Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
27 November 2021

The Council of the University of the Free State (UFS) carefully considered and approved a vaccination policy for the institution during its meeting on 26 November 2021. 

The aim of the COVID-19 Regulations and Required Vaccination Policy is to regulate access of staff, ad hoc contract workers, and students to all the university’s premises. The policy will be implemented as from 14 February 2022.

“The policy implies that the university does not force anyone to be vaccinated, but the institution has the right to require vaccination if you want to access the institution’s premises in order to protect our staff and students,” said Prof Francis Petersen, UFS Rector and Vice-Chancellor.    

Fiduciary duty to ensure safe and caring environment

“The UFS is a residential university that requires face-to-face engagement by both staff and students, and operational requirements entail that our staff, ad hoc contract workers, and students are regularly exposed to large groups on the three campuses. We have a fiduciary duty to ensure a safe and caring environment and to meet the health and safety obligations on the campuses,” said Prof Petersen. 

Since March 2020 and within the national lockdown levels, the institution has followed a predominantly online emergency-remote learning-and-teaching programme with a minimalistic approach to the return of staff and students to campus. Where possible and within the national lockdown levels, staff members have been working from home, except essential service employees and academic staff that were required to support students studying on campus in carefully managed face-to-face classes/interactions.  

“The viability of consistent remote working and study conditions is not in line with the culture and strategy of the UFS. Although a blended learning approach is supported, sole online learning will be detrimental to the quality of our graduates and the experience that the institution should offer to its students as a residential university,” said Prof Petersen.

Encouraging university community to vaccinate

The institution is greatly concerned about the number of staff, students, and ad hoc contract workers who have tested positive for COVID-19 since the commencement of the national lockdown. The pandemic has resulted in numerous individuals being placed in quarantine, testing positive or being incapacitated due to COVID-19 complications and deaths. “We believe that the policy will be a contributing factor in encouraging the entire university community to make the responsible decision to vaccinate,” said Prof Petersen.

Although the policy does not force anyone to vaccinate, it is aimed at restricting campus access to vaccinated persons, while at the same time considering applications for exemption based on medical and religious grounds, natural immunity objections, other legally acceptable exemptions, or those participating in clinical trials approved by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA). Employee and Student Vaccination Exemption Committees will evaluate applications for exemption. These committees will operate independently, and will include medical, religious, legal and psychology experts.

Vaccinated persons will be required to upload their vaccination certificates on an electronic platform to obtain access to campus. Staff, ad hoc contract workers, and students who are not vaccinated, who do not have an approved exemption or deferral, and who do not have a SARS COVID-19 PCR negative result that is not older than a week, will not be allowed access to the campuses or facilities. Only vaccinated students will be allowed to access on-campus accommodation. 

Students who are not vaccinated by 14 February 2022, will not be prevented from registering for the academic year, but can only access the campus if vaccinated or granted an exemption. 

Consultation process and thorough risk assessment

“The development of the policy was consulted widely with relevant internal stakeholders, among others, the university’s Senate, supporting it with an overwhelming 84%. The university also followed due process by referring the proposed policy to all its governance structures for consultation – including obtaining opinions from reputable legal firms in the country,” said Prof Petersen. 

According to Prof Petersen, the UFS has conducted a thorough risk assessment of the implementation of the policy, and a contingency plan is in place that will be implemented in the absence of full implementation of the policy. “We will consider following a flexible approach if we initially find that the rate of vaccinations is low. We will work tirelessly with government to accelerate the rate of vaccinations with the ultimate goal to obtain a high enough level of vaccinations to limit the transmission of the COVID-19 virus and create a safe work and study environment for our staff and students,” he said. 

VIEW the Roads to Return to Campus 2022 Infographic here



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