “AWIR comprises over 360 current residents and their parents. Thanks to AWIR’s settlement, disruption for current Wilgenhof residents will be minimized, ensuring that the community remains intact.”

The Alumni Association’s legal proceedings are ongoing. The Convocation has expressed its commitment to opposing dishonesty and has reiterated its demand for complete transparency, having previously made similar requests.

“The apparent dishonest alteration of the Wilgenhof panel's report, which served as the basis for the Council's contentious decision regarding the residence's closure, is inexcusable,” they stated. “The damage inflicted on the university's reputation, particularly on current residents just before exams, and the disrespect shown to former residents is profound and necessitates decisive action from the Council.”

Documented testimonies from donors and other communications with the rector have countered the panel's attempts to justify these changes.

“We believe that trust cannot be restored between the Rector and Chair of the Council on one side and students, staff, donors, convocation, and the surrounding community on the other under the current leadership. The Convocation was already aware of an amended version of the report.”

“This is why we specifically requested in letters dated September 25 and October 10 to see which version of the report was presented to the Council. Our request was categorically denied, raising significant concerns about transparency.”

AWIR and Stellenbosch University have resolved their litigation regarding the Council's decision to close Wilgenhof residence in 2025. The parties acknowledged a collective commitment to sever ties with unacceptable and secretive practices of the past. They emphasized that recent events surrounding the discovery of disturbing items in two rooms at Wilgenhof should act as a turning point for transformation within SU and its residences.

In September, SU’s Council announced plans to temporarily close Wilgenhof for a year to facilitate its rejuvenation and reimaging as a residence. The discourse surrounding Wilgenhof's fate gained traction following media coverage highlighting disturbing incidents within its 120-year history.

Shocking images depicted Klan-like hoods alongside illustrations of violent sexual acts, prompting former students to share their harrowing experiences with various media outlets.