Investigation Reports

Madam Speaker and Honourable Members of Parliament

I have the honour to submit to you in terms of Section 8(2) of the Public Protector Act 1994 the special report into certain irregularities pertaining to the issuing of degrees and courses at the University of Zululand.

S A M BAQWA
Public Protector of the
Republic of South Africa

22 May 1997

---

CONTENTS

A: INFORMATION ON THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

B: REPORT

• INTRODUCTION
• THE ISSUES
• PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN THE INVESTIGATION
• BACKGROUND TO THE IRREGULARITIES
• ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM
• HOW THE FRAUD OCCURRED
• INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER PARTIES
• SELECTED ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
• FINDINGS
• RECOMMENDATIONS
• CONCLUSION
• STATISTICS

A. INFORMATION ON THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

Definition

The Public Protector is an official who is independent of government and any political party. He/she is appointed by Parliament in terms of the Constitution. He/she receives complaints from aggrieved persons against government, government departments, government agencies and government officials. He/she has powers to investigate matters referred to him/her, recommend corrective action and issue reports to Parliament. The office is established under Chapter 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. The operational requirements of the office are provided for under the Public Protector Act, 1994 (Act No 23 of 1994)

The Public Protector is appointed by the President subsequent to the approval by Parliament of candidates's nominated by a joint committee of the Houses of Parliament.

The Office of the Public Protector was established on I October 1995. Previously, the office was known as the office of the Ombudsman which was established on 22 November 1991. The latter office evolved from the Office of the Advocate-General, which was established on 18 July 1979.

The Constitution provides that the Public Protector shall be a South African citizen who is a fit and proper person to hold such office, and who -

1. is a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa; or
2. is qualified to be admitted as an advocate and has, for a cumulative period of at least 10 years after having so qualified, practised as an advocate or attorney, or lectured in law at a university; or
3. has specialised knowledge of or experience for a period of at least 10 years in the administration of justice, public administration or public finance.

Jurisdiction

The Public Protector is empowered in terms of Chapter 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 and the Public Protector Act, 1994 (Act No 23 of 1994), to investigate on his or her own initiative or on receipt of a complaint, any maladministration in connection with the affairs of government at any level. He/she also has jurisdiction to investigate any complaint against any person performing a public function or against public entities and any institution in which the State is a majority or controlling shareholder.

Nature of complaints

Any person or institution may complain to the Public Protector.

The Public Protector may investigate -

1. maladministration,
2. abuse or unjustifiable exercise of power or unfair, capricious, discourteous or other improper conduct;
3. improper or unlawful enrichment or receipt of any improper advantage, or promise of such enrichment or advantage,
4. any improper or dishonest act, or omission or corruption, with respect to public money,
5. any act or omission which results in unlawful or improper prejudice.

Powers

The Public Protector is competent to -

1. direct any person to appear before him/her to give evidence or to produce any document in his or her possession or under his or her control which, in the opinion of the Public Protector, has a bearing on the matter being investigated, and may examine such person for that purpose; and
2. enter, or authorise another person to enter any building or premises and there to make such an investigation or enquiry as he or she may deem necessary, and seize anything on those premises which in his or her opinion has a bearing on the purpose of the investigation.

B. REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Academic freedom and academic integrity are some of the most prized possessions of any university or tertiary institution. It was on this basis that an investigation into irregularities in respect of the issue of degrees at the University of Zululand was undertaken. On 2 September 1996 I received a request from the Department of Education in Pretoria to investigate the irregularities in respect of the issue of degrees at the University of Zululand. I agreed to conduct the investigation. The request from the National Education Department came about as follows:

1.2 Before the graduation ceremony in May 1996 the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Professor Dlodlo (now Mr Justice Dlodlo) discovered that some of the students who were on the graduation list had not complied with all the requirements for degrees to be conferred on them and that they were therefore not supposed to graduate. He immediately alerted the administration officials of the University and as a result of his report, 27 names were removed from the graduation list.

1.3 After the graduation ceremony, the University management immediately investigated the matter and discovered that an official in the Student Affairs Section of the administration staff, one A M Ngubane, had irregularly altered marks on the academic records of a number of students to enable them to graduate improperly. The initial investigation undertaken by the University management established that 57 irregular alterations could be ascribed to Mr Ngubane's activities.

1.4 University management swung into action at a number of levels to try and get to the bottom of what had happened. Firstly they initiated an investigation internally which was conducted by external auditors Deloitte and Touche. Management also engaged in discussions with the National Education Department with a possible view to appointing a Commission of Inquiry. As a result of these discussions, Drs I Rensburg and C Klopper visited the University with a view to taking the matter further. Some students and other stakeholders at the University also agitated for a Presidential Commission of inquiry to investigate the irregularities referred to above. The Rector of the University, Prof C R M Dlamini, also engaged my office in discussions concerning possibilities about launching an investigation. It was after these many activities that the matter was finally settled on the basis that my office should be the one to conduct the investigation.

1.5 I began with a formal investigation on Monday 4 November 1996. This investigation has now been finalised and I have the honour to present the following report.

2. THE ISSUES

2.1 The request from the National Education Department was couched in rather general terms in that I was merely requested to investigate the irregularities in the awarding of degrees at the University of Zululand in terms of the Public Protector Act, 1994 (Act No 23 of 1994). Within this broad mandate I decided to identify certain specific areas that were to be investigated namely:

1. The examination and graduation procedures.
2. The possibilities for tampering with marks once these procedures were under way.
3. The procedures at the Information Technology Centre and safeguards around those procedures.
4. The registration procedure.
5. Supervision to ensure that there was no tampering with marks after they had been properly allocated.
6. The identities of those who obtained degrees irregularly.
7. The identification of those responsible for the irregularities.
8. The steps taken against the culprits.

3. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN THE INVESTIGATION

3.1 Section 7(1) of the Public Protector Act, 1994 (Act No 23 of 1994), provides as follows:

"The procedure to be followed in conducting an investigation shall be determined by the Public Protector with due regard to the circumstances of each case and the Public Protector may direct that any category of person or all persons whose presence is not desirable, shall not be present at the proceedings during the investigation or any part thereof."

3.2 From the very it was clear to me that this matter was sensitive and serious from a number of angles. Firstly it involved the credibility and integrity of the University. Further it also involved the integrity and credibility not only of those that would be the subject of the investigation, but also graduates who had graduated from the University. With regard to those who would be investigated, it was also clear that I had to be circumspect and to ensure that their basic rights with regard to a proper hearing, the right to representation and the right to reply or the right to be heard "audi alteram partem" had to be respected.

3.3 I considered it important even at that early stage to link up with the investigation that was being conducted under the direction of the University management. To that end I approached the Attorney-General of Natal and, after some discussions, secured the services of Adv T Barnard who was then attached to that office.. The intention was for him to obtain the relevant information at the University and to ensure that the investigation was as comprehensive as possible from the very beginning. Further, and in order to increase the expertise during the investigation, I secured the services of Prof K Hunt who is an ex registrar of Rhodes University through the National Education Department. These two gentlemen assisted and advised me throughout the investigation. In order to ensure the protection of whoever appeared before me and in particular the rights referred to above, I determined that the investigation would proceed on a formal or quasi judicial basis. I was fully aware of the fact that affording the individuals concerned the rights to legal representation might lengthen the proceedings, but I recognised the need to ensure that the rights of the individuals were protected, particularly in the light of the adverse consequences that could follow negative finding regarding those individuals.

3.4 The first task was to establish the names of all those students whose marks had been altered. This was not going to be an easy task, but it was facilitated by the fact that student marks were recorded on computer and that the computer had the facility which recorded all changes to academic records of students. The information on computer included:

1. The name of the student.
2. The nature of the change.
3. The date on which the change was made.
4. ( The name of the person who initiated the change and his/her code.

3.5 This facility was used to generate computer printouts, per faculty and in course sequence, of recorded changes to the academic history records. These printouts were given to the academic staff to establish the validity of whatever changes they contained.

3.6 Further, the lists containing changes, in student number sequence, were displayed on the University notice boards with a request to students to submit reasons, within a period of 14 days, why the changes should not be reversed. The initial list contained the names of 598 students and 1100 recorded semester course changes. It must be noted, however, that not all the changes contained that list where unauthorised and this was the reason why the list was referred to the academic staff for verification..

3.7 Upon perusal of the printouts, it could be seen that the person responsible for most of the changes to the student marks was one individual, Mr A M Ngubane.

3.8 The list was returned by the Deans, accompanied by affidavits from the faculty staff, indicating which alterations had been authorised by them and which ones were invalid. The final number of alterations which appeared and which were confirmed by academic staff as invalid, was two-hundred.

3.9 As stated above, the investigation was to be formal. The respondents had to come before us to tender oral evidence. For this purpose, it became necessary to issue subpoenas and to serve them on each of the 200 individuals whose academic records seemed to indicate improper tampering with the marks. The subpoenas informed each respondent about the changes effected to his or her academic record, including the actual courses which were involved. The subpoena also informed each respondent about the date, time and place of appearance. The respondents were further informed about their right to be assisted by an advocate or an attorney.

3.10 The process of hearing evidence began on 4 November 1996 and ended in April 1997. A total of about 500 witnesses were called or interviewed and the oral evidence which was mechanically recorded went into 2115 typed pages. We also received written submissions from witnesses who were unable to attend the hearing, or supplementary evidence from those who attended. Witnesses also handed in exhibits in the form of documentation to prove their cases. Some of the respondents were represented by attorneys or advocates and others appeared in person. Witnesses who appeared included the respondents, the University management, academic staff, administration staff end staff from the University Protection Services who also very kindly assisted in the serving of the subpoenas.

