Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
17 March 2025 | Story Tshepo Tsotetsi | Photo Charl Devenish
Safety Campus Launch 2025
Vice-Chancellor and Principal Prof Hester C. Klopper, Deputy Minister of Police Cassel Mathale, and Free State MEC for Community Safety, Roads, and Transport Jabu Mbalula alongside other members of the newly formed Campus Community Safety Forum.

The University of the Free State (UFS) hosted a two-day Ministerial Campus Safety Launch on 12 and 13 March 2025, a collaborative effort spearheaded by the UFS Protection Services in partnership with the South African Police Service (SAPS) to enhance safety and security for students and staff.

The event, held at the Centenary Complex on the UFS’s Bloemfontein Campus, aimed to address safety concerns, introduce a framework for campus security, and formally launch the Campus Community Safety Forum (CCSF).

Notable attendees included UFS Vice-Chancellor and Principal Prof Hester C. Klopper, Deputy Minister of Police Cassel Mathale, Free State MEC for Community Safety, Roads and Transport Jabu Mbalula, Acting SAPS National Deputy Commissioner for Support Services Lieutenant General Lineo Nkhuoa, Senior Director of Protection Services Noko Masalesa, Deputy Director of Protection Services Cobus van Jaarsveld, representatives from various UFS departments, SAPS officials, and members of the Institutional Student Representative Council (ISRC).

Multi-stakeholder approach to campus safety

As the driving force behind the initiative, the UFS Protection Services played a crucial role in ensuring that safety discussions translated into actionable solutions. Prof Klopper emphasised the importance of a collaborative approach to campus safety, saying, “I believe what makes this initiative destined for success is its focus on cooperation and collaboration. Each stakeholder brings a specific body of expertise to the table.”

The Deputy Minister reaffirmed the SAPS’s commitment to enhancing safety in academic environments. He noted that safety in learning environments remains a key priority for the SAPS. “We are fully aware that we need you [management and the student community] to be part of us in an endeavour to better the crime situation in and around this institution,” he said.

MEC Mbalula acknowledged that safety on campuses requires collaboration from various parties. “Safety on campus is not the responsibility of one entity alone; it requires the involvement of students, faculty, security personnel, law enforcement agencies, and the broader community,” he said.

Identifying key security challenges across UFS campuses

The need for strengthened security measures was reinforced by ISRC representative Ogorogile Moleme, who detailed the safety concerns faced by students on the Bloemfontein, South, and Qwaqwa Campuses.

Muggings, break-ins, and cyber-related crimes remain a challenge for the Bloemfontein Campus, especially in off-campus residences. “While the university has made significant strides to have off-campus security, we have seen an increase in reports of muggings – for example, the incident of a student who was mugged by criminals driving by – break-ins, and cyber-related crimes,” Moleme said.

South Campus faces issues related to accessibility and transport safety, particularly for students living in townships. “Most of our students at the South Campus end up residing ko kasi [in a township], and we know the situation… forcing them to constantly have to go to campus to access resources and study facilities, which thus leave them exposed and vulnerable to mugging, kidnappings, robbery and others.”

On the Qwaqwa Campus, the challenges are heightened by limited police visibility and response times, as well as inadequate lighting in some off-campus residences. “The conditions of the safety of off-campus accommodations there is concerning,” Moleme emphasised.

Launch of the Campus Community Safety Forum (CCSF)

On the second day of the event, the Campus Community Safety Forum (CCSF) was officially launched, marking a critical step in the UFS’s proactive approach to security. The CCSF is a structured body that brings together representatives from the university and the SAPS to enhance collaboration and implement preventative security measures.

Its members include:

• From UFS: Protection Services, ISRC, Division of Student Affairs, Student Counselling and Development, the Gender Equity and Anti-Discrimination Office, the Department of Communication and Marketing, and other key university stakeholders.

• From the SAPS: The Community Police Forum, Youth Crime Prevention Desk, officers from the Park Road Police Station, and additional law enforcement representatives.

Pledge for a safer campus

In a significant move to formalise their commitment, the Deputy Minister, Vice-Chancellor and Principal, MEC, and other key stakeholders signed the Campus Safety Learning Environment Framework, which sets out specific commitments to improve campus safety, with goals including rolling out the framework at the UFS, appointing station liaison officers to coordinate safety efforts, and establishing campus safety committees with representatives from students, Protection Services, and local law enforcement.

This pledge is a testament to the shared responsibility of ensuring student safety across the campus, with a focus on collaboration, accountability, and proactive solutions.

A call for immediate action

Prof Klopper called on all stakeholders to move beyond discussions and take immediate action. “The forum is not merely a discussion platform, but a governance structure with key roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes,” she said. She also highlighted the importance of this initiative in developing preventive measures and fostering community engagement in safety efforts.

Van Jaarsveld underscored the critical role students play in maintaining a safe campus environment. He introduced the “four R’s” that he believes are key to promoting safety: “We must reduce the likelihood of crime by being proactive in policing and security efforts… [we must] respond, which involves taking swift and effective action, including thorough investigations led by trained professionals... It is essential for students to report incidents as soon as they occur, as safety issues cannot be addressed if they are not reported. Lastly… in the unfortunate event that a student becomes a victim of crime, they must not only survive but recover and overcome the traumatic impact of the experience.”

He emphasised that these actions are not only the responsibility of law enforcement but of everyone on campus, and ended his speech by declaring, “Safety starts with me.” This call to action reinforced the idea that creating a safe environment is a collective effort, one in which every student plays a crucial part.

The MEC reiterated the Free State government’s commitment to student safety, stating, “The launch of the SAPS Campus Safety Initiative marks a new chapter in our collective effort to make UFS a model of security and excellence,” and added that universities must be places “where knowledge thrives without the shadow of fear”.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept