UCT Shackville protesters effectively expelled

Vox Populi Vox Dei

Vox Populi Vox Dei

High Tory
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
53,958
Reaction score
38,800
Location
Cape Town
An interdict against a number of University of Cape Town (UCT) students was made an order of court yesterday. As a result, five students find themselves effectively expelled.

The five (of the original 16 named respondents) are not allowed on campus for an indefinite period of time except with express written consent of the vice-chancellor. They are: Alex Hotz, Masixole Mlandu, Chumani Maxwele, Slovo Magida and Zola Shokane. They will also have to pay UCT’s costs including the costs of two counsel.

This morning, a handful of protesters assembled on UCT’s Jameson Plaza calling on UCT to “bring back our cadres”. A large cloth was laid out on the steps proclaiming: “Death of Dreams”. By noon the protest had grown to dozens of people.

“Body bags” were also laid out on the ground representing the students who have been prevented from entering campus.

The interdict arises after the Shackville protests on 16 February around accommodation at UCT, where protesters erected a shack on the campus, calling for students, especially black students, to be housed in university accommodation. The protest escalated.

In the order, Judge Allie writes: “Concerning the disruptive and destructive form that the protests took, it cannot be said that the apprehension of it recurring is not reasonable given the great lengths to which some protesters went, to perpetrate the destruction. The unrepentant stance adopted by the respondents, led the applicant to believe that the harm could recur if an interdict is not granted prohibiting the misconduct complained of.”

Allie writes that the university has no “adequate alternative remedy” to prevent further damage to property. Disciplinary action as well as claiming damages are slower processes.
Click to expand...

http://www.groundup.org.za/article/uct-shackville-protesters-effectively-expelled/
 
It's going to be fun explaining that to their parents.
 
Good, but I feel more destruction will now take place demanding they return
 
The real losers are the parents if they actually helped and paid for them to get into uct one way or another
 
HeftyCrab said:
Im glad their names are listed. Hope no other University takes them, in case they try the same rubbish there.
Click to expand...

Also, good luck finding employment. They don't realise it, but they made their chances of any success even more difficult.

If I were the UCT, I would now push for damages and lay criminal charges.
 
crackersa said:
Unless their folks encouraged it :(
Click to expand...

Maybe encouraging healthy protest but to the point where their child destroyed/vandalised property, cost themselves a UCT degree, a year of their academic career, made future employment harder for themselves and effectively flushed tens of thousands of rands down the drain? Doubt it.

My child would get a moerse PK from me if they did that.
 
Last edited:
Let's see how long it is until UCT drop the interdict.... I'm not holding my breath
 
MaryJane said:
Also, good luck finding employment. They don't realise it, but they made their chances of any success even more difficult.

If I were the UCT, I would now push for damages and lay criminal charges.
Click to expand...
You are kidding... These are future politicians - today's outcasts are tomorrow's heroes.
 
Last edited:
Seriously said:
They are not there to study. They are there to fight their "cause".
Click to expand...

Interesting pic on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/alex.hotz
http://img.prntscr.com/img?url=http://i.imgur.com/Ze0mX5T.png

Does this belong on a varsity campus?

I see the clear recipe is being repeated again: Use media etc for your causes, wrapping it in in other popular causes:
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/deathofdreams-protest-at-uct-2020989
#UCT students protested on campus on Wednesday to raise awareness around rape culture on campus, racism and students expelled during the #FeesMustFall protests.
Click to expand...
 
Full judgement: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/documents/uct-vs-rmf-final-interdict-judgement

32. Respondents' counsel made the astounding submission that the applicant's alleged right to control and manage access to its property is not a right but a duty.
33. If that argument were to be upheld, it must mean that property owners or lawful possessors of property do not enjoy clear rights to control access to their properties.
34. That argument must also mean then, that universities throughout this country have no clear right to manage access to university property nor do they have a right to prohibit unlawful conduct on their property.
35. If the law indeed prohibits a university from asserting a clear right to control and manage access to its property, then it is a prohibition that no court of law has made a ruling on before.
36. Mr Masuku, on behalf of respondents argued further that the doctrine of necessity is the justification for the respondents' conduct. I was implored to find that the conduct of the respondents as admitted by them, are necessary acts of civil disobedience.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X