3.11 Not all the subpoenas could be served on the individuals concerned. Some of the respondents were not available at the addresses last recorded at the University and others were absent from their addresses for a number of different reasons. This necessitated the serving of some of the subpoenas by publication in national newspapers to ensure that all the respondents were properly and legally informed of the nature of investigation as far as it affects them.

4. BACKGROUND TO THE IRREGULARITIES

4.1 It is essential to put the whole episode in proper perspective. In 1992, whilst the current Rector of the University, Prof C R M Dlamini, was Registrar (Academic) he established an ad hoc committee to look into the whole question of mark handling from the time that they were allocated till the time that they were loaded onto the mainframe computer. This ad hoc committee consisted of all deans or their representatives, representatives of the Student Affairs Section, the Examinations Section and Information Technology Division.

4.2 The rationale behind the establishment of this ad hoc committee was that there had been complaints about incorrect data appearing on the computer. It was accordingly found imperative to ensure that correct information appeared on the computer to prevent any person interfering unlawfully with student's results.

4.3 One of the major recommendations or decisions of this committee was that nobody should be entitled to alter the marks of students on the mainframe computer without the accompanying signatures of the Head of the Department and the Dean. The reasoning behind this decision was that once the Examinations Committee had approved the marks of a student, nobody would be entitled to alter those marks. Only the Head of the Department and the Dean could do that for cogent reasons. They would further require the approval or rectification of the Examinations Committee or the Faculty Board.

4.4 A document on the procedure to be followed in mark handling was drawn up by Mr M J Schmittinger from the German Department. That document was approved by the ad hoc Committee and was distributed to all persons concerned with a covering letter from the then Academic Registrar (Prof Dlamini).

4.5 All Deans and Heads of sections were asked to hold workshops with members of their faculties and sections, respectively, so as to enlighten them about the procedure to be followed in mark handling. This included the Information Technology Section which was represented in the ad hoc Committee by a certain Mr Vickery, then Manager in that section.

5. ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM

5.1 It would appear that the problem that the University experienced could be attributed to a number of factors. One of these factors is the lack of a culture of learning on the pan of some students. This lack of a culture of learning leads to a situation where people would like to have paper qualifications without the knowledge and competence that those qualifications reflect. That is why some students would-be prepared to approach certain officers and ask them to alter their marks in order to enable them to receive degrees.

5.2 This problem cannot be said to be peculiar to the University, but it starts from secondary school level. For several years it has been common knowledge that there have been leaks of examination papers and a racket of selling examination question papers by some individuals. This problem, as can be seen from recent media reports, has not been completely eliminated. This is not meant to absolve the University from what had happened, but is being stated in order that the problem may be seen in the proper perspective

5.3 However, the immediate cause of the problem at the University was that the Information Technology Division allowed certain persons to alter marks and lodge with them incomplete documentation which had not been properly signed, contrary to the procedures that had been stipulated and agreed upon. If officials in the Information Technology Division had insisted on the required signatures which were required on the capture forms, these irregularities would not have happened. Witnesses from the Information Technology Division were called and in particular one Mrs Erskine who was responsible for transferring information from the capture forms onto the mainframe computer. Her evidence left much to be desired. The forms with wrong or incomplete information would be handed over to her for the transference of the information onto the mainframe computer by Mr Ngubane who was employed as a Chief Faculty Officer. Mr Ngubane would sign some of these forms as Head of Department which he was not. Mrs Erskine was questioned at length about her omissions and the reasons for accepting such documentation. Her explanation was simply that she trusted Mr Ngubane because she had worked with him over a number of years. In our view Mrs Erskine was grossly negligent in not adhering to the agreed procedures.

5.4 One of the people who testified before us was the Rector of the University, Prof C RM Dlamini, who stated that when the news about the degree scam was broken, he enquired from the Information Technology Division as to why the irregularities had occurred. According to him, their response was that they were not aware of the procedures and he stated that their response was unconvincing even to him.

6. HOW THE FRAUD OCCURRED

6.1 The system that had been put in place by the Academic Registrar together with his ad hoc Committee and Mr M G Schmittinger (Dlamini system) to safeguard the handling of marks in 1992 was a good one. Any such system involving the storage of information on computer is, however, only as good as the people who operate it. Accordingly a brief discussion of the mark handling procedures is necessary in order to understand what happened.

6.2 After the writing of an examination, marks are collected and listed within the faculty which is conducting the examination. The marks are then sent to the Examination Section. The Examination Section will take these to the Information Technology Centre where these will be loaded onto the mainframe computer. A computer printout of the marks will then be produced. This print out would then be sent back to the faculties. First of all the Department will check this printout for any errors that may have occurred. The Department then sends the corrected print out to the Examinations Committee of the faculty which will verify the marks . If they are satisfied that everything is in order, they approve the marks. Once the Examinations Committee has approved the marks, nobody is entitled to alter those marks without the accompanying signature of the Head of the Department and the Dean. The latter themselves are supposed to obtain the approval of either the Examinations Committee or the Faculty Board. The intention is to protect the marks and the results of the students, so that not just any person can interfere with them.

6.3 I may mention at this point that even before 1996, according to the testimony of the Rector, Prof Dlamini, there were rumours that not all was in order with regard to the accuracy of marks and other information that were entered in the academic records of students. The management of the University, which includes the Rector, did not treat those rumours lightly, because they were concerned and intent on preserving protecting the academic integrity of the University. For that reason; in 1995 they appointed auditors Deloitte and Touche to carry out an audit of the graduation ceremony so as to find out whether things were in order in the Students Affairs Section as well as the Examinations Sections which are the two sections that are intimately connected with the graduation ceremony. A report which was produced by Messrs Deloitte and Touche did not reveal any serious irregularities. The report only referred to a few cases which the auditors said they were not happy with and which they asked the University authorities to follow up. During 1996 Messrs Deloitte and Touche also carried out an audit of the graduation ceremony and their report did not reveal the fraudulence that had been perpetrated on a rather wide scale.

6.4 It was only when a student was trying to register at the Law Faculty that the then Dean (now Mr Justice Dlodlo) recalled that the student had actually not passed a particular course. He consulted with the lecturer who was teaching the course and this lecturer confirmed that the student had not passed it. Professor Dlodlo referred the matter to the Administration for an investigation. At the Administration they investigated the case and discovered that the alteration concerned had been effected Mr A M Ngubane. They then decided to investigate other cases and about 27 students were discovered to be improperly on the graduation list. The 27 names were then removed from the graduation programme. At this point members of the Students Affairs Section decided to carry out a further investigation to find out whether there were any further cases. They discovered an addtitional 57 cases which had been altered by Mr A M Ngubane who was the Chief Faculty Officer in the Student Affairs Section. They even discovered that he had altered his own results so this brought the number of cases to 58. This list was brought to the attention of the Rector who gave instructions that Mr Ngubane be charged for misconduct.

6.5 When Messrs Deloitte & Touche heard about this discovery, they carried out a further investigation or audit. According to them, the problem had arisen because there were no agreed procedures for the handling of marks. The Rector, Prof Dlamini, took issue with the report because according to him, Messrs Deloitte & Touche had not consulted Management to find out what the true position was. As stated above, there was indeed a procedure which had been agreed upon by all the stakeholders. When that agreement about the procedures was reached, the Student Affairs Section, the Examination Section and the Information Technology Section were represented on the ad hoc Committee. The Head of the Student Affairs Section, when the system was set up, was a certain Dr Mbuli.

6.6 The system which had been devised to safeguard mark handling, provided for a form which would be signed by the Dean and the Head of Department whenever marks were to be altered. It was understood that this would be done in exceptional cases with the approval of the Examinations Committee. The signed form would then proceed from the faculty concerned to the Student Affairs Section where it would be sent to the Information Technology Section and the altered marks would be loaded onto the mainframe computer. An example of a case where student marks would be legitimately altered, is a case where a student would be offered the opportunity to write a re-examination. Provision is made in the university rules for students to be granted a re-examinationin certain specified cases. If the student concerned obtained an improved mark, this would entail an alteration of the mark he had obtained in the previous examination. This information would then be sent by the faculty to the Examinations Section on what was called a capture form. A distinction has to be made between this form and another form which is to be completed at the Student Affairs Section. This form or capture form also pertained to marks which would be loaded onto the mainframe computer. The form was designed by Dr Mbuli who was the then Assistant Registrar and Head of the Student Affairs Section. It was designed for the recognition of courses obtained by students from other universities. This form had two sections. One section would be completed and signed by an official who would be referred to as the initiator and he/she would enter hislher name and attach a signature. The other section would be signed by the Head of the Student Affairs Section to indicate h~s/her approval of the course or courses that would be recognised and added to the student's academic record. After completion, this form would be sent to the Information Technology Centre, accompanied by the Examination Committee meeting minutes which would indicate that the courses had been approved and recognised by the Examinations Committee. The form did not have to be signed by the Dean and the Head of Department. The initiator was usually the Faculty Administrative Officer who would fill in the form and pass it on to his section head who would then approve it. The form would be taken to the Information Technology Centre together with the minutes.

6.7 This is the form which was used by Mr Ngubane when he perpetrated the fraudulent alteration of student marks. He would firstly gain access to the computer by using his staffcode and alter the marks to give a pass where a course had been failed. He would then take the course recognition form, fill in the mark as if the student had passed the
course, and sign the form. He would then hand it to the Information Technology Centre where marks were loaded into the student's academic record.

