Fresh questions have emerged over the handling of complaints involving UCT Vice-Chancellor Professor Mosa Moshabela after former senior executive Professor Jeff Murugan allegedly discovered that a complaint had been associated with his name despite his insistence that he never made one.
Sources close to the case have seen correspondence from Murugan, the former acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research and Internationalisation, which appears to raise further questions about the origin of complaints reportedly made against Moshabela.
In the correspondence, Murugan said he was contacted in March and asked to verify information suggesting that he had approached the UCT Ombud to lodge a complaint against the Vice-Chancellor.
Former UCT executive denies making complaint
Murugan said he immediately rejected the claim as “completely false” and maintained that he had never had a one-on-one interaction with the Ombud or anyone from her office.
He subsequently met with investigators. According to Murugan, investigators told him that information supplied to them indicated that the Ombud had met with him on two occasions, something he categorically denied.
Murugan said he was offered anonymity during the investigation but declined, instead requesting that his name be included in the investigators’ report because of what he described as the “egregious nature of the fabrication of the allegation”.
He has since asked UCT for an impartial investigation into the actions and motives of the Ombud, anyone who may have assisted her, and how the alleged complaint came to be considered by UCT Council.
Affidavit raises questions over Forrest Hill incident
The development comes amid separate questions surrounding what has become known as the Forrest Hill incident.
UCT academic Dr Zamambo Mkhize states in an affidavit filed in the Western Cape High Court that she was drawn into an investigation despite maintaining that she had never lodged a complaint about the matter.
The affidavit forms part of Moshabela’s court proceedings against UCT, its Council and several other respondents and was filed electronically on September 29.
Mkhize said she became seriously ill in November 2025 while staying at UCT’s Forrest Hill staff residence.
According to her account, a university staff member checked on her after her mother became concerned when she could not reach her.
UCT declines to comment on court dispute
Mkhize said she regarded what happened as a wellness intervention and was grateful for the assistance.
She said investigators later questioned her about the circumstances surrounding the incident, including whether anything had been stolen.
Mkhize maintained that she had never reported theft and had never made a complaint about the incident.
Responding to questions, UCT spokesperson Elijah Moholola said the university would not comment on the details while the dispute remained before the courts.
“UCT reiterates that the legal matter involving the Vice-Chancellor and the university’s Council is currently before the courts. It would therefore not be appropriate for the university to comment on the details or merits of the case at this stage,” Moholola said.
UCT instead referred to two statements issued by the university in August setting out Council’s position on the legal dispute.
In its August 10 statement, UCT Council chair Norman Arendse said concerns relating to the Vice-Chancellor had been brought to Council’s attention through the Ombud. He said he sought independent legal advice before placing the matter before Council and informing Moshabela.
Arendse said the process that followed was intended to ensure independence, appropriate confidentiality and fairness to all those affected. He also stressed that Council acting on concerns did not mean it had already determined whether the allegations were true.
The university said at the time that Council had a responsibility to act when serious concerns were brought to its attention, while protecting the rights and dignity of everyone involved.
Council outlines its position
Six days later, following a special Council meeting, UCT issued another statement dealing with Moshabela’s court challenge.
UCT said Moshabela was seeking judicial review of four resolutions adopted by Council on May 30. Council resolved to suspend implementation of those resolutions pending the High Court’s final determination of the review proceedings.
Council also confirmed that it was willing to participate in mediation in an attempt to resolve the dispute and said it would await further papers from Moshabela before deciding whether to oppose the review application.
The university said it had to balance public interest in the dispute with its obligation to protect ongoing legal proceedings, the rights of those involved and confidentiality surrounding matters before the Ombud and Council.