Whistle-blowing hotline

Completed investigations: 2015 – part 1

At the beginning of February 2015, the vice-chancellor wrote to the UCT community about the KPMG whistle-blowing hotline. I write to update you about the cases reported through the hotline that have been finalised.

A number of presentations were made by KPMG and UCT staff to departments and key stakeholders including the trade unions, student leadership, financial aid managers, procurement specialists, finance managers and administrative staff. This was in line with the message from the vice-chancellor that there would be a communication and marketing campaign to promote the hotline.

We hope that sharing these outcomes will encourage staff, students and external parties to use the hotline to blow the whistle on corrupt practices. I wish to make a special plea that when phoning the hotline, as much information as possible should be provided to allow for a proper investigation. Confidentiality and anonymity are guaranteed and no one is compelled to disclose their identity, so there is no risk to the caller.

Should you require a presentation to be made to your department or identified group, please get in touch with: Mr Shai Makgoba, Finance Executive: Risk and Relationship Management (+27 (0)21 650 2754) to arrange for a presentation on how the UCT whistle-blowing hotline operates.

Case 1

Complaint: a staff member made unauthorised use of a UCT vehicle for private purposes

Outcome: Following an investigation, the staff member faced a disciplinary hearing, was found guilty and a written warning valid for 6 months was issued.

Case 2

Complaint: a staff member in a position of care for students was abusing his position by making passes at students and getting involved with them

Outcome: The allegation could not be substantiated. Should names be forwarded and the allegations have substance, formal disciplinary action will be considered.

Case 3

Complaint: a staff member was sub-letting a UCT residence for personal financial benefit

Outcome: Following an investigation, no evidence of sub-letting accommodation was found. However, the staff member had allowed 2 students to "house-sit" for the staff member during the absence of the staff member. The students have since vacated the accommodation. A verbal warning was issued to the staff member for allowing persons who are not immediate family members to share the accommodation provided for him and his family.

Hugh Amoore
Registrar
August 2015

TOP