6.8 Mr Ngubane would not even bother to obtain a second signature from his Section Head who was then Mr S C Mzimela, the Assistant Registrar. In Act Mr Ngubane was so nonchalant and daring that he would simply sign as Head of Section, whereas he was not. He would hand in forms to Mrs Erskine at the Information Technology Centre. It would be clear to all and sundry that the form had been signed by only one person, namely Mr Ngubane. It would also be clear that Mr Ngubane had signed at the wrong place on the form, namely, as head of a section, which Mrs Erskine very well knew he was not. The form, as handed to the Information Technology Section, would be clearly fraudulent and incorrect in no less than two respects, namely, it has been signed by one person who had signed at the wrong place in the wrong capacity. The system of ensuring that there would be two signatures on the form was to ensure that no fraud could be perpetrated easily. Despite this and despite the glaring omissions which would be evident on the forms, Mrs Erskine of the Information Technology Centre never found reason to query Mr Ngubane when he was busy with his fraudulent escapade. This seriously puts into question Mrs Erskine's commitment to her work and her ability to perform her work efficiently. As already stated, her simple explanation that she had trusted Mr Ngubane and did not think that he would do anything improper, is totally unacceptable. Whilst Mr Ngubane was clearly hell bent on perpetrating crime, it can be said of Mrs Erskine that she was grossly negligent. If she hadn't been so grossly negligent and if she had queried actions, Mr Ngubane's fraudulent escapade would have been nipped in the bud.

6.9 Further, the head of the Student Affairs Section, the Assistant Registrar, Mr S Mzimela cannot escape criticism in this regard. Whilst he did not commit any direct act which contributed to the fraudulent actions of Mr Ngubane, it is felt that he ought to have supervised him in such a manner that it should not have been as easy as it seems to have been for Mr Ngubane to carry out the fraud under his nose over a lengthy period without being discovered. I say this, because according to evidence given by the Rector, Professor Dlamini, and according to documentary evidence before us, it would appear that the previous head of the Student Affairs Section, Dr Mbuli, was able to enter the system from time to time to check whether there were any fraudulent acts that had been perpetrated on the computer itself. Mr Mzimela had apparently not performed such checks and such omission provided the environment in which Mr Ngubane could operate freely.

6.10 Having worked at the Student Affairs Section for a number of years, Mr Ngubane was clearly aware that the levels of supervision were to say the least, inadequate or non existent. He was aware of this deficiency and merilly plied his trade under the noses of his supervisors. How he secured the trust or co-operation of Mrs Erskine from the Information Technology Division, is baffling. I cannot understand how one official can allow another over a lengthy period to ignore stipulated procedures on the basis of trust. As stated above, not only was the absence of signatures supposed to alert Mrs Erskine, but the form which was lodged by Mr Ngubane was also supposed to be filed together untie supporting documentation from the Examinations. On each and every occasion, neither the incomplete form nor the absence of accompanying documentation was sufficient to alert Mrs Erskine of the fraud which was going on.

6.11 Mr Ngubane was called to appear before the enquiry and he tried in vain to extricate himself from the morass which he had created. I need not even dwell on his testimony during which he denied liability for his actions. Suffice it to say that I found him to be unconvincing and a pathological liar. Loyalty to his employer, namely the University of Zululand, was clearly lacking. He had planned his criminal actions carefully and he had embarked on his fraudulent scheme to achieve one aim only, namely to line his pocket with ill-gotten gains. He kept an account at the Volkskas Bank, Empangeni. He would be approached by a student, enter into an agreement with such a student as to which courses were to be added or altered, he would request the student to make the necessary deposit into his account and then continue to effect the alterations after having being shown a deposit slip by the student concerned. Mr Ngubane clearly had no concern for the students who he was misleading and he also had no concern for the integrity of the University. He does not seem to have had any idea about the damage he was causing to the good name of the University and the good name of those who had graduated properly from the University of Zululand.

6.12 Mr Ngubane was charged for misconduct and dismissed by the University, an action which I fully endorse. In my work as Public Protector, I am enjoined by the Public Protector Act, 1994 (Act No 23 of 1994), to report any criminal act which I come across to the Attorney-General for the necessary action. In this case, however, I am happy to note that the matter has already been passed on by the University authorities to the law enforcement agencies for the prosecution of Mr Ngubane. I am informed and verily believe that Mr Ngubane's case is proceeding at the Regional Court, Empangeni, where he has been charged with fraud. I cannot condemn Mr Ngubane's actions more strongly. People like him are a danger to society. They are a serious threat to society, because as already mentioned, he does not only damage the future of those recipients of fraudulent courses or degrees, but also damages the good name of the University. What is even worse, is that he also damages the names of people who are products of this University. He also damages the name of future students of this University. He might make it difficult for them to get employment, because prospective employers might look askance at such degrees. People who acquire degrees without the requisite knowlege might practice a profession to the serious detriment of the unsuspecting public.

6.13 It is unfortunate that, as far as the media are concemed, good news is not reported as frequently as bad news. Bad news travels fast and such was the case with regard to what has come to be known as "the University of Zululand degree scam" I need to state, however, that the fraud was not as wide-spread as may have appeared from some news reports. As I stated already earlier in this report, the cases which were suspect and in respect of which we had issued subpoenas, were 200 in number in a university population of about 8 000. The main culprit at the University in respect of the fraudulent act, was Mr A M Ngubane. It should accordingly not be assumed that all the administrative staff at the University of Zululand are criminally minded people.

6.14 The University management needs to be commended for the swig manner in which they handled this occurrence. As mentioned above, management acted even on the basis of rumours by appointing auditors to audit the graduation programme even before the Ngubane scam broke out. They did not attempt at any stage to cover up the corruption that was perpetrated by Mr Ngubane, even though they were fully aware that the publicity that might follow a revelation would not assist the good name of the University. The period over which this scam was perpetrated by Mr Ngubane does not appear to have been long and affected only a few years in the nineties. There were one or two cases which went back to the eighties, but not more than that.

6.15 Further, it needs do be emphasised that even though I conducted the investigation, the discovery of the corruption that was occurring was discovered because of the internal operations of the University It is not something that was discovered by somebody from outside It is my considered view that management, and in this regard I would like to mention the names of the Rector, Prof C R M Dlamini, the two Vice-rectors, Prof Boshoff and Prof Dube, and the former Dean of the Faculty of Law, Prof Dlodlo (now Mr Justice Dlodlo), had acted reasonably under all circumstances and at all times. They tried to take the necessary precautions to ensure the integrity and the security of students' results

6 16 It has been suggested by some members of the University that the irregularities that have been discovered at the University of Zululand reflect what is also happening at other universities. This statement was made in a rather oblique suggestion that the University of Zululand should not be viewed as a pariah university. The launching of this investigation was with the Bill co-operation of the University management, together with the National Department of Education. Both the University and the National Education Department realised that there was a cancer of corruption that was settling in at the University. They sought to excise this cancer once and for all with one aim only: to preserve the good name of the University of Zululand and the integrity of the educational system in the country as a whole. It is my considered view that if such corruption is taking place at any other institution in the country, it must be brought into the open The management of that institution or those institutions should have the courage to bring such activities to a stop once and for all. They should do so because corruption, if it goes unchecked, mushrooms. It does not stay at the same levels and it could totally engulf an institution unless it stopped as soon as it is discovered.

7. INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER PARTIES

7.1 The irregularities which were investigated must be viewed not only in terms of the fraud which was committed when marks were altered without authorisation, but also with regard to other acts or omissions which contributed to a subculture of corruption.

7.2 I found that failure to pay fees timeously by some students indirectly contributed to administrative chaos. Some students have been able to study right up to the final year without paying fees in full in respect of all the years that they had been studying. It would only be at the end of study, just before graduating, that payment would be demanded on the pain of not graduating. This would happen despite the rule which stipulates that no student would obtain results (for any year of study) without paying fees.

7.3 This rule would be flouted openly because students still received results and proceeded to subsequent years. In my view this was not only improper in administrative terms, but it also contributed to an environment where rules which had been carefully drafted counted for nothing. This is the environment in which corruption thrives.

7.4 In some cases students attended lectures without being registered for the relevant course. Lecturers would continue to teach them even though they were not on the official. A student would then in the event of passing, register retrospectively to validate the pass. Needless to say, if he/she failed, there would be no payment to make despite the tuition that had been given

7.5 In some cases an oral examination would be given without due regard to the University examination rules. In another matter an academic granted false marks to a student who had not even attended lectures in a particular course. She fraudulently created a capture form in which she allocated semester and examination marks to the student. What made it worse was that she was not even a lecturer in the course. This matter was referred to the University for disciplinary action. These matters are dealt with in detail under the subheading "Findings" below.

7.6 Another case involved an official also employed at the Administration Section of the University, Mr B N Dludla. He functioned as Faculty Secretary of the Faculty of Arts whilst at the same time being registered as a student. He changed and modified his own marks on the university computer without authonsation. He gave himself a pass mark in a course which he had failed twice, namely, Afrikaans. He deleted courses from his own academic record on his own without following the prescribed procedures. By this action he avoided paying the prescribed fee for modification of courses and for repeating a course. At the time of my inquiry a disciplinary enquiry by the University was already under way against Mr Dludla.

7.7 A case which was not in the same category as the majority of cases investigated, was that of Mr S M Mpungose. He was a lecturer in the Sociology Department He managed to cheat himself into employment by fraudulently alleging that he had three degrees to his credit from three different universities. He submitted skilfully forged degree certificates from the Bible Institute of Zimbabwe (L.Th), Queens University, Belfast (B.Sc (Hons) Social Science) and Ulster University, Northern Ireland (Masters in Social Science).

7.8 In this case the usual employment procedures had not been applied. In fact the Human Resources Section was placed in the embarassing position of Mr Mpungose having already been employed by Mr Tshabalala, a lecturer in Sociology and at the time acting head of the Department of Sociology, by the time they were requested to arrange an interview for him.

