Several motions have been proposed. On the surface, some appear innocuous or even sensible. But when looking deeper, there is evidence that the proposers have other purposes in mind. Of the resolutions, there is only one that we encourage you to support. This resolution reaffirms academic freedom.

Mover: David Le Page (signatory to the UCT Alumni for Palestine Open Letter to the Directors of Universities South Africa Board on Solidarity with Palestine & the UCT Court Case (5 Oct 2025); Co-Founder and Director of Fossil Free SA)

Seconders: Sandrine Mpazayabo (signatory to the UCT Alumni for Palestine

Open Letter to the Directors of Universities South Africa Board on Solidarity with Palestine & the UCT Court Case (5 Oct 2025)) and Mark New

This is part of the UCT Campaign of Fossil Free SA – see

https://www.fossilfreesa.org.za/uct-campaign 

https://www.fossilfreesa.org.za/blog/gaza-webiner-devastates-and-inspires partnership with SA Jews for a Free Palestine and UCT 4 Palestine 

The motion calls for UCT Council to accelerate implementation of its 2022 resolution of fossil fuel divestment because UCT has pushed the timeline out to 2040. 

The motion specifically calls on the UCT Foundation to “disclose and reduce any investments that UCT may have in companies providing coal or other exports to Israel”. 

The motion calls for “a new fully developed and human rights-based UCT socially responsible investment policy, in accord with the UCT’s Vision and Mission, and the recommendations of the

University Panel for Responsible Investment (UPRI).” 

This is a motion to boycott Israel under the guise of environmental objectives. 

Reduction of investments only mentions Israel and no other country specifically by name. 

The seemingly objective suggestion of a socially responsible investment policy could be used to achieve the goal of disinvestment from anything linked to Israel under the banner of so-called human rights abuses. Investment in this context relates to UCT’s Financial Endowments (the financial assets including the UCT Foundation, the UCT Account and UCT cash portfolio, as well as the Allan Gray donation, the Isaac Greenberg Trust Fund and the Shari’ah portfolio.) 

Read it for yourself: the UCT UPRI policy (18th October 2025) available at 

https://uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/media/documents/upri-ri-policy-updated.pdf

makes no mention of the reduction of investment in companies providing exports to Israel.  

Mover: Yasmeen Noor De Villiers (signatory to the UCT Alumni for Palestine Open Letter to the Directors of Universities South Africa Board on Solidarity with Palestine & the UCT Court Case (5 Oct 2025)

Seconders: Heather Jacklin (signatory to the UCT Alumni for Palestine

Open Letter to the Directors of Universities South Africa Board on Solidarity with Palestine & the UCT Court Case (5 Oct 2025)

Naefa Kahn (signatory to the UCT Alumni for Palestine Open Letter to the Directors of Universities South Africa Board on Solidarity with Palestine & the UCT Court Case (5 Oct 2025)

Roshila Nair (signatory to the UCT Alumni for Palestine Open Letter to the Directors of Universities South Africa Board on Solidarity with Palestine & the UCT Court Case (5 Oct 2025;  Global South Against Xenophobia based in South Africa and members of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC), individual signatory to https:// www.southernafricalitigationcentre.org/request-for-support-of-icc-investigation-in-palestine-by-african-icc-member-states/ )

On the face of it, a motion to call for UCT to declare itself Apartheid-Free may seem reasonable. However, look deeper at who is proposing this motion. 

The “Notes with Concern” section refers to “institutionalised racial inequality, whether within or beyond South Africa” and “global struggle against apartheid”. This means places that UCT Alumni for Palestine argue to be implementing Apartheid, i.e. Israel. 

This is a thinly veiled call to boycott and disinvest from Israel and that no aspect of UCT’s institutional life, investments, collaborations should be complicit in or supportive of apartheid, which will be used to refer to Israel. 

Mover: Henry Shields 

Proposed by: Henry Shields (BA, 1975)

Seconded by: Kumesheran Moodley (BSocSci, 2000; LLB, 2004), David Nurek (PGDip Law, 1971)

Seconders: Kumesheran Moodley and David Nurek 

It is no surprise that the proposers of this motion are from the legal fraternity as the wording is based on the Bill of Rights. 

The motion calls on the Convocation to resolve that as a show of UCT’s commitment to the constitutional rights of academic freedom, freedom of scientific research and freedom of association, academics of UCT shall remain free to determine their own scholarly partnerships and networks, free from forced institutionalised restrictions. 

