Tracy-Lynn Ruiters|Published
UCT has issued a formal apology after confidential information relating to the appointment of Faculty of Law Dean Professor Mohamed Paleker was exposed in publicly released judicial investigation reports, prompting Vice-Chancellor Professor Mosa Moshabela to warn that withdrawing the documents cannot undo the harm caused.
The controversy erupted after UCT's Council published reports by retired Supreme Court of Appeal judges Mahomed Navsa and Malcolm Wallis on October 20, detailing investigations into 50 complaints against Council members.
One report contained confidential comments made during selection committee and Council deliberations that led to Paleker's appointment in February 2026.
The university subsequently removed public access to the reports and apologised to individuals affected by the disclosure.
Council sincerely regrets any distress caused
Council chairperson Advocate Norman Arendse SC said the university regretted the unintended consequences of making the documents public.
"The UCT Council would like to issue a full and formal apology to individuals who have been negatively impacted as an unintended consequence of the judges' reports being made public. The Council sincerely regrets any distress caused," Arendse said.
However, Moshabela, in a communication to the university community on Monday afternoon, warned that the damage could not simply be reversed.
"Council has since withdrawn the links and apologised to those adversely affected. These were the right steps, and I welcome them. Withdrawal cannot, however, recall what may have already been read, downloaded and shared by some. For the people concerned, the harm is real and it continues."
Moshabela said he had been approached by distressed staff, students and alumni following the publication.
"Over the past few days I have heard from many colleagues, students and alumni who are distressed by what has happened. Their concern is justified."
He said the university had a responsibility to be transparent about investigations into its governing body, but warned that accountability should not come at the expense of confidentiality.
"The public interest in the investigations did not remove the need to protect personal information about people who were not under investigation," he said.
Moshabela questioned whether sufficient safeguards had been implemented before publication, including appropriate redactions and consideration for individuals whose personal information appeared in the reports.
Moshabela apologised for the impact of the disclosure
Central to his concerns was Paleker, whose appointment process became publicly exposed despite having no connection to allegations investigated by the retired judges.
"He was not the subject of either investigation, and his appointment was not under investigation," Moshabela stressed.
"I chaired the selection committee that recommended him. I remain fully confident in that recommendation and stand unequivocally behind his appointment as Dean. He has my complete confidence and support."
Paleker has served UCT for 26 years, contributing to the university as a legal academic, scholar and practitioner.
Moshabela apologised personally for the impact of the disclosure.
"Confidential deliberations concerning his appointment have entered the public domain in circumstances unrelated to any investigation into his conduct or suitability for office. No member of our community should be put in that position."
He also expressed concern about the reputational impact on the Faculty of Law, South Africa's oldest law school, which is internationally recognised for legal education and research.
Confidence in Paleker reaffirmed
Council separately reaffirmed its confidence in Paleker.
"The university's Council also wishes to place it on record that it stands behind the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Professor Mohamed Paleker, whose appointment in February 2026 received the full endorsement of Council, the university leadership and the faculty," Arendse said.
In his statement, Moshabela also warned that selection committees depended on assurances that discussions would remain confidential and that information would only be disclosed when legally authorised.
"To everyone who serves on, or comes before, a selection committee at UCT: confidentiality remains a firm commitment of this university."
He called for improved protocols governing the review, redaction and release of sensitive documents, including notifying affected individuals where appropriate.
The controversy follows the investigations into 50 complaints involving allegations of offensive conduct, non-disclosure of information, misuse of social media and inappropriate public statements.
Wallis investigated three complaints and found no breaches of the Council Code of Conduct, while Navsa examined the remaining 47.
Navsa recommended the expulsion of one Council member and a six-month suspension for another after finding that two members had breached the code.
Those sanctions remain subject to further consideration by a five-member Council subcommittee.
Moshabela emphasised that his concerns about the disclosure did not undermine the judges' investigations or the public's right to know how Council handled misconduct complaints.
"What has happened must lead to practical improvement. This calls for clear protocols for the review, redaction and release of sensitive material," he said.
Council confirmed that the matter will be addressed at its next special meeting.