7.9 Mr Mpungose was eventually interviewed by a selection committee and appointed as a temporary lecturer from I February to 31 December 1996. What was surprising was that Mr Mpungose was offered a farther contract of one year, although there appears to have been no formal assessment of his work.

7.10 It was because of some misdemeanours that Mr Mpungose had committed with regard to false travel claims and misuse of University transport and through the alertness and industry of Mr McKay of the University Protection Services that his fraud with regard to employment was discovered.

7.11 Management had already dealt with the employment aspect by dismissing Mr Mpungose when the matter came before me - a decision which I fully endorse. Recommendations about employment procedures will be made below.

8. SELECTED ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

8.1 MISS MARIA IUABATHO MASHETI: STUDENT NO 931408

Miss M M Masheti is a 22-year-old student from Johannesburg who lives on campus at the University. She enrolled for the B.Paed (Commerce) degree in 1993 and, according to her testimony, experienced problems in passing the degree courses. She testified that a man by the name of Bheki (she does not know his surname) had told her to approach Mr A M Ngubane, the Chief Faculty Officer of the Faculties of Science, Commerce and Administration, Law and Theology at the University for help. She approached Mr Ngubane during 1994 and he agreed to change her academic record to reflect passes for the courses she was unable to validly pass. He requested money for his services and during the period November 1994 to April 1996 she paid him amounts of R700 (during November 1994), R400 (during January 1995), R300 (during May 1995), R200 (during July 1995), R400 (during February 1996) and R100 on two occasions (between March and April 1996). She stated that Mr Ngubane had never specified an amount for giving her a pass in a course, but always said she should pay him whatever money she had available. During the latter period Mr Ngubane changed the academic record of Miss Masheti to reflect passes in no less that 14 semester courses (passes to which she was not entitled), viz, Practical English 125, Psychology 125, Accounting 115 and 125, Business Economics 125, 215 and 225, Economics 115, 125, 215 and 225 and Pedagogics 115, 215 and 225.

I recommended to the University Council that all the latter courses be withdrawn as passes from her academic record and reflected as courses she did not pass.

8.2 MS CATHERINE SIBONGILE NTULI: STUDENT NO 892211

Ms C S Ntuli is a student who resides near Esikhawini. She is the mother of six children and a divorcee. During 1989 she enrolled for the B.Paed degree at the University. According to her testimony before me she was approached during 1995 by another student, Ms Mary Jane Mkhize, who told her that Mr A M Ngubane was "selling degrees" and could assist her in obtaining passes for the courses she still needed to complete her degree. Ms M I Mkhize introduced Ms C S Ntuli to Mr A M Ngubane during October/November 1995 and the latter agreed to give her credits for the courses Psychology 115 and 125, Pedagogics 325, Language Competence Course 315 and School Administration 315. Ms Ntuli further testified that Mr Ngubane had told her that seeing she is a final year student, she need not write examinations in the courses and could merely pay for them. Mr Ngubane asked her for an amount of R1000-00 to give her passes in the aforementioned courses. She paid him and expected to graduate during 1996. Shortly before the graduation ceremony and after the whole matter was exposed in the press, the University authorities discovered that Ms Ntuli had not validly passed the abovementioned courses and informed her per telegram that that she was not entitled to attend the graduation ceremony.

Ms Mary Jane Mkhize unfortunately passed away during December 1995, and I was therefore unable to obtain further particulars from her.

8.3 MS KETHIWE MONICA MTlIETHWA: STUDENT NO 952080

Ms K M Mthethwa is a student who was registered for the B.Paed degree at the University. According to the evidence given by Ms K M Mthethwa, she was concerned that she would not pass the courses for which she had registered during 1995. In this regard she stated that she had realised that her parents would not be able to pay for her to continue with her studies if she failed the courses. She decided to approach her friend, Ms Mary Jane Mkhize, who introduced her to Mr A M Ngubane. At the meeting with Mr Ngubane, the latter agreed to help her and to change her marks in order to secure a pass mark. She did not pay Mr Ngubane, but stated that she would give him a "surprise gift" on completion of her studies. On 27 March 1996 Mr Ngubane changed her marks in the following courses on the computer records of the University to read as follows:

1. Zulu 116 from 37% to 54%
2. Pedagogics 115 from 0% to 55%
3. Padagogics 125 from 38% to 56%

Ms Mthethwa admitted that she was not entitled to passes in the abovementioned courses and I accordingly recommended to the University Council that the courses Zulu 116 and Pedagogics 115 and 125 be withdrawn as passes from her academic record and reflected as courses she did not pass.

8.4 MR DOUGLAS SIPHO SIBISI: STUDENT NO 891536

Mr D S Sibisi graduated from the University with a Bachelor of Administration degree on 20 May 1995. The computer records of the University indicated that he passed the courses Economics 115 and 125 during the year 1993 in fulfilment of the requirements of the latter degree. The said computer records were altered by Mr A M Ngubane on 24 May 1995 to indicate that Mr Sibisi had passed the latter courses during the year 1993 and obtained 50 percent in each course. When Mr Sibisi appeared before me he alleged that he had passed an oral examination in the aforesaid courses given to him by his lecturer. The University, however, had no record of him having passed an oral examination in the said courses. Mr Kenneth MacKay, Director Protective Services, of the University testified that he investigated the case and found that Mr Sibisi still had a debt of R14950-00 owing to the University on the day of his graduation. Students at the University are not allowed to graduate with a debt. On further investigation he found that on 16 May 1995 Mr Sibisi cleared this debt with a cheque payment. However, immediately after the graduation, the cheque was returned to the University marked "refer to drawer" It appears that the presentation of this cheque was fraudulent because right up to five days before his graduation, Mr Sibisi was apparently negotiating with the University to hand over the title deeds for his house in order to clear his debt and allow him to graduate. The University refused to accept this arrangement on 15 May 1995 and on the following day the cheque was presented by Mr Sibisi. I have since reported this matter to SAPS for further investigation on a charge of fraud.

Mrs Lalbahudur, lecturer in Economics at the University, compiled a detailed report which Mr Mackay presented to me, indicating that Mr Sibisi had failed the courses Economics 11S and 125 in 1993. He again registered for the courses in 1994, but failed to sit the final examination in that year in either of the courses.

After listening to the evidence, Mr Sibisi eventually admitted that he had not passed the courses Economics 115 and 125 and that he was not entitled to the degree Bachelor of Administration which was conferred on him on 20 May 1995. He, however, denied he had paid Mr A M Ngubane to alter his academic record to reflect passes in the courses Economics 115 and 125.

I accordingly recommended to the University Council that the courses Economics 115 and 125 be withdrawn as passes from his academic record and reflected as courses he did not pass. I funkier recommended that the degree Bachelor of Administration, which was conferred on Mr Sibisi on 20 May 1995, be withdrawn.

8.5 MR MFANAWENKOSI JEREMIA MDLALOSE: STUDENT NO 930992

Mr M J Mdlalose is a Superintendent employed by SAPS and stationed at Empangeni. According to the computer records of the University, Mr A M Ngubane added the courses Zulu 116 and 225 and Political Science 115 and 125 to the Academic History Record of Mr Mdlalose during the period 31 January 1995 to 27 March 1996. When Superintendent Mdlalose appeared before me on 25 November 1996, he was represented by Advocate Mkhize who submitted on behalf of Mr Mdlalose that the latter had not completed the abovementioned courses and was therefore not entitled to credits for the courses. It was further submitted, on behalf of Mr Mdlalose, that the inclusion of the courses in his academic record was not done by him or any official with his knowledge.

I accordingly recommended to the University Council that the courses Zulu 116 and 225 and Political Science 115 and 125 be withdrawn as passes from Mr Mdlalose's academic record and reflected as courses he did not pass.

8.6 Mr BONGUMUSA LEONARD NDLOVU: STUDENT NO 930999

Mr B L Ndluvu is another senior officer of SAPS who appeared before me. He is Superintendent at Esikhawini. According to the University records Mr A M Ngubane gave Superintendent Ndlovu passes in the courses Zulu 116 and 225 and Political Science 115 and 125. Advocate Mkize appeared on behalf of Mr Ndlovu and admitted that his client had not passed the said courses. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Ndlovu that the inclusion of the courses in his academic record was not done by his client, nor was it done with his knowledge. He therefore accepted cancellation of the courses.

I accordingly recommended to the University Council that the courses Zulu 116 and 225 and Political Science 115 and 125 be withdrawn as passes from Superintendent Ndlovu's academic record and reflected as courses he did not pass.

8.7 MISS SIPHIWE EUNA RACHEL NGUBANE: STUDENT NO 891455

Miss S E R Ngubane is the daughter of Mr A M Ngubane who was responsible for most of the unlawful changes effected to the academic records of students. According to the records, Mr A M Ngubane changed the academic record of his daughter on 3 April 1996 to indicate that she had passed the course Pedagogics 315 with a mark of 61% when he knew very well that she had not passed. When Miss S E R Ngubane appeared before me she was represented by an attorney, Mr Mnculwane, who admitted on her behalf that she had not passed Pedagogics 315. According to Miss Ngubane she assumed it was a computer error and stated further that the change was not effected with her knowledge.

I recommended to the University Council that the course Pedagogics 315 be withdrawn as a pass from her academic record and reflected as a course she did not pass.