This is in direct response to the UCT Council June 2024 Resolution which curtail academic engagement : “In terms of this resolution, no UCT academic may enter into relations with, or continue relations with, any research group and/or network whose author affiliations are with the Israeli Defence Force, and/or the broader Israeli military establishment”

It affirms that boycotts are an infringement of the fundamental human rights of academics of UCT.

Mover: Roshila Nair (signatory to the UCT Alumni for Palestine Open Letter to the Directors of Universities South Africa Board on Solidarity with Palestine & the UCT Court Case (5 Oct 2025); Global South Against Xenophobia based in South Africa and members of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC), individual signatory tohttps:// www.southernafricalitigationcentre.org/request-for-support-of-icc-investigation-in-palestine-by-african-icc-member-states/ ) 

Seconder: Cameron Dugmore (ANC MP), Lorelle Bell (signatory to the UCT Alumni for Palestine

Open Letter to the Directors of Universities South Africa Board on Solidarity with Palestine & the UCT Court Case (5 Oct 2025)) 

This motion is very wordy. A summary to try and make it simpler to understand follows. The motion is requesting a declaration from UCT for a committed duty to care; proactive interventions of responsibility to protect global students and staff. 

From whom should these people be protected? 

From Groups targeted (abroad and locally) for i. Genocide; ii. crimes against humanity; iii. war crimes and iv. the crime of aggression. It is noted that this language is derived from the UN Convention for the Prevention of Genocide. The motion notes that UCT aligns with the primary values of the Constitution which includes this convention because South Africa is a signatory. 

Who are such Groups? 

UCT has students entering it from around the globe and employs staff from around the world

The motion mentions an “alarming increase” in the above four categories as 

I. means of dealing with political disputes 

Ii. means of profiteering via the imperialist military industrial complex linked to extractivism, coloniality and neocolonialism

The motion contends that this impinges on i. ethical knowledge production; ii. Work and learning pursuit by global staff and students of UCT 

How so? 

The motion says via local support politicking within UCT itself

By whom? 

Groups of racist, ethno-centric and hypernationalist orientation

In doing so these groups impinge on the rights, safety and well-being of global staff and students. 

No examples are given of who these groups are.  

The motion is asking for UCT to:

i. Remedy the lack of a committed duty of care of vulnerable groups; 

ii. Take proactive intervention steps to secure the safety of global staff and students – via protection against local acts of aggression, persecution and other harms by those supporting perpetrations. 

It is unclear who is meant by “those supporting perpetrations”? 

Is this a reference to people who support “Genocide; ii. crimes against humanity; iii. war crimes and iv. the crime of aggression”? 

Is this a reference to those who support Israel, as it is accused of these crimes? 

The motion references the

“International Rights Based Order Responsibility to Protect”. This is one of the underlying principles and objectives invoked by South Africa in charging Israel with genocide in the International Court of Justice. The motion calls on UCT to emulate the spirit of this principle. 

The motion calls on UCT to establish an oversight mechanism to review the University’s investments, partnerships, collaborations to be consistent with the Responsibility to Protect. 

The motion ends with a call on UCT’s Executive to affirm UCT as a leader in the global struggle against 

i.Genocide; ii. Crimes against humanity; iii. War crimes and iv. The crime of aggression that has a negative effect on the safety of UCT’s global staff and students by aggressors against them both abroad and locally. The motion submits that is connected to the decolonial and decolonisation imperatives of UCT. 

UCT has multiple resources for the genuine protection of global students already in place. 

A verbose way of asking UCT to commit to being anti-Israel and “protect” global students and staff from any groups that say otherwise or support Israel.

Mover: Anthony Fish-Hodgson (signatory to the UCT Alumni for Palestine Open Letter to the Directors of Universities South Africa Board on Solidarity with Palestine & the UCT Court Case (5 Oct 2025); Executive member of SA Jews for a Free Palestine; coordinator of Concerned South African Jews; “BDS is a mechanism for enforcing international law…. BDS, far from radical, is a basic universal obligation.”) 

