Maties council to meet over new Wilgenhof residence twist

Stellenbosch University will convene a council meeting on Friday over allegations that the report which influenced Council’s decision to close the controversial Wilgenhof residence, was tampered with.

This comes after retired Constitutional Court Justice and current Chancellor at Stellenbosch University, Edwin Cameron alleged that the redacted version of the report had changed the panel’s recommendation of a dialogue which they preferred, over closure of the building.

Secrets at the Wilgenhof residence came to light following the discovery of two rooms by university staff in January this year during an audit of the space.

This led to initiation-like allegations concerning the “Nagligte” (Nighties) in light of “disturbing items” found in the rooms. The Nagligte were formed in 1914 as part of Wilgenhof’s interdisciplinary committee.

In the investigation report into the “Nagligte”, on how the discipline was enacted, the investigation panel noted: “If the student accepted Nagligte discipline, he would be woken up around midnight by the whole group of Nagligte, wearing their full black costumes, pointed hoods, banging on his room door. Eerie noises and/or music was played in the quad, creating a sombre atmosphere. The Nagligte spoke in falsetto voices. They took the subject to hool 88 (one of the rooms) to be disciplined.

“Until 2020, the subject was naked throughout. Since 2020, the subject would wear only his vest and underwear.”

Names of the people involved in alleged activities of the “Naglitgte” were redacted in the investigation report.

According to Cameron, following the findings, the panel initially recommended: “The approach of a truly deep, carefully managed and facilitated dialogue on campus appeals to the panel as an alternative to the closure of Wilgenhof.

“The panel cannot comment on how long that process might take. The process would have to grapple with the difficult issues that maintain the primacy of the dominant culture at Wilgenhof, and those persons would have to be prepared not only to see their own blind spots, but also to acknowledge their privilege and make big sacrifices to engender deep and lasting change.

“There is also, of course, no guarantee that such a process would be successful.”

However on September 16, the Stellenbosch University Council, the highest decision-making body at the university, decided to temporarily shut the men’s residence in its current format for the entire 2025 academic year.

Cameron’s affidavit is part of an ongoing litigation by the Wilgenhof Alumni Association to have the investigation report and the decisions made by SU flowing from it, set aside. They have approached the high court on behalf of former students and said they would continue to seek an expedited High Court review citing “reputational harm of former Wilgenhoffers”.

The SU Council said it was opposing the matter.

“The University finds these developments around its efforts regarding Wilgenhof residence deeply regrettable, particularly also in view of the settlement arrived at between the University and the Association for the Advancement of Wilgenhof Residents (AWIR).

“With the settlement, Council agreed to accommodate Wilgenhof residents by shortening the period of closure to one semester and by allowing those students who wish to do so, to stay in the larger of the two new north Campus residences.

“It is important to note that the settlement does not compromise on the crux of the recommendation, i.e. to close the residence in its current form and have a facilitated process towards a re-imagined, renewed and rejuvenated student community.

“Council is legally opposing the Wilgenhof Alumni Association (or Wilgenhof Bond) review application which seeks to set aside the report of the Panel appointed to investigate the content found in two rooms at Wilgenhof.

“The University trusts that through the Council and legal processes it will remain on course in its endeavours to effect decisive change,” SU said.

In response to Cameron’s affidavit, the Wilgenhof Alumni Association said SU did not act in good faith toward Wilgenhof alumni and current students.

“The Wilgenhof Alumni Association has been participating in all the processes set by Stellenbosch University this year in good faith and with the eye on a constructive resolution.

But the existence of an alternative report shows that SU did not act in good faith toward Wilgenhof alumni and current students.

“The university will now have to answer damning questions about secrecy, tampering and dishonesty.

What should have been a fair and transparent process, turned out to be the opposite,” said Wilgenhof Alumni Association spokesperson, Jaco Rabie.

Cape Times