8.8 MR RICHARD MVUNDWA NHLABATHI: STUDENT NO 880883

Mr R M N Nhlabathi is a student from Ermelo who completed his degree at the University of Zululand in 1990. After completion of his degree he registered at the University of South Africa for a post graduate Higher Education Diploma. He soon experienced difficulty in passing Chemistry at the latter University. A friend then told him of a syndicate that was operating at the University of Zululand and suggested to him that he approach this syndicate to obtain credits for the courses he still required. He testified before me that he had made contact with Mr A M Ngubane who explained to him what he should do in order to obtain credits for the courses Chemistry (SCM) 215, 225, 315 and 325. According to his testimony Mr Ngubane explained that he should deposit an amount of R1000-00 into Mr Ngubane's bank account at Volkskas Bank, Empangeni, in order to obtain credits for the latter courses. He complied with this request and on 24 May 1995 Mr Ngubane changed the Academic History Record of Mr R M N Nhlabathi to indicate that during the year 1990 he had passed the courses SCH 215, SCH 225, SCH 315 and SCH 325 with 61%, 63%, 60% and 60%, respectively. Mr Nhlabathi admitted that he had never registered for the courses at the University of Zululand and was not entitled to credits for them.

I have reported this matter to the Attorney-General: Natal for further investigation on a possible criminal charge.
I further recommended to the University Council that the courses SCH 215, SCH 225, SCH 315 and SCH 325 be withdrawn as passes from Mr R M N Nhlabathi's academic record and reflected as courses he did not pass.

8.9 MR THEMBALIHLE HUMPHREY MNYANDU: STUDENT NO 881052

Mr T H Mnyandu is a magistrate from Esikhawini who was enrolled at the University for the LLB degree.

During the period 24 November 1995 to 14 March 1996 Mr A M Ngubane changed the Academic History Record of Mr Mnyandu to indicate that he had passed the courses Accounting (CAS) 115 and 125, Advanced Mercantile Law (LAM) 513, Indigenous Law (LID) 313, Jurisprudence (LJR) 513 and Labour Law (LLL) 423.

According to the evidence presented to me certain documents were issued by the Registrar of the University indicating that Mr Mnyandu had fulfilled all the requirements of the LLB degree, and that he had written his last subject on 9 November 1995. These documents were then submitted by Mr Mnyandu to the Department of Justice for the adjustment of his non-pensionable legal: allowance and a cash payment for completing the LLB degree.

If the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Professor Dlodlo, had not discovered (see paragraph 1.2 of my report) that the names of certain students which appeared on the graduation list who had not complied with all the requirements of the degrees to be conferred on them, Mr Mnyandu would probably have graduated during May 1996.

When Mr Mnyandu appeared before me on 20 January lay, he admitted that he had not passed the aforementioned courses at the University. He, however, submitted that he applied to the University for exemption of certain LLB courses on the strength of courses passed at UNISA He said he was informed by Mr A M Ngubane that his application for exemption had been successful and that he had completed all the requirements for the LLB degree at the University of Zululand. He said he accepted this and then forwarded the aforementioned documents to the Department of Justice. When Mr Mnyandu was, however, confronted by Mr K MacKay, the Director: Protective Services at the University, on 26 July 1996 in connection with the changes effected to his academic record, he made no mention of his application for exemption and stated as follows:

"I have been shown the computer printout showing that I have passes in the following subjects:

CAS 125	1989	50%
CAS 115	1989	54%
LLL423	1994	50%
LID 313	1994	51%
LJR 513	1994	52%
LAM 513	1995	50%

I have never even registered for CAS 115 and 125 so thus could not have passed the subjects. I registered for LLL 423 in 1994, but did not write the examination. I registered for it in 1995 and again I could not write the exam.

I registered for LID 313 in 1 994 or 1 995 but again I did not write the examination.
I registered for LJR 513 in 1995 but I did not write the examination.
I registered for LAM 513 in 1995. I wrote the exam and failed it. I do not remember my mark.
I have been told that Mr A M Ngubane awarded me the passes in all these courses.
I have no idea why he did this. I had no idea that my academic record has been tampered with.
As far as I know I have not completed my LLB degree yet.

Q: When were you going to compete this degree?

A: I did not register this year because I was owing the University fees and apart from that, I was not available as I was away overseas for the whole of the first semester. It would then be futile for me to register as I could not attend the classes as I would have been away overseas.

Q: Did you go away?

A: I went overseas in April and got back in July. But, during February and March I was attending a course in Pretoria and then left for overseas. As I am saying, I was not awarded an LLB degree. I was not invited to graduate. I can't understand. I don't possess any fraudulent degree. Even if everything was normal I would not have attended the graduation because I would have been overseas - also I was still owing. I don't see any sense in what Ngubane did. Why tamper with my record? What for? There is not a letter that I have completed my LLB. I am upset with this tampering. I was completely unaware

Q: When does Justice expect you to finish your LLB?

A: It depends on when I write.

Q: Do they give you an incentive to study and finish your LLB?

A: No I pay with my own money. I don't even need an LLB for my work.

Q: Anything else?

A: I have said everything. The tampering is in your record. I don't have an LLB. I am amazed. I don't know what was intended."

Mr Mnyandu's explanation to me as to why he failed to inform Mr Mackay on 26 July 1996 that he had made an application for exemption from the courses still required for the LLB degree, was unconvincing. Furthermore, it was clear to me that some of the courses which Mr Mnyandu allegedly passed at UNISA, and which he submitted to the University for purposes of the exemption, did not even correspond with the courses that he was given passes for by Mr A M Ngubane.

One of the documents which he submitted to the Department of Justice in recognition for completing the LLB degree was a statement Dom the University indicating that he had passed the courses CAS 115, CAS 125, LLL 423, LID 313, LJR 513 and LAM 513. If one looks at the statement which Mr Mnyandu made to Mr MacKay on 26 July 1996, it should be clear that he knew very well that the statement he had submitted to the Department of Justice was not correct.

I consider the conduct of Mr Mnyandu in a very serious light, especially as he holds an important position as a judicial officer. The integrity of judicial officers in this country should be beyond reproach. I have brought the matter to the attention of the Magistrates Commission for the necessary attention. I believe the said Commission had since charged Mr Mnyandu with misconduct.

I further recommended to the University Council that the courses CAS 115, CAS 125, LLL 423, LDD 313, LnR 513 and LAM 513 be withdrawn as passes from Mr Mnyandu's academic record and reflected as courses he did not pass.

8.10 MISS ISABEL ZWANE: STUDENT NO 953275

Miss I Zwane is a student who registered at the University in 1995.

According to the evidence presented to me, Miss Zwane was introduced to Mr A M Ngubane by a male person ("other guy") at the University to obtain passes in certain of the courses for which she registered, Mr Ngubane then told her he would speak to the lecturers concerned in order to give her passes in the courses Zulu 116, Applied Physiology 1 15 and Human Movement Science 115.

On 2 April 1996 Mr Ngubane changed her marks in the abovementioned courses as follows:

Zulu 116 - Changed Rom 33% to 56%
Applied Physiology 115 - Changed from 15% to 56%
Human Movement Science 1 15 - Changed from 42% to 52%.

Miss Zwane testified that she is the first member of her family to attend a university and did not know that this was irregular. She, however, now realises that it was wrong of her to have approached Mr Ngubane. She said she had not paid Mr Ngubane for his services as she had no money at the time.

I recommended to the University Council that the abovementioned courses be withdrawn as passes from Miss Zwane's academic record and reflected as courses she did not pass.

8.1 I MR WAZA MICHAEL LONGWE: STUDENT NO 880091

Mr W M Longwe is a student from Mpumalanga who graduated from the University in 1995 with a Senior Secondary Teacher's Diploma and a B Paed (Science) degree. He appeared before me in the company of his wife and showed considerable remorse. He immediately surrendered his original diploma and degree certificate, and admitted that he was not entitled thereto. He explained that he was introduced to Mr A M Ngubane by a person by the name of"Fire". Mr Longwe then apparently had lengthy discussions with Mr Ngubane who told him that he would "make a plan" to ensure that Mr Longwe passes the courses for which he had registered. The agreement reached between Mr Longwe and Mr Ngubane was that the latter be paid an amount of R500 00 for effecting a pass in a semester course. He duly paid Mr Ngubane the amount of R2 500-00 for giving him passes in the following semester courses: Biochemistry (SBC) 3 15 and 325 Mathematics (SMA) 215 and 225 Physics (SPB) 125

The amount of R2 500-00 was apparently paid to Mr Ngubane in the latter's office at the University. The academic record of Mr Longwe confirms his testimony before me. It clearly indicates that Mr A M Ngubane had changed Mr Longwe's academic record in 1995 as follows:

SBC 315 (changed from 40% to 52%)
SBC 325 (changed from 41% to 51%)
SMA 215 (changed from 0% to 50%)
SMA 225 (changed from 0% to 51%)
SPB 125 (changed from 48% to 50%)

Mr Longwe admitted that passes in the abovementioned courses were a prerequisite for both the Senior Secondary Teacher's Diploma and the B.Paed (Science) degree that was awarded to him.

I accordingly recommended to the University Council that the abovementioned courses be withdrawn as passes from his academic record and reflected as courses he did not pass. I further recommended that the aforementioned degree and diploma be withdrawn.

8.12 MS NTOMBINCANE PHYLLIS NYADI:STUDENT NO 952079

Ms N P Nyadi is a married student. She testified that during 1996 she was experiencing difficulty in passing the course Zulu 116 and decided to approach Mr Ngubane for help. She said her husband had actually approached Mr Ngubane and paid him in order to give her a pass mark in the said course. She did not know how much her husband had paid Mr Ngubane. The academic record of Ms Nyadi showed that Mr Ngubane had changed her marks in the course Zulu 116 from 41% to 60% on 28 March 1996.

I accordingly recommended to the University Council that the aforementioned course be withdrawn as a pass from her academic record and reflected as a course she did no. pass.