Seconder: Yousuf Gabru (Former education MEC, 2008; Coordinator & Founding Member of the UCT Alumni for Palestine; signatory to the UCT Alumni for Palestine Open Letter to the Directors of Universities South Africa Board on Solidarity with Palestine & the UCT Court Case (5 Oct 2025); 

The background to this motion is the Cape High Court legal case by Professor Adam Mendelsohn against UCT and UCT Council. Prof Mendelsohn led evidence as to how, in the instance of the June 2024 Gaza Resolutions, UCT Council did not investigate or weigh up the financial cost of its so-called “moral imperative” in a cost benefit analysis because no analysis was done. UCT Council was comfortable with the mere knowledge that there would be a financial implication with no idea of what that figure was. Prof Mendelsohn argued that this was a breach of fiduciary duties to act in the best interest of UCT. 

This motion is in direct response to this case. It aims to have the Convocation say that UCT did not have to concern itself in a situation where there may be a financial cost. This is in direct contradiction to what is required of decision-makers by the Higher Education Act and its Regulations. 

The motion proposes that even where there may be a financial cost incurred in doing so, UCT’s role as an ethical, independent institution should be affirmed. 

What does an ethical, independent institution mean? 

The motion says it means an institution committed to the-

Pursuit of truth 

Pursuit of social justice 

Prepared to protect and speak out in defence of those values

Defence against whom? Undue influences – including donors, governments or other external actors. 

The motions notes principles of academic freedom, seeking truth, protecting the pursuit of truth from political, economic or social power; the nature and integrity of UCT must precede its financing and never be determined by it. UCT must not adjust its identity to follow the agendas of funders. 

This is all in direct response to the facts of the Mendelsohn vs UCT case, which is awaiting a decision by the Cape High Court. 

The Motion calls on the UCT Council, Senate and Executive to: 

1. Reaffirm UCT’s academic independence; 
2. Acknowledge that UCT may at times require principled decisions that run contrary to the goal of maximising financial contributions; 
3. To commit to making such decisions when integrity demands it; 
4. Directly affirm willingness to defend UCT from improper financial influence by donors who attach conditions to their contributions (political, ideological, policy conditions – not aligned to UCT values)
5. It is worth noting here that the significant funding lost by UCT as a consequence of the UCT Council’s impugned decision making was not based on ideological conditions of the funder but on a breach of the funding contract by UCT itself. 

Finally, the Motion calls on UCT leadership to speak out in defence of UCT’s academic freedom and ethical independence, especially when threatened by 

“coercive financial influence” and “external pressure”. 

Coercive financial influence is not defined in the motion. It similarly negates the concept of a funding agreement being a contract between two consenting parties. UCT can accept or reject funding from any party or negotiate conditions of funding on its terms, according to principles of corporate governance and what is in the best interests of UCT. 

An example of external pressure is not specifically mentioned here in the motion but BDS is a good example.

(As an aside, a strong route to achieve the final point of this motion would be for members of the Convocation to vote for Motion No 4.)

This motion is trying to confirm the basis for UCT’s actions that are currently under Judicial Review and awaiting determination by a court as being unlawful under the empowering statute that governs UCT. It is superfluous because the guiding principles of UCT already require all of this of UCT Council, Senate and Executive. 

If you are attending in person, we suggest that you aim to get to the venue Kramer Law Building, Middle Campus, Lecture Theatre 1 by 17h40 to have sufficient time to sign in. 

You will be requested to sign the register (the roll) and your name will be entered into the Minute Book. This is used to confirm who was present at the AGM for future records. The required quorum at an annual general meeting is 30 people. 

If you are signing in online, UCT has indicated that the online platform will be the internal UCT Convene System. 

By now alumni have received a personalised email from Agm@Convene to confirm your login details onto ConveneAGM. Inside this email, click the blue Sign Up button to create your account. If possible, do this before the AGM begins so that you can troubleshoot any problems ahead of time. 

If you registered for the AGM but did not receive an email with your personal sign in details, please email nomcebo.msweli@uct.ac.za to request your personal sign in details. 

What to expect? 

The President of the Convocation, Naadiya Moosajee, will open the meeting with a welcoming address. 

Attendees will be reminded that the Convocation may discuss and state its opinion upon any matter relating to the University, including any matter referred to it by the Council, the Senate or the Institutional Forum. This comes from the

Institutional Statute of UCT (see sections 37-42). 

At the annual general meeting, the convocation must –

(i) confirm the minutes of the last annual general meeting and of any special general meeting held since then, with or without amendment; and

(ii) deal with the business of which notice has been given, and any other business which a three-quarters majority of those present agrees to consider. 

