The University of Fort Hare Convocation is seeking to stop the university’s planned elections for the Convocation on February 17 to the 19, 2025, due to concerns over irregularities and unfair election procedures. In a letter addressed to the university’s Registrar, legal representatives for the Convocation claim that the process is undemocratic, exclusionary, and rife with procedural flaws.
The Convocation argues that the university has deviated from standard practices for conducting free and fair elections, as outlined in the university’s statute. Allegations include the failure to provide graduates with a chance to update their contact information, the absence of a clean and publicly accessible voters’ roll, and the lack of communication regarding the nomination process. Additionally, it is claimed that candidates have not been properly informed of their eligibility, and there has been no opportunity for objections to nominations, which is a common feature in democratic elections.
The Convocation further points out that the university has failed to provide vital election-related documents, such as the annual report and candidate information, denying graduates the opportunity to make informed voting decisions. They also claim that the Registrar’s notice of the election, issued in the absence of the Convocation Secretary, is unlawful.
In response, the Convocation is demanding that the election be postponed until March 24, 2025, and that the university address a series of procedural demands, including allowing graduates to update their contact details, ensuring transparency in the nomination process, and publishing election-related materials in advance.
The Convocation’s representatives have warned that if the university does not respond favorably by February 16, 2025, they will pursue legal action to halt the elections and seek a court order compelling the university to adhere to proper democratic standards.
As the university prepares for the upcoming election, tensions remain high, with the Convocation’s legal team insisting that the process, as it stands, is fundamentally flawed and does not meet the expectations set forth in the university’s own regulations.