8.13 MR VUSUMUU GERALD BIYELA: STUDENT NO 780151

Mr V G Biyela is a student who graduated from the University with a B.Comm degree in 1995. According to the evidence presented to me Mr Biyela registered for the course Commercial Law 314 in 1982 and 1983, but failed the examination on each occasion. The said course was eventually abolished by the University in 1992. During 1994 Mr Biyela applied to register for the course in order to complete his degree, but was informed that the course was no longer offered. He then approached Mr Ngubane who told him that he would present Mr Biyela's case to the Faculty Board. Thereafter he telephoned Mr Ngubane on a number of occasions and was told that the Faculty Board had not met. On the last occasion he telephoned Mr Ngubane, who told him that he should not worry, and that he would receive an invitation to the graduation ceremony as he had been exempted from the course. He stated that he had, however, never received any documentary proof that he had been exempted by the Faculty Board.

Advocate B J du Toit, the Acting Head of the Department of Mercantile Law, testified that he had been the Acting Head for a number of years and that he had never recommended the recognition of the course to the Faculty Board. The recommendation of the Head (or acting Head) of a Department is required before the Faculty Board can recognise a course. In any event, according to Mr Du Toit's testimony, recognition (or exemption) could not be granted for the course Commercial Law 314 in 1994 or 1995 as it was no longer offered as a semester course at the University. After listening to the testimony of Advocate Du Toit, Mr Biyela eventually admitted that he was not entitled to a credit for the course Commercial Law 314 and that he therefore still required one semester course to fulfil the requirements of the B.Comm degree which was conferred on him in 1995. He, however, maintained that Mr Ngubane had misled him in this matter.

The Academic History Record of Mr Biyela shows that Mr Ngubane added the course Commercial Law 314 to Mr Biyela's academic record on 9 March 1995. A mark of 57% was recorded for the course. Mr Biyela denied that he had connived with Mr Ngubane to add the course to his academic record or that he had paid Mr Ngubane for giving him a credit for the said course.

I recommended to the University Council that the course Commercial Law 314 be withdrawn as a credit from Mr Biyela's academic record. I further recommended that the B.Comm degree which was conferred on Mr Biyela during 1995, be withdrawn.

8.14 MISS PHUMZILE VUMILE DUBE: STUDENT NO 932375

Miss P V Dube registered at the University as a student in 1993. She testified that she had experienced problems in passing the degree courses and decided to approach Mr A M Ngubane in order to obtain passes. She said she had approached him after hearing two other female students talking about Mr Ngubane on the campus. Miss Dube explained that she had informed Mr Ngubane that she had nobody to pay for her studies and that she was staying with her grandmother. According to her testimony she further informed him that she had wanted to complete her degree and obtain work so that she could help her grandmother. Mr Ngubane then apparently agreed to help her without asking for any money. Miss P V Dube's Academic History Record indicates that Mr Ngubane effected the following changes to her academic record on 12 March 1996:

Zulu 215 - marks changed from 35% to 52%
English 215 - marks changed from 0% to 51%
English 225 - marks changed from 37% to 54%
Pedagogics215 - marks changed from 45 to 56%
Pedagogics 225 - marks changed from 43% to 57%

Miss Dube admitted that the changes effected to her academic record by Mr Ngubane were invalid and that she was not entitled to passes in the abovementioned courses. I accordingly recommended to the University Council that the latter courses be withdrawn as passes from her academic record and reflected as courses she did not pass.

9. FINDINGS

9.1 The findings discussed hereunder represent in a summary fonn the main areas of concern which contributed to this unfortunate chapter at the University.

9.2 A perusal of the Calendar of the University of Zululand for 1996 and the comment made at the outset of the enquiry by Prof C R M Dlamini, the Rector of the University, suggest that the University of Zululand has wise rules and suitable controls in place to regulate the administrative procedures of the University. However, some of these rules and controls are honoured more in the breach than the observance. For example, Rule 8.8 on page G76 of the University Calendar for 1996 lays down a clear time-table and procedure for the payment of fees. Rules for admission to an examination are set out in G8 on page 81 of the University Calendar.

9.3 Rule G(l)(d) reads as follows:

"For admission to an examination in a course in which the University provides tuition a student shall have paid all prescribed fees or outstanding fines, unless exempted from this provision by the Rector".

9.4 It would seem that in an effort to appease students with financial difficulties, students have been allowed to write examinations even if they have not made a satisfactory arrangement with the University. In theory the results of such students are withheld until such time as their debt to the University has been cleared. In practice it would appear that students are informed orally of their examination results, either by a member of the academic staff of the department in which the examination was written, or by a member of the administration who has access to the marks. Those who learn that they have failed, have no incentive to pay their fees. Some, nevertheless, seem to have found money to pay for the fraudulent alteration of their marks on the computer record. Clearly money could be found for this nefarious practice.

9.5 (a) Evidence came before me of a serious administrative breakdown between the records of departments and those of the Central Administration of the University, especially with respect to alterations to examination marks. Departmental recording of aegrotat examinations, special examinations, and supplementary examinations appears to be a real problem. For example, one Head of Department (Mr Ferreira) gave me an assurance that there is careful correlation of"the number of marks with the number of students and the number of papers" and that the information is cross-checked before it is submitted to the Examination Section of the University for processing. On investigation it was ascertained that the student (Miss Radebe) had written an aegrotat examination and had passed with an examination mark of 50%, but the Department had no record of this aegrotat result whatsoever There were several similar cases with respect to other departments as well.

(b) Evidence also came before me that one Dean (Prof Luthuli) substantially changed the marks of a candidate who had three times written and failed the course without reference to the Head of Department concerned. Clearly the Examination Board had never thought the student's result worthy of condonation, yet after she had re-written the paper and failed on two successive occasions, she appealed to the Dean who altered her initial result.

9.6 Prof Luthuli admitted that failure to consult the relevant Head of Department and to report his action to the Faculty Board and Senate was improper and stated in his defence that the action that he took was "not unusual". In fact he has echoing an opinion of Prof Vilakazi, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts, who informed me that "the system ... of rules, making rules and maintaining and enforcing rules in the University is itself in great default." Prof Vilakazi said "that tends to give people licence to do a lot of things which really are against the rules as they are written".

9.7 Taken to its logical conclusion, I am of the opinion that this laissez faire approach to the Administration of the University of Zululand (or any university for that matter), must inevitably lead to total chaos.

9.8 Generally there appears to be a degree of inadequacy about the marking of examination papers. With respect to final courses in major subjects, provision is made for examination papers to be examined by a second examiner external to the University. In first and second year courses, no second examining ever seems to take place. This is a most unhealthy situation and were proper provision made for second examiners, some of the failure to communicate with others might have been avoided.

9.9 An unfortunate precedent has been set in the University of Zululand, where on occasion the semester mark has been waived, or students simply given a semester mark of 40% in order to qualify them to write the exam. Some departments seem to have done this of their own volition. No doubt this happened to placate students during periods of student unrest. Because the semester mark is included in the final result, this practice can result in a false impression of the student's ability.
9.10 Oral examinations have a proper place in a university examination system and the Calendar on the University of Zululand provides for oral examinations in certain circumstances. The practice of oral examinations began in the middle ages when students presented themselves to examiners in public disputations. Since the easy availability of pens, ink and paper, the written examination has largely replaced the public oral disputation. Oral examination of a candidate is retained in many British, European, and American universities in the case of candidates who are called upon to defend their theses. Medical doctors and lawyers usually have to submit to oral examination. Oral examination is also prescribed in the Calendar of the University of Zululand "to resolve borderline cases and other uncertainties before finalising examination marks."

9.11 What is alarming in the examination practice of the University of Zululand is the casual way in which oral examinations appear sometimes to be given and conducted. The oral examination is far too freely used and, one is tempted to suggest, used by staff who cannot be bothered setting examination papers and requested by students who wish to avoid committing their thoughts to paper. Of greatest concern to me is that the oral examinations are not conducted formally and in the presence of a sufficient number of competent witnesses.

9.12 I give four examples of cases which came before me and raised my concern for the practice of oral examinations which appear to be used in a variety of undesirable ways.

1. In the case of Miss MN Mvelase, we learnt that she was given oral examinations in three courses. There is no record of those examinations and I have accepted affidavits given by lecturers that they actually happened.
2. In the case of Miss Gumede, an oral examination for the course History 325 was given by Prof SJ Maphalala of the Department of History. Prof Vilakazi of the Department of Sociology was said to be a witness to the examination, but took no part in it. Prof Vilakazi acknowledges that it could have happened as students have called on Prof Maphalala from time to time while he has been in Maphalala's office, but he had no memory of the oral examination per se. That indicates that the oral examination, if it did take place at all, could only have been of a casual nature, which is most unsatisfactory given that the course was a major subject in Miss Gumede's degree. Since the calendar itself requires an external examiner for such a course and prescribes a written examination should the external examiner not be available. I felt justified in disallowing the oral examination and suggesting that the University set Miss Gumede a special examination to be written at a mutually agreed time.
3. In the case of Mrs L R Jiyane, Mrs Mkhulusi, the acting head of the Department of African Languages, alleged that she gave Mrs Jiyane an oral examination even though she was not the lecturer for the course. It transpired that the oral examination had never taken place. The case is referred to in order to illustrate the grave nature of giving and conducting oral examinations without proper procedures for such examinations being put in place.
4. In the case of Miss Sishi, an oral examination was given to the student by a panel of senior members of the academic staff. On this occasion, I had no doubt that a proper oral examination was given to the student, but it took place after the student had graduated in order "to set the record straight." The fact of the matter in this case is that at the time her diploma was awarded, Miss Sishi had not completed the requirements for her diploma. It could accordingly not be accepted that the diploma could be awarded prior to her full compliance with the requirements.