The  Agenda of the 2025 Convocation AGM will be followed. The order of business will be:

1. Report of the Vice-Chancellor Prof M Moshabela, on the state of UCT

2. Report of the President of Convocation and Convocation Reform Discussion

What is the Convocation Reform Discussion? 

Background: 

At a Convocation Special General Meeting, held on 28 May 2024, the following motion was adopted:

The President and Executive Committee of Convocation should revert to Convocation with proposals for the reform of Convocation’s processes at the next AGM.

At the December 2024 Convocation AGM, the Reform of Convocation processes was discussed. 

The President told Convocation that the Executive Committee had been considering ways to enhance connections with university alumni and more integration into key decision-making bodies at UCT.

UCT’s governing body, the UCT Council, has four seats allocated to alumni (members of the Convocation) elected every four years by a vote of the members of Convocation. See

https://uct.ac.za/administration-leadership/council. It is noteworthy that these people are individuals elected or appointed in their individual capacities to serve in a fiduciary capacity and have to do so in the best interests of the University. No Council member, regardless of how they were elected, serves as a delegate for any group. 

One proposal was to allocate one of the four Council seats to the President of Convocation, or a representative appointed by the President, facilitating better communication and representation. A formal request was to be sent to the Council in this regard for its consideration. 

Regarding the proposal for Council representation, the President clarified that they were not asking for additional seats. Rather, it was proposed to allocate one of the existing seats to the President of Convocation. The aim was to ensure that Convocation has a representative voice among the four Council members.

Daniel Tate initially put forward the motion about reforming Convocation with the focus on improving the efficiency of Convocation meetings, which had been challenging in the past. He had hoped the proposals would include suggestions for enhancing meeting effectiveness. Additionally, he raised concerns about the digital presence of Convocation and its executive committee (EXCO), stating that information about EXCO was not easily accessible online, making it difficult for members to find contact details for them. He emphasized the need for better transparency and communication and concluded by mentioning that there were several matters members would like to address.

See the document University of Cape Town Convocation Reform Strategy (Draft) dated 26 May 2025 and updated 24 October 2025.  https://issuu.com/uct-renewal/docs/university-of-cape-town-convocation-reform-proposa

Summary of proposals: 

1. Change to two meetings of Convocation annually – one mid year and one year end
2. President of Convocation is to take one of the existing seats available for alumni at the Council. 
3. Create a signature event: Annual Convocation Dinner and Awards 
4. Structured and inclusive meeting protocols – speaker time limits, pre-registration of motions 2 weeks before, digital timer and strict moderation

 There will be an opportunity for feedback on the proposal. 

Procedure for the Motions: 

Each motion has a mover and seconder who may speak to introduce the motion and explain why they have put it forward. 

The President will then open the floor for debate. 

Any person may raise points. 

Convene online platform does allow online attendees to speak. However due to the anticipated large number of attendees, this will require patience. You will join a queue to speak on video and get a turn in the order of the queue. The Q&A option on Convene will also be available. 

Apparently, due to the long agenda and the meeting being set only for 2 hours, the Chair will only allow 3 minutes interaction per person.

It is suggested that any points you raise are either questions for the mover of the Motion or substantiations that are clearly for or against the Motion. 

It is possible for an amendment to the Motion to be suggested from the floor. This can be accepted or not. 

4. The mover/seconders of the motion will then be given the opportunity for rebuttal. 

The Chair will then put the motion to a vote. 

.
You will vote by stating that you either support or do not support the motion, using the voting mechanism indicated. 

You also have the option to abstain from voting on the motion. Abstentions will also be counted.  

If the motion gets a majority vote, it will be carried and become a Resolution of the Convocation. 

Online voting will run through the Convene online platform poll system. 

