Cape Town - Acting Public Protector advocate Kholeka Gcaleka has determined there were no irregularities or misconduct on the part of the University of Cape Town (UCT) after its decision not to confer a Doctor of Philosophy Degree (PhD) on one of its students.
The Public Protector, mandated to investigate any alleged misconduct or prejudice by a state organ or administration, was approached by the complainant, Adam Andani on April 23, 2019 to investigate allegations of improper conduct and maladministration relating to the university’s decision, as claimed by Andani .
UCT’s Doctoral Degrees Board (DDB) approved a recommendation made by the Doctoral Committee of Assessor (the DCoA) to not accept and fail Andani’s thesis “on the basis that he substantially plagiarised a former law student’s dissertation,” as found by a third examiner.
His supervisor informed Andani on February 10, 2018 that the third examiner had accused him of plagiarism, which led to the recommendation by the DCoA to the DDB.
Andani lodged an internal review application against the recommendation to the-then vice-chancellor Dr Max Price on February, 20, 2018, stating that there were procedural irregularities in the appointment of a third examiner and disparities in the third examiner’s report which had differed from previous reports.
The complainant's internal review application was examined and found that although there had been irregularities in the process, namely that the supervisor had asked Andani to nominate a third examiner, this did not have any effect on the findings of the third examiner, in the decision not to confer being upheld.
A second appeal was lodged through UCT Ombudsman's assistance to the DDB chairperson, Professor Michael Kyobe, on July 3, 2018. Kyobe found that the DDB’s decision should be upheld which led the complainant to take his matter to the Office of the Public Protector.
The complainant was invited to a hearing by UCT’s Student Disciplinary Tribunal to state his case, which he declined, according to the Public Protector’s report, and which had resulted in the tribunal’s decision to suspend the complainant for 18 months starting from July 1, 2021.
A third appeal was lodged with deputy vice-chancellor Professor Sue Harrison who also upheld the DDB’s decision.
The Public Protector’s investigation did not focus on the veracity of the claims of plagiarism but rather on the appointment of the third examiner and whether there had been non-compliance with procedures by the relevant parties in the nomination process of the examiner.
According to the closing report dated June 30 and submitted to UCT interim vice-chancellor Daya Reddy and Andani, Gcaleka found that the university followed proper procedures and its administrative action was fair and reasonable.
“Having considered the evidence, it is the view of the Public Protector that the UCT handled the Complainant’s complaint relating to the decision not to confer him a PhD, in conformity with the relevant legislative framework, its statute, policy prescripts and guidelines regulating examination processes and outcomes.”