The Rotation of Rot: Njotini, the SGC, and the Manufacture of Consent at Fort Hare by Lindokuhle Mponco

I. Method Before Anger

Let’s get the method straight before we let loose. Haniism-Bikoism doesn’t do outrage without reason. If we’re taking Scientific Socialism with Afrocentric Characteristics seriously, we look at every institution, not as some neutral playground, but as a battlefield. Who wins? Who loses? Whose fingerprints smear the entire thing? And what recycled colonial trick is being pulled out this week, the council, the review, the so-called “rotational” leadership; anything to keep people quiet for another news cycle. Forget the idea that governance documents just exist to guide. They’re weapons, and the only real question is who’s holding them.

So when Fort Hare’s Council sent out that 1 September letter, listing three “separate” admin items, you gotta be kidding. They’re not fooling anyone who’s paying attention. That’s one power play in three steps: filling a leadership gap without even bothering with rules, pushing out someone under the pretense of process, and imposing a new constitution on student government, signed, sealed, and delivered in the aftermath of protests the administration just spent weeks trying to stamp out.

II. The Rotation That Isn't

Council’s got the nerve to call Prof Njotini’s Acting Vice-Chancellor appointment “rotational in nature.” If you actually read what they wrote, you see that it’s nothing of the sort. “Rotation” is supposed to mean real rules: a set order, a fair shot, clear timelines. Council gave us none of those. All we’ve got here is some insiders-only Exco decision, done under a clause *built* to avoid public scrutiny. And then there’s that magic phrase: “until further notice.” That isn’t a throwaway line. It’s the engine of the whole scheme. Dress up endlessly open-ended tenure as if it’s temporary, so people don’t organize against it for what it is, a cemented power grab. This kind of game is old. Colonial, neo-colonial, it’s all the same ruse to stop any pushback before it even starts. So what was Council really protecting by avoiding any disruption to “substantive MEC members”? Whose turf? The university’s, or a faction’s?

And don’t brush off the suspension of the Executive Director: Infrastructure and Technology. Just because Council slipped it two paragraphs later doesn’t make it unrelated. It’s all connected: secret process, unnamed accusations, a handpicked replacement, then a request for “trust” from Council while keeping everyone on the outside. “A precautionary suspension does not, in itself, constitute a finding of wrongdoing,” they say, but give us no way to verify a thing. That’s not accidental confusion. This is intentional opacity, it’s how they govern.

III. A Constitution Written by the Wardens

Now Council wants to talk about a “Student Governance Constitution.” And of course it’s announced in the exact same letter as the appointment and the suspension. “An important new chapter,” they claim. You want honesty? It’s an act of capture, plain and simple, masquerading as reform.

A genuine student government doesn’t get handed its constitution by some “independent” review, especially not one hired by the very people it’s supposed to judge. Real frameworks are built in student mass meetings, hammered out in open debate, and shaped by the struggle, not by Council’s lawyers. And they roll out this supposed “constitution” right when their own grip on power is getting shaky. When the governed don’t write the rules, it isn’t self-government at all. All you get is window dressing, a fancier collar on the same leash.

IV. The Meeting They Thought Would Stay Secret

Let’s get blunt: this is where analysis turns right into accusation, because it has to. During the chaos of August’s unrest, it’s alleged (and the EFFYC and the general student populace is taking it seriously) that Njotini and the ED of Student Affairs held a closed meeting with certain SRC members; the very ones deployed by YBMM. The purpose? Convince them to shut down a protest, one already green-lit by students at both campuses. This wasn’t “engagement,” and it sure wasn’t “de-escalation.” It was bargaining with student leaders behind closed doors because the administration couldn’t win in the open.

Now, match that up with Njotini’s first act as Acting VC, and the pattern’s obvious. You don’t need force if you can co-opt. Break a strike, not with police, but by mining the movement for one faction eager for a way out, and handing them the lever. That alleged 12 August meeting - it's the reason Council picked Njotini. They didn’t just want a caretaker. They wanted someone who’d already shown he’d broker deals off the books when public negotiation threatened their control.

V. Whose Alliance, and Why It Broke

Here’s why the YBMM–SASCO alliance matters, and why it’s not just student politics gossip. The SASCO faction that blocked the strike, yes, the one holding power inside their respective organisation and in their current SRC deployment — didn’t just get cold feet. They teamed up with YBMM, the administration’s partner in that alleged 12 August meeting. There’s even a recording floating around with the Convenor spelling out why they did it. This publication hasn’t verified the audio, but its existence proves what people saw happening in real time: the walkout from strike action wasn’t a collective call. It was a power move; an administrative faction choosing to line up with the side closest to management, just when management needed help most.

This kind of capture doesn’t need violence. It doesn’t need crackdowns. It’s more insidious, a quiet seduction of the same faction already holding the keys. YBMM didn’t need to out-democratize EFFYC on the Alice or East London SRCs. All they needed was to be the administration’s favorite, while SASCO’s power bloc, unwilling to gamble their seats, gave management the alliance they needed to kill the protest without showing force.

VI. What SSAC Demands of Us Now

This method doesn’t just analyze and flinch back; it points fingers. First at Njotini —“acting” VC is a smokescreen. You win that role, in this context, not by transparent leadership but by cutting deals that dissolve mass action behind closed doors. Second at the SASCO faction, the ones who traded the organized, accountable “mass line” for a place at management’s table, and did so, allegedly, with their Convener’s voice note as evidence. And third at the Council itself; a body that, in a single letter, managed to fill a vacancy with no oversight, suspend someone with zero due process, and slap down a student constitution the students have not seen post-Constitutional summit, and in the advent of approval - because of a clause that they were not happy about.

This isn’t reform. It’s just the old colonial game of pretending to involve you while pulling real power even further away. Don’t be shocked. Just name what’s happening while it’s still happening. Take it to the mass meetings; the only place the fight’s real — and build the discipline that no secret meeting or bought SRC majority can touch. The bourgeois courts must also be a sight of struggle to halt the emergence of a Council that is invested in operational matters and student governance.