Watch this video to see how to Vote on Agm@Convene: 

ConveneAGM Features: Specific Question Box + Live Vote + Contact Support [Full Demo]

Election of a member to be President of Convocation for a two-year term 2025–2027 – see the three nominees here

https://alumni.uct.ac.za/president-convocation-nominees

5. Election of 5 persons who are UCT alumni to be members of the Convocation

Executive Committee for a two-year term 2025 – 2027 see all the nominees here

https://alumni.uct.ac.za/2025-executive-committee-convocation-nominees 

https://www.uct.ac.za/contacts/mosa-moshabela

A/Prof Kathy Idensohn

Interim Registrar and Secretary of Convocation

https://uct.ac.za/contacts/interim-registrar-kathy-idensohn

President of Convocation

https://alumni.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/media/documents/alumni_uct_ac_za/80/Naadiya%20Moosajee-1CV.pdf

https://www.news.uct.ac.za/article/-2024-07-25-empowering-inclusive-leadership

Alumni Advisory Board Chair 

https://www.uct.ac.za/contacts/dianna-yach

Registrar Emeritus 

https://www.news.uct.ac.za/article/-2015-12-14-amoore-bows-out-on-a-high-note

https://alumni.uct.ac.za/research

https://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-03/daniel_tate_curriculum_vitae.pdf

UCT Renewal 2025 Campaign Statement

Court filings and media reports allege that divisive resolutions, including an academic boycott of certain Israeli academics, were passed by the University of Cape Town’s Council in June 2024 without full disclosure of the financial risks these posed to the institution’s funding. According to affidavits filed in the Mendelsohn case, UCT placed hundreds of millions of rands in donor funding at risk when it adopted politically driven resolutions that have since resulted in significant withdrawals from the university.

UCT Council justified its decision to adopt the June 2024 resolutions in its court papers by relying on the endorsement of the decision by the UCT Convocation AGM that same year, because 86 alumni voted in support of the following motion:

“Support the resolutions adopted by Council in relation to Gaza and call for these to be enacted to the full extent;

Condemn the efforts to have the resolutions reviewed and set aside; and

Support the University’s efforts to challenge the above in court.”

That motion, endorsed by only 86 individuals, has been cited in court to justify actions that have had major repercussions for the university’s finances and reputation.

To put this into context, the notice of the 2024 Convocation AGM was sent to 84,903 qualifying members of Convocation. Of that number, only 482 accepted the invitation to attend. Among them, 387 registered to join online, 97 planned to attend in person, and on the day, only 106 joined online and 61 attended in person. In the end, the university’s position was shaped by just 86 votes out of nearly 85,000 alumni.

These decisions have had real consequences. Scholarship programmes for 2026 have been suspended. International research partnerships have been strained. The university’s global reputation has been damaged, and the trust that once made UCT a magnet for donors, academics, and students has been eroded.

Despite this very issue being the subject of an ongoing legal challenge, a faction of alumni is now attempting to introduce yet another motion at the December 2025 Convocation AGM, again calling for a full academic boycott of Israeli universities. The fact that a proposal already being challenged in court is being recycled and resubmitted is preposterous.

UCT has already spent over a year defending these actions in court at significant legal cost, with no fewer than three advocates on brief. This renewed attempt by a splinter group shows complete disregard for how much time, money, and institutional credibility has already been lost. It also demonstrates how political activists continue to hijack university platforms for ideological purposes rather than focusing on what is in the best interests of the university.

This crisis of governance is about more than money. It has undermined UCT’s academic integrity and damaged its standing as one of the world’s most respected universities. Reputation is not a soft asset. It determines whether a university attracts funding, maintains partnerships, and competes globally. UCT’s decline in these areas is a wake-up call to every graduate who still cares about the institution’s future.

The UCT Renewal 2025 campaign calls on all alumni to act on their belief in the institution that UCT once was and can still be. Registration for the upcoming AGM closes on 14 November 2025. It takes only a few minutes to register, but participation at the AGM itself on 4 December 2025 at 18:00, whether online or in person, is the only way to ensure that sound governance and academic integrity prevail over factional politics.

You will need your student number to register. If you do not remember it, contact reg-records@uct.ac.za with your full name and ID number, or call Student Records on 021 650 3595 to retrieve it.

Attending the AGM gives you the right to vote against motions that are ill-considered and to elect a new Convocation President and five alumni representatives to the Convocation Executive Council. Candidates will be announced next week. The question every graduate should ask is simple: will those representing you in UCT’s formal structures stand for professionalism and good governance, or for division and political posturing?

This campaign is not about silencing debate. It is about redirecting debate towards ideas, evidence, and accountability, not ideology.

Only you can protect UCT’s credibility and restore alumni leadership to its rightful role in defending academic excellence.

UCT Renewal 2025
Focus on Students · Protect Research · Restore Reputation

                                                                                                                                       Register now: