TUT former vice-chancellor to answer for contempt of court

The High Court in Pretoria has granted an application by Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) that individual management members of the Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) be joined in the contempt of court proceedings against the university.

LHR said it believed members who led to TUT disobeying an urgent court order allowing evicted students to return during protest action in 2014 should be held personally accountable for contempt of court.

“During January last year‚ student protests erupted at TUT campuses. To quell these protests‚ TUT decided to close all campuses and evict residence students without first obtaining a court order.

“LHR assisted students in obtaining an urgent interdict that they be allowed to return to their residences as they had no alternative accommodation and that the eviction was unlawful.

“Although TUT published its knowledge of the court order on its website‚ it wilfully ignored the court order for several days. It was only after LHR brought an urgent contempt of court application against TUT‚ did it finally comply‚” the LHR said.

“In an effort to circumvent the contempt application‚ TUT brought an application for the rescission of the first order that was granted on an urgent basis. TUT elected not to settle the matter by simply issuing an apology to the students and court for its failure to comply with the order.

“On Wednesday‚ the high court delivered a scathing judgment of TUT management’s wilful disregard for the court order‚ stating that ‘in circumstances where the TUT was alleging that circumstances were dangerous‚ desperate and even life-threatening a supine approach was wholly inappropriate. (They) knew full well that there would be massive repercussions and were constrained to be vigilant to monitor the situation.’

“As a result of this position‚ the court has joined the former TUT vice-chancellor to the contempt of court application.”

LHR would now continue with proceedings from this stance.

A special cost order was given because of “the haphazard way in which counsel for the (TUT) presented his arguments to the court”‚ the judgment also read.