In recent months, South African higher education has been gripped by discussions on a pervasive threat: institutional capture. This phenomenon, where external actors or internal factions systematically undermine governance to seize control over resources and decision-making, was the central focus of a pivotal webinar hosted by Universities South Africa (USAf) on March 23, 2026. Titled "Institutional Governance: Confronting the Risks of Institutional Capture," the event brought together sector leaders, government officials, and experts to dissect the anatomy of this crisis.

The forum, co-hosted with the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), attracted council members, registrars, deputy vice-chancellors, and risk officers from across the 26 public universities. It highlighted how political interference, stakeholder pressures, and criminal networks are eroding university autonomy, threatening teaching, research, and student welfare. As poverty and unemployment rates hover above 30% and 45% respectively in South Africa, public expectations for universities to deliver jobs and redress historical inequities have intensified, creating fertile ground for capture attempts.

Defining Institutional Capture in South African Universities

Institutional capture refers to the deliberate and systematic process of subverting a university's governance structures to shift authority away from legitimate leaders, often for personal gain, looting, or ideological control. Distinguished Professor Jonathan Jansen, former rector of the University of the Free State and author of Corrupted: A Study of Chronic Dysfunction in South African Universities, described it as "a systematic, deliberate, and intentional process of undermining governance and management to trigger institutional instability and shift authority to other power centres within the university."

Unlike sporadic corruption, capture targets the core—councils, senates, and executives—forcing universities to deviate from their primary mission of teaching, research, and community engagement. Jansen distinguishes visible forms, like selling degrees, from subtler ones, such as corrupting research administration through inflated publication counts for subsidies or predatory journals for promotions.

Historical Context: From State Capture to University Siege

South Africa's higher education sector bears scars from apartheid-era inequalities and post-1994 transformation pressures. The Higher Education Act of 1997 introduced stakeholder models with institutional forums (IFs) and councils balancing internal (40%) and external (60%) members to promote democracy. However, these have often become battlegrounds for competing interests.

The Zondo Commission exposed state capture's tentacles reaching education via NSFAS scandals—822 deceased students funded and billions lost to accommodation fraud in 2025-2026, with the SIU recovering R1.7 billion. This spillover has manifested as 'institutional capture' in universities, where patronage networks exploit weak governance.

CHE audits of all 26 public universities reveal persistent weaknesses: leadership vacancies, poor policy enforcement, and council ineffectiveness ranked as top risks, fostering environments ripe for capture.

Key Drivers of Institutional Capture

DHET Deputy Director-General Professor Thandi Lewin outlined three converging drivers:

• Misunderstanding universities: Public and political confusion over universities' roles leads to demands beyond capacity, eroding self-regulation.
• Unresolved legacies: Social justice grievances fuel control efforts by stakeholders seeking resource access.
• Criminality: Outright fraud in tenders and appointments.

Durban University of Technology (DUT) Vice-Chancellor Professor Thandwa Mthembu added that capture occurs when universities are forced to be "what they are not," bastardising their purpose through misused democracy (aggregative politics over deliberative reason) and transformation (e.g., low foreign academic hires at 7.7-12% vs. 33% in UK).

Manifestations: Tenders, Fraud, and Violence

Capture manifests in procurement scandals, research manipulation, and violence. Jansen notes staff deaths resisting corruption, while CHE identifies blurred boundaries like VCs in governance roles or student reps on tenders.

NSFAS-linked accommodation fraud exemplifies sector-wide risks, with billions at stake due to poor accreditation and oversight.

Photo by Hakim Menikh on Unsplash

Case Study: University of Fort Hare Governance Meltdown

The University of Fort Hare (UFH), Mandela's alma mater, epitomises capture risks. VC Sakhela Buhlungu was suspended on April 4, 2026, precautionary for procedural lapses in executive appointments, amid SIU probes into corruption, murders, assassinations, and union strife.

Supporters call it a witch-hunt to silence Buhlungu as fraud witness; critics cite autocracy, kickbacks, and fiefdom rule. Achievements like research growth contrast with fear, infrastructure damage, and political toxicity, highlighting governance centralisation risks.University World News on UFH crisis

Case Study: DUT Security Tender Corruption

At DUT, a 32% unexplained security budget hike (March 2025) led to five senior suspensions. Post-appointment demands for tenders (2018) and legal battles over council/VC removal underscore patronage.

Mthembu shared "wisdom nuggets": master statutes, build VC-registrar ties, act with integrity.

CHE Audits: Systemic Vulnerabilities Exposed

Council on Higher Education (CHE) audits (completed 2026) rank council effectiveness, policy implementation, and leadership stability as highest risks. Weak senates, fear cultures suppressing whistleblowing, and stakeholder overreach create capture entry points.

15/26 universities clean audits, but recurring findings persist.

Impacts: Eroding Trust and Quality

Capture diverts resources from core functions, drops rankings (UCT fell 20 spots), stifles research, and heightens protests. Students suffer unstable learning; staff face violence. NSFAS failures exacerbate access issues amid 45% youth unemployment.

Governance Reforms: Expert Roadmap

Panel urged:

• Smaller councils (7 members), no sitting fees, vetted independents.
• Professional body nominations, external quorum.
• Procurement automation, audits.
• Induction training, hybrid governance.
• Longer team administrations (5-10 years).

Fraud hotlines across unis enable reporting.USAf Fraud Hotline Directory

Photo by Marcus Ganahl on Unsplash

Leadership's Pivotal Role

VCs must anchor in core business, foster deliberative democracy. Registrars as firm authorities; chairs understanding HE nuances.

Outlook: Safeguarding Autonomy

USAf plans follow-ups on mitigation. With reforms, SA universities can reclaim integrity, balancing redress and excellence. Explore careers at AcademicJobs South Africa.