9.13 A matter of great concern to me is the easy facility available to students to avoid the final examination at the end of a semester and to write an "aegrotat" examination instead. Once again this has probably arisen out of concern for students who are thought to be academically disadvantaged. It is alleged that students "just go to a medical officer and obtain a certificate without being sick". The argument is that students have more time to prepare for examination and thus have a better chance of succeeding. However, my concern was compounded when I was informed by a member of staff who appeared before me that "various departments ... just tend to repeat the same exam paper which is not ethically correct." The lecturer concerned (Mrs M van der Merwe) stated that she was "not too popular with the students" because she did not subscribe to this practice.

9.14(a)The University of Zululand does not appear to have a consistent method of recording credits obtained by students from other universities. Sometimes marks are recorded, sometimes a mark of 50% is given, and sometimes the computer simply reflects a credit. This is confusing to all who require to be informed of a student's academic history.

(b) Similarly there is confusion about the recording of the marks of a student who has failed a sub-minimum, although the overall result would appear to be 50% - or above and might appear to be a pass, e.g. Mr Ken McKay, head of Protective Services at the University of Zululand, has submitted a memorandum in which a number of candidates for a qualification in nursing have failed a sub-minimum, it is not clear in the record that this is the reason for the failure.

9.15 A recurrent factor which emerged from the evidence that has come before me and opens the way to administrative confusion and fraud, is the disregard for the rules of the University as laid down in the University Calendar for the registration of students. The intention of the University authorities of continually dragging out the process is probably noble - to assist students who are financially disadvantaged - but the practice has led to an inability for the University administration to cope with the proper control and supervision of individual students' progress through their University career.

9.16 Members of staff openly admit to teaching students who are registered along with those who are not registered and whose semester and examination marks are recorded on an X list. This practice opens the way for manipulation of the system by students who write an examination and if they think they have passed, or have been told by a member of staff that they have passed, then register for the course. The consequence of such action invariably leads to muddle and consequent problems for the University Administration, incorrect statistics being provided to government for subsidy purposes, and thus a probable loss of revenue to the University.

9.17 Cancellation of courses by students after they have registered also presents a problem which the University must address. In some cases I believe that cancellation is effecter. in order to avoid payment for the course, nevertheless the student continues to attend the course, write the examination, and claim the credit.

9.18 In one case that came before me, there was slackness on the part of the Administration with respect to: -

1. the incorrect cancellation of a course; and thus
2. the non-recording of a result of an examination which the student had passed.

9.19 The interesting fact in this case is that the Department did not have a record of the examination mark, and it was only because of the insistence of the student, that the script was found and the result confirmed.

9.20. The procedure for the recording of marks (both semester and examination) set up by Prof Dlamini while he was Registrar is a very good one and deserves commendation. The procedure broke down as a consequence of the transferring of marks from the written record to the computer and the facility by which marks could be altered on the computer. Prof Dlamini's system called for two signatures: that of initiator and that of a Head of Department. The tragedy is that the computer operator did not comprehend the necessity for two signatures and accepted only one because she trusted the Faculty Officers.

9.21 The Commission listened with incredulity to the evidence of Mrs A C Erskine, the Computer Capture Clerk in the Infotech Department. The regulations for the capture of marks specifically require two signatures for the alteration of marks - that of the initiator and that of the Head of Department. However, forms were submitted to the Information Technology Department for capture which did not have two signatures and were signed instead by Faculty Officers as Head of Department, which the officials were known not to be, yet were accepted by Mrs Erskine for capture.

9.22 The responsibility for the errors of Mrs Erskine are not hers alone. Her superior officers in the Information Technology Department seem never to have made any routine check on her work, nor does she seem to have been given any instruction on the matter.

9.23 1 am of the opinion that the fundamental flaw in the "Dlamini procedures" lies in the fact that the clerk for the capturing of academic related data is housed in a service department of the Universay. Fortunately the computer has recorded the date and by whom alterations to the computer record were effected. Thanks to the good management of the Examination Section, I have been able to trace the correct marks of students to mark sheets and, where possible, to the examination scripts themselves. I have also had access to departmental records.

9.24. The Information Technology Department of the University of Zululand has addressed itself to the problem which the recent hiatus has caused, and have outlined to me an elaborate system for the capture of student data. The system has merit in that a diversity of individuals will make an input into the student record and that in itself is expected to limit the extent of any fraud The limitation of procedure lies first, in the loss of a documentary record, and secondly, in the possibility that busy heads of academic departments and even busier deans of faculties will pass on their codes to their secretaries to execute this function for them.

9.25 It has clearly been University policy to encourage members of staff to improve their qualifications and to register for courses at the University. This policy is highly commendable, but it increases the possibility of fraud if members of staff register for courses at the University and have access to, and input to the computer record of students.

9.26 I found in general that within the University of Zululand, there is a lack of dissemination of information. Four examples must suffice:

1. Marks of candidates are changed by the Examination Board who review the overall result of examinations written in a faculty, but there appears to be no adequate mechanism to inform departments and, in particular, the lecturers responsible for courses of any changes which might have been effected.
2. The University has two divisions: the main campus in Kwa-Dlangezwa and there is an extra-mural division in Umlazi. The free-flow of information about students between the two campuses is totally inadequate. I found a number of cases where the central administration was unaware of the final result of a student because the student had attained his/her result at the Umlazi division of the University.
3. In one case, that of Miss B I Sishi, I found that her lecturer, Miss Adams, did not know that Miss Sishi, who had failed her examination, had subsequently been given and passed an oral examination conducted by senior members of the University staff at the Umlazi campus in order to regularise the position after a diploma had been awarded. Common courtesy would suggest that the lecturer be told that an oral examination was to be given and informed of the outcome of that examination.
4. Mr Cloete, the acting head of the Department of Business Economics, gave evidence before me that a Miss I J Khumalo had failed her examination in Business Economics. She subsequently twice attempted examinations in that subject, but the quality of her result declined on each occasion. However, it transpired that the student eventually went to see the Dean of Education to discuss her problem. Aware that Business Economics was a last outstanding subject, the Dean (Prof Luthuli), without reference to anybody, altered the student's marks to give her a pass. Mr Cloete only appeared to learn how the result had been changed when the evidence was led before the Inquiry.

9.27 In the course of investigating administrative changes to the computer record of passes, I interviewed some students who had passed according to their examination scripts which we saw when that mark was combined with the semester mark, then averaged. Nevertheless, in some cases, academics' own records still showed the students incorrectly recorded as failures in their departmental record, thus perpetuating an error. Indeed, this highlights a recurrent problem - there is inadequate checking of records and cross-referencing between academic departments and the University Administration.

9.28 I recommend that the University auditors be consulted and approve the method used to collate the results of individual students. I further recommend their oversight of the procedures, even if only on a sample basis. But whomsoever observes a disregard for recognised procedures, should report same immediately to the University Registrar who should be bound to investigate and obtain action from the appropriate University authority. If redress is not obtained, a report should be made to the auditors.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 In the course of the inquiry various shortcomings in the administrative machinery of the University were observed. In addition to the recommendations which are contained in the individual cases in the record of evidence, I make the further following recommendations:

1. The culture of non-payment of fees should be immediately terminated. Late payment, or even non-payment of fees, puts undue pressure on administrative personnel with the consequence that errors are made, and in the ensuing chaos, fraud can be perpetrated. It is in the interest of the entire University community that the rules laid down in the calendar be observed, both in the spirit and the letter. Students in debt to the University should not be allowed to write examinations except in very special circumstances where arrangements have been made with the Rector himself
2. Members of staff who divulge confidential information to students, as in the case of examination results withheld, should be brought before the disciplinary authorities of the University.
3. It should be an absolute rule that no member of staff should ever give examination results over the telephone.
4. All communication on the subject of examination results should be in writing and a copy of the communication should be placed on the student's file. A public notice on a prominent University notice board publishing the results is an added advantage.

10.2 Clearly there must be consistency within the University with respect to the marking of examination papers and the maintenance of records. All academic departments should be required to keep a record of all examination results for which they are responsible, including how the final mark is determined and stating whether or not this signifies a pass or fail, taking the question of sub-minima into account. If the final mark is subsequently altered by an Examination Committee or other administrative authority, this should be noted by the department who should record the new mark and by what authority the change was made.

10.3 All examinations conducted in a university should be subject to second examining. The second examiner below the level of major courses (third year courses) may be an examiner in the same department but preferably, it should be somebody who has not in that year (or semester) taught the course being examined. Both examiners should be present at the departmental meeting when the results are finalised and both should sign the document communicating the result to the Examination Section for processing If there is disagreement between the two examiners, the relevant script should then be given to a third examiner whose adjudication should be final. If changes to results are subsequently effected at an Examination Board, all examiners and the Head of Department should be informed.

10.4(a)The precedent of waiving a semester mark is unwise and should be discontinued in the future. A semester mark is meant to give a continual assessment of the student as the student's knowledge grows and as he/she develops understanding of a course. To waive the semester mark or give a fictitious mark undermines the quality of the result that a student obtains. Where the waiving of a semester mark is done on a general basis, as would sometimes seem to be the case in the University of Zululand, such action must reflect to its detriment on the merit of qualifications obtained through the University.

