Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
04 June 2020 | Story Lacea Loader

It has come to the attention of the University of the Free State (UFS) that false and inaccurate statements have been circulating on Twitter on 4 June 2020, claiming that its students were not equipped or supported to study remotely during the COVID-19 lockdown. The UFS believes that it is important to engage in dialogue to correct any misconceptions and inaccuracies that are at risk of being perpetuated.

Contrary to these reports, the UFS has invested much time and resources in the development and deployment of low-tech online and distance approaches to learning and teaching. Since March 2020, the university has undertaken extensive measures to support its students after classes were suspended and to ensure the continuation of the academic programme.

Statements on Twitter include a number of inaccuracies, which the university wants to correct:

• The Institutional Student Representative Council (ISRC) was not suspended by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor, Prof Francis Petersen. In fact, the university management regularly meets with the ISRC on matters of concern to them. Student representatives also serve on a number of institutional committees – both before and during the national lockdown.
• No deregistration of any students has taken place.
• Since the end of April 2020, structured and managed data was provided to students to obtain access to academic content as well as to the academic platforms for free. However, to access this free data, students need to download the GlobalProtect app – this was communicated numerously and explained to students.  The university’s ICT Services will provide video and technical guides to all students to assist them with downloading the app.
• As of June 2020, all allowances for which students qualify and which are approved by NSFAS, have been paid by the university.
• Although online learning provides a solution to continue with programme delivery, the university is deeply aware of the fact that access may be a barrier – especially during these extraordinary times.  To assist vulnerable students, a total of 3 500 laptops have been procured by the UFS, enabling the university to assist eligible students in accessing the online platforms, obtaining learning material, and engaging with lecturers. The university is in the process of distributing the laptops to students who qualify. The Department of Higher Education, Science and Innovation’s process to provide laptops to students is separate from the 3 500 laptops procured by the UFS.  

The UFS remains committed to supporting its students in response to COVID-19 and is looking forward to working as a community to prepare for the institution’s response to the new challenges of responsibly returning to campus life from June 2020 onward. As staff and students start returning to the institution in a phased approach this month, the UFS will continue to comply with all applicable governmental directives and health guidelines to ensure the safety, health, and well-being of its students and staff.

Released by:
Lacea Loader (Director: Communication and Marketing)
Telephone: +27 51 401 2584 | +27 83 645 2454
Email: news@ufs.ac.za | loaderl@ufs.ac.za

News Archive

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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