[ad_1]
Rhodes University Image: File, Included
- Yolanda Dyantyi was expelled for life from Rhodes University.
- She wants the decision to expel her reversed.
- His recent authorization to appeal in Grahamstown Superior Court was dismissed with costs.
- The EFF has joined it.
Rhodes University says it notes with concern statements issued by the EFF against the institution regarding former student Yolanda Dyantyi.
The party has joined Dyantyi as he seeks to have the courts overturn a decision to dismiss, with costs, his request for review and overturn his permanent exclusion from the university.
In 2017, she was expelled after being convicted of a series of charges, including kidnapping, assault, defamation and insubordination, by an independent disciplinary investigation instituted by the institution.
The Grahamstown Superior Court dismissed Dyantyi’s request for review on Friday that the EFF, in a statement, said it noted.
He appealed to society and eminent individuals to step in and make the university “come to its senses.”
“We must appreciate that this country does not have a girls dump or prisons strong enough to intimidate and stop our efforts against the abuse of women and girls.
“We call on society and the members of the EFF to convey to the university authorities our collective discomfort for this development and to advocate for sanity, a failure that, the anger and anguish of the nation must be unleashed against the university without prior notice “, the party said.
News24 previously reported that Dyantyi’s legal representative, Nomzamo Zondo of the South African Institute for Socio-Economic Rights, said that the terms of the expulsion had made it virtually impossible for her to enroll in any other institution of higher education for the foreseeable future.
In his request for review, Dyantyi had also requested the court to intervene to set aside his verdict on all the charges and to order the university to pay the costs of the application process.
However, the court dismissed his application with costs on Friday, according to the university.
The former student claims that the university had denied her the right to a fair hearing, that she was denied legal representation, and that the evidence against her during the hearing was flawed and the sanction was inappropriate.
READ | You are destined to protect us! – Protesters clash with the police at the University of Rhodes.
The EFF also alluded in its statement that “the university court accepted unsubstantiated evidence from university witnesses against him. [Dyantyi]. He never had the opportunity to question his accusers and rigorously test his evidence. “
According to university spokeswoman Velisile Bukula, Dyantyi had also reiterated the claims to the court in her request for review in Grahamstown Superior Court, which was dismissed with costs on Friday.
“The judge noted that during the hearing, Ms. Dyantyi was represented by a ‘highly esteemed team of four lawyers’ who, in fact, participated in the disciplinary hearing for nine sessions.
“Towards the conclusion of the hearing, during October 2017, the plaintiff and her legal team decided to no longer participate in the disciplinary hearing. This, according to the court, was not reasonable.
“Ms. Dyantyi … deliberately and without permission or just cause withdrew her participation from the disciplinary hearing.
“Consequently, the investigation proceeded in her absence until it concluded with a verdict and a sanction that is now being challenged by the plaintiff on the broad basis that her right to fair administrative action was violated,” the court stated. “
Without prejudice against the applicant
Bukula said that Judge Nhlangulela also wrote: “Taking into account these aggravating factors, the decisions of the chairman of the disciplinary hearing on the sanction served the interests of justice and were rationally connected with the evidence presented.
“There was no prejudice against the applicant and the president demonstrated that he was aware that he had to carry out his functions in an independent and impartial manner.”
He added that the judge also found Dyantyi’s litigation against the university to be frivolous and vexatious.
This was “throughout the contentious process that it unleashed in the disciplinary court, in this court, as well as in the Supreme Court of Appeals and the Constitutional Court.” The court, therefore, ordered that he pay the university’s court costs in the application review. “
Bukula said the university reiterated the seriousness and urgency with which the institution dealt with crimes of sexual or gender-based violence.
He added that several students, in the last three years, have also been permanently excluded for crimes of sexual violence. These are on the public record.
“The university recognizes and supports the right to peaceful protest, but will not tolerate serious violent crimes in support of such protest.
“The necessary activism against gender violence cannot be used as a cover to operate outside the Constitution and violate the rights of other citizens.”