(b)The University community as a whole has a duty to the general public and the State to ensure that its graduates and diplomats have the necessary professional knowledge and skill which a certificate implies. If the University authorities again find themselves under pressure as an unfortunate consequence of student unrest, it would be better in such circumstances to give no semester mark and allow the students to pass or fail on the examination paper, rather than indulging in the fiction of a 40% semester mark. The students, for their part, should recognise that the quality of their certificates depends upon their depth of knowledge and not on a superficial pass

10.5(a)Simply because there is no written record, it is important that an oral examination should be formally conducted. There should be at least three examiners present, one of whom should be the Head of the academic department concerned, and another an external examiner For other than final year courses, the external examiner could be the Head of Department of a cognate discipline. A tape recording of the examination proceedings should be made and retained subsequently by the examinations office, together with a typescript of the content of the tape. All examiners should sign the type script as a true and proper record of the content of the tape and the marks of the examination should be inscribed thereon.

(b) The candidate should be charged an appropriate additional fee in order that the University may adequately cover its costs.

(c)With regard to the Jiyane case, I have already made a recommendation for disciplinary action to be taken against Mrs Mkbulisi who I found to have acted fraudulently. This was transmitted to the University management and at the time of writing of this report, the disciplinary action was under way.

(d) With regard to the Sishi case, the inquiry found that the diploma could not be awarded ex post facto and I recommended to the University Council that it be withdrawn and re- awarded at a subsequent graduation ceremony.

10.6(a)The allegation that various departments repeat the same examination paper for an aegrotat examination (see paragraph 9.13, supra) must seriously reflect on the academic integrity of the University of Zululand if there is any substance in it. It is suggested that the Council of the University of Zululand should investigate this matter further, and they should take such steps as are necessary for examination papers to be monitored in order to prevent such an occurrence.

(b) I further recommend that the University should tighten its procedures for the awarding of aegrotat, special examinations, and supplementary examinations.

10.7(a)The correct procedure for the University to follow is simply to reflect that a credit has been given. It would be advantageous to add from which university the credit was obtained. This would enable whomsoever it might concern to check that result with the University where the credit was obtained.

(b)A failure in a sub-minimum could surely be reflected in the computer record as FSM.

10.8(a)Academic staff should be instructed to teach and examine only those students who have been properly registered. No exceptions should be allowed in this regard.

(b) Students, or potential students, should be informed that registration for courses must be made by due date as prescribed in the University Calendar after having paid the prescribed fees.

(c) Indigent students of good quality should be supported by bursaries and/or loans, and these should be secured in sufficient time to meet the stringent requirements for registration.

10.9(a)If a student withdraws from an academic course and notifies the Administration accordingly, it is the duty of the Administration to inform the academic department concerned immediately. Proper records should also be kept in this regard.

(b) The academic staff (and in particular, a Head of Department) should see to it that their records reflect the cancellation and observe that the particular student no longer attends classes or writes tests and examinations.

(c) There should be a routine reconciliation of the students registered for a course about a month before semester examinations are written.

10.10(a)Mrs Erskine has admitted her error and apologised. However, we do not think that matters should be allowed to rest there. Mrs Erskine's failure to alert higher authority of an error in procedure allowed fraud to be committed. Mrs Erskine should receive some notification of the disapprobation of the University. At the very least she should be given a formal warning letter and removed from a position of responsibility. The work of capturing and updating the computer record should be taken from her.

(b) The business of capturing student records should be transferred to a clerk in the office of the Registrar (Academic). He must be instructed to keep a regular routine check on the work of the capture clerk and also be instructed and trained to enter the computer records at irregular intervals to check for any interference.

(c) It is recommended that Senior Management and selected members of Middle Management receive training in risk management.

(d) The University ought to screen its staff before employment for technical, emotional and psychological suitability. Staff should work within a motivating environment which encourages honesty. There should be appropriate supervision and an empathetic relationship between the staff and their supervisors. Care should be taken to manage the workload and to create the optimum physical and cultural environment by considering shaping factors such as training, workplace design, supportive and logical procedures.

(e) Management ought to use systematic hazard identification techniques. Systems should be developed which either eliminate risk or reduce its likelihood. Senior Management should identify a key official student affairs ( for example the Academic Registrar) and a key official at the Information Technology Section (for example the Director) to enter the systems randomly and independently to check for any sign of manipulation or fraud. This would eliminate almost totally the possibility of a recurrence of what brought about the degree scam.

(f) The details of student records should be subject to audit and reported upon in the annual report of the auditors to the University Council.

10.1 1(a) I believe the loss of a documentary record to be a serious flaw in the proposed new procedure referred to in paragraph 9.24, supra. In my view the "Dlamini System" is an excellent one save for the control of the Capture Clerk and the apparent absence of regular audit. I do not wish to prescribe to the University a methodology for the recording of marks, but I recommend that the University's auditors should be party to the procedure to be used.

(b) The omission of the auditors from the workshop which has drawn up the new methodology outlined by Mr G B Sandford is, in my view, a serious flaw which could lead to a recurrence of the problem now under review.

(c) In the final analysis, whatever system is devised, it is dependent upon the integrity of the people who operate it, but whatever system is used, there must be adequate checks and balances. The "Sandford system" is short on these. The proposed system might work if those making an input into the computer submitted a signed document to the office of the Academic Registrar to support the figures added to the computer record.

10.12 All staff who have access to the computer record should be excluded from the privilege of enrolling as a student at the University of Zululand, except those who are furthering their education by taking degrees which are examined by thesis (eg M.A. and Ph.D.). It may even be necessary to exclude from access to the record those members of staff who have relatives who register as students. This principle would be easier to administer if the capturing of the computer data was centred on a single individual in the office of the Academic Registrar.

10.13(a)It is recommended that the University authorities investigate ways and means to keep academic staff informed of alteration to marks made for whatever reason, after they have been finalised at a departmental meeting.

(b)Deans should be advised to consult with relevant Heads of Department when problems occur and should report on actions taken to the Senate through the appropriate faculty board.

(c) There would appear to be inadequate information and data on students supplied to the Central Administration by the division of the University in Umlazi. We recommend that this be further investigated with a view to an improvement on the present system.

10.14. Procedures for the passing of information to and fro between the University Administration and the academic departments needs to be improved and overhauled. In particular, there is need for some automatic mechanism to inform Heads of Department of any alteration of a mark put into the system and by whom the alteration is effected. This would provide some check on the problem which has given rise to the present inquiry.

10.15. Many of the students who collaborated in the fraud which led to the present inquiry, saw the attainment of a certificate by whatever means as a goal in itself. There was little appreciation that the purpose of an examination is to test the level of proficiency in a body of knowledge acquired, learned and digested

10.16 The careful recording of the standards obtained by candidates in examinations is essential for the proper protection of qualifications obtained at the University of Zululand.

10. 17 It is in the interest of the entire University Community-staff and students-to respect the rules of the University with respect to the administration, faculty and examination. I respectfully call upon all staff to give a lead to the students in this respect. The culture of a well-ordered society depends upon acknowledgement of the rules which govern that society. A well-ordered and disciplined society is essential to provide the right climate for quality teaching, learning and examination. A laissez-faire approach might lead to the immediate resolution of an issue, but it inevitably leads to problems in the longer term, not only for the individual, but for the whole of society.

10.18 Checks and balances there must be, and the role of the University's auditors in this function is of vital importance. In the final analysis, the proper functioning of an examination-setting the paper, writing the examination, marking it and recording the marks-, is dependent upon the integrity of all concerned.

10.19. Concerning the employment procedures, the following are recommended:

1. A follow up of referees' reports, if necessary telephoning referees, in order to tease out areas of concern, should be made. Experience teaches that referees often inform one of a candidate's weaknesses in a discussion, whereas they will not commit such opinion to paper.
2. Originals of certificates must be submitted at the interview stage of the employment procedures.
3. Most institutions will respond readily to an enquiry about the validity of qualifications. If there is so much as a shadow of a doubt, the Human Resources Section should telephone or fax the institution who issued the certificate.
4. Any proposed appointment that does not follow normal appointment procedures should be treated with special circumspection - and all the necessary precautions should be applied.
5. All appointments should be referred to the next meeting of Senate and Council for approval. If it is desired to make an appointment before the next meeting of Senate and Council, the opinion of members can be canvassed by a circular from the Rector to which should be appended all the supporting documents. Members would be requested to respond within seven(7) days failing which the Rector would then confirm the appointment.

11. CONCLUSION

11.1 In conclusion, all the stakeholders at the University need to realise that doing the right thing is not just an individual issue, but it is an act done for the good of all. It is high time people stopped hiding behind statements such as "this is happening at other universities" suggesting that this University is being victimised by an investigation. Such statements display a confusion over values and standards of the worst kind.

11.2 They are nothing but contemptible and contemptuous moral relativism and should not be allowed if our educational systems and society are to survive. Corruption is like a crocodile, for as Sir Winston Churchill once said: "Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough the crocodile will eat him last. For all of them hope that the storm will pass before their time comes to be devoured. The storm will not pass It will roar and rage more loudly and widely."

12. STATISTICS

12.1. A total of 201 subpoenas were issued involving 200 students and one lecturer.

12.2. A total of 59 subpoenas were served publication in national newspapers. The other subpoenas were sewed personally on the respondents.

12.3. The Public Protector found that -

1. 142 students did not validly pass a total of 362 semester courses, although their academic record indicated that they had passed the said courses.
2. 56 students validly passed, or obtained credits in respect of 90 courses, and that the changes effected to their academic record in respect of the latter courses were in fact valid changes,
3. 21 degrees, two secondary teacher's diplomas and one University Education Diploma were invalidly conferred on or awarded to students who did not pass all the necessary courses to qualify for such degrees or diplomas, and
4. two students died prior to the commencement of the investigation.

12.4. The Public Protector recommended to the University Council that the courses, degrees and diplomas which had been improperly obtained, be withdrawn.

12.5 Approximately 1,500 changes effected to the academic record of students were investigated by the Office of the Public Protector.