South Africa’s public universities are facing a governance challenge that can no longer be brushed aside as isolated campus drama.
The spectre of “institutional capture”, where governance processes, decision-making and resource allocation are bent away from the public interest toward factional or private gain, has become a systemic risk.
Universities South Africa (USAf), which represents the country’s 26 public universities, is sounding the alarm and pushing for collective action.
Professor Francis Petersen, the chairperson, says governance cannot remain a campus-by-campus concern.
“Strengthening institutions is part of USAf’s role, including governance,” he says. “We also need to help council members understand the difference between governance and management and how to exercise effective oversight.”
The distinction is crucial. Councils should focus on policy, strategy, risk, performance oversight and the appointment and support of executive leadership. Management, by contrast, must handle day-to-day operations.
When the boundaries blur, universities become vulnerable to capture, whether through political interference, reputational attacks or opportunistic meddling in procurement and tenders.
A climate of pressure and misinformation
The risks are not abstract. Petersen points to sustained attacks on executive leadership, often emanating from the political sphere, including parliament’s portfolio committee on higher education.
“Oversight is legitimate but when it preempts due process or amplifies allegations prematurely, it damages universities,” he says.
In today’s climate, reputational risks are amplified by misinformation campaigns. Allegations circulate rapidly, coordinated narratives distort public perceptions and confidence in institutions erodes before internal processes conclude.
Petersen warns that governance depends on disciplined procedures — clear timelines, documented decisions and communication that balances transparency with fairness.
The weak induction of council members compounds the problem. Without proper training, even well-intentioned members can intervene inappropriately. In some cases, dishonesty within institutions escalates unchecked, weakening controls and corroding trust.
The University of Fort Hare and Mangosuthu University of Technology are among those
grappling with governance strain, underscoring the urgency of USAf’s intervention.
From webinar to reform
On 23 March, USAf hosted a governance webinar titled Institutional Governance: Confronting the Risks of Institutional Capture. Moderated by professor Dr Letticia Mmaseloadi Moja, the former council chair at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, the closed session followed a December 2025 vice-chancellors’ retreat.
The webinar was not intended as a one-off conversation. Petersen insists its insights must be embedded in USAf programmes, particularly induction and continuing development for council members.
Practical content is key: clarifying fiduciary duties, conflicts of interest, procurement boundaries, oversight of disciplinary processes and protocols for council management interaction.
Governance will remain on the agenda across USAf platforms, including the biannual
higher education conference in October. Public engagement is also essential, Petersen
says, so that good governance is visible, problems are addressed decisively and risks
are prevented where possible.
Shared guidance and peer support
Although USAf has not formally discussed shared frameworks, Petersen believes model
policies, induction checklists, conflict of interest guidance and clearer protocols for handling allegations against executives could help. Peer learning and rapid support mechanisms would allow institutions to respond consistently when early warning signs emerge.
Most councils, he stresses, serve with integrity. But continuous learning is vital
as risks evolve. Councils must protect their independence by managing conflicts of interest, keeping clear records and ensuring oversight is exercised through proper committees rather than informal influence.
The role of the department of higher education and training
Alignment between USAf councils and the department of higher education and training
is “immensely important”, Petersen says. Fragmented signals between councils, executives, USAf and the department create openings for external actors to exploit uncertainty.
Despite capacity challenges, Petersen sees the relationship with the department improving. “With the attitude of the new minister, the two deputy ministers and the officials, I’m very hopeful and positive that that is what we’re going to achieve from now onwards,” he notes. Constructive partnership is essential for universities to operate at their best.
What success looks like
For USAf, success over the next year would mean greater stability in the sector: fewer
prolonged leadership suspensions, fewer governance crises escalating into systemwide
distractions and more balanced engagement with universities.
Oversight should continue but less politically driven “attack” and greater reliance on evidence and due process are needed. Public discourse must also improve, with fewer misinformation-driven narratives and more confidence that universities can investigate, decide and communicate outcomes fairly.
Defending credibility
Ultimately, Petersen identifies credibility as the single most important governance principle to defend. “The integrity of the institution, managed in a transparent, open and honest way, is where we start to bring public trust back,” he says. Fraud, corruption, dishonesty and social issues such as gender-based violence all threaten credibility.
Restoring trust requires universities to articulate the value of higher education, defend its core values and build trust not only with the public but also with the government.
As Petersen prepares to take part in a global seminar on the democratic mission of universities, he underscores the broader stakes: higher education is expanding worldwide but costs remain high. Leaders must explain its value, articulate its values and defend trust.
A collective responsibility
Institutional capture is not a problem any single university can solve alone. It demands collective vigilance, shared learning and systemic reform. USAf’s intervention signals recognition that governance is the bedrock of credibility.
Without it, universities risk becoming pawns in factional battles, their public mission compromised.
For South Africa’s universities, the path forward is clear: sharpen governance, strengthen induction, embed ethical practices and defend credibility. Only then, he says, can higher education fulfil its democratic mission and retain the trust of the society it serves.
©Higher Education Media Services. This was published on ednews.africa
South Africa’s universities face growing risks of “institutional capture”, with Universities South Africa warning of governance failures, political interference and rising misinformation
