Category Archives: press_statement

Illegal evictions threatened in the Arnett Drive settlement

Discussing the Crisis

Update, 24 January 2008: A court interdict was secured preventing the Municipality from continuing to evict illegally. Click here for the full details.

Update, 17 January 2008: The Land Invasions Unit returned this morning. 3 shacks went down before the attack was stopped. Click here for the full details.

Update, 9 December: The contested shacks still stand. At 9:00 a.m. today a meeting was held to elect the Arnett Drive Abahlali branch secretariat for 2008. The whole community turned out in a strong show of support.

Update, 25 October: The X’s remain. The shacks still stand. No word of explanation from the City about if or when the men with guns will come to demolish the 19 marked homes. People remain acutely stressed.

Update, 12 October: At 9:26 this morning 3 men from the Municipal Protection Services came to the Arnett Drive settlement in a car with the registration number NDM 6996. The two black men were in blue overalls. The white man was in army clothes. People ran to leave the work to run and come here when we saw the car come. The men said that they don’t want the new shacks here and they marked 19 shacks to be demolished. They didn’t say when they would come to break them they just put the X.

Our chairperson Sam Jaca asked them if they had a court order. They said they don’t worry about those things. They just follow instructions from the office. We told them that two of the shacks that they had marked are old and had numbers. When we showed them that we were right they crossed out these X’s leaving 17 X’s. 79 people live in those 17 shacks. All of them have lived in Arnett Drive for years except for some few that came here from Juba Place after they were left homeless after the evictions there last year.

We are left confused and worried. We will ask our lawyer to get an interdict to stop the demolitions like at Motala Heights.

We have been here since 1972. It is only natural that our families will grow in that time. This is not right. Also, we still have no toilets here. No toilets from 1972 till 2007. That is also not right.

Contact Zodwa Magwaza on 072 468 1156 or Musa Jaca on 082 738 4322.

Click here for pictures of the 17 shacks now marked for (illegal) demolition.

Municipal Criminality Rampant as City Threatens Illegal Evictions in the Arnett Drive Settlement

On Friday 28 September Abahlali baseMjondolo attempted to march on Obed Mlaba. That march was illegally attacked by the police and a number of people, including elderly women and clergy, were assaulted by the police. This police criminality was condemned internationally and by a group of South Africa church leaders.

One of the demands made to the Mayor on that march was that the city immediately cease its blatantly illegal attacks on shack dwellers in the form of eviction by demolition at gun point.

The Arnett Drive settlement in Reservoir Hills supported the march. In fact the elderly man standing before the police with his arms folded in the picture in the Independent on Saturday is Mr. Sam Jaca, the chairperson from Arnett Drive committee. The older people in Arnett Drive know a lot about evictions. For instance Clement Mtshali was evicted from Umkhumbane (Cato Manor) in 1959. He remembers his parents participating in the famous women’s protests (his father dressed in women’s clothes). After that his parents moved to a shack in Newlands. They were evicted from Newlands in 1971 and in 1972 he moved to the Arnett Drive settlement where he has lived ever since.

Section 26 (1) of the Constitution of this country states that “Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing”. The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE) was developed to give force to Section 26 and to replace the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act (no. 52 of 1951) which was a mechanism to enable apartheid municipalities to evict shack dwellers.

The PIE Act applies to everyone who occupies land without ‘the express or tacit consent of the owner or the person in charge’ (Section 1). The PIE Act renders illegal the eviction of an unlawful occupier, unless the eviction complies with a number of procedural requirements the most important of which is that no eviction can take place without a court order.

The land owner, not less than 14 days before a court hearing of the eviction proceedings, must serve ‘written and effective notice’ of the eviction proceedings on the unlawful occupier and the local municipality. The notice must set out the grounds on which the eviction is being sought, the date and time at which the eviction proceedings will be heard and inform the unlawful occupier of her or his right to appear before the court, defend the case, or apply for legal aid.

The Act requires that a court must consider the rights and needs of certain vulnerable groups of unlawful occupiers, including the elderly, children, women-headed households and the disabled. If the unlawful occupier(s) have been in occupation of the property for longer than six months,the Act requires that the court must consider whether land is available, or can reasonably be made available, by the owner or the local municipality to which the unlawful occupier(s) can be relocated. If the court is satisfied that all the relevant circumstances have been considered, and that the unlawful occupier has raised no valid defence against the eviction, then it may grant an eviction order. The order must determine a ‘just and equitable’ date on which the unlawful occupier must vacate the land in question, and the date on which the eviction order may be carried out if the unlawful occupier(s) does not vacate the land.

Section 8 of the PIE Act makes evictions without a court order a criminal offence.

However the eThekwini Municipality routinely and regularly evicts without a court order. In these evictions people are routinely and regularly assaulted and they are routinely and regularly left homeless. The eThekwini Municipality is therefore a criminal municipality. If the rule of law is to be upheld officials responsible for the ongoing illegal evictions must be arrested.

Five days after the march on Mlaba, on Wednesday last week, the city illegally evicted people in the Siyathuthuka settlement in Sea Cow Lake. They had decided not to join the march on Mlaba. The next day people blocked the road in a desperate attempt to draw attention to what was happening to them. They were assaulted by the police and 11 people were arrested. They are still in detention. They are political prisoners in what Abahlali refer to as the University of Westville Prison. The next day in the Mercury Freedom Mncama, was quoted as having said, the following just before his arrest:

“We have been living here for 13 years, but they are demolishing our homes without giving us alternative accommodation. We have children here. Where must they go?”

Indeed.

Both the City and the Province tried to justify these evictions in the media in terms of the Slums Act. The Slums Act is a patently illegal piece of legislation which Abahlali will soon be challenging in the Constitutional Court. But while it remains on the statute books it most certainly does not, as spokespeople for the Provincial and City Housing Departments seem to assume, invalidate the Constitution or PIE.

On Friday, exactly one week after the march the Municipality’s descended onto the Arnett Drive settlement to inform people that they would be evicted on Monday. They had no court order. They were threatening an illegal action. This latest outrage was discussed at an all night Abahlali baseMjondolo meeting on Saturday. People in Arnett Drive spent Sunday rushing around and getting the names and ID numbers of the 77 people at risk of being rendered homeless and rallying each other to defend their homes and their community.

The 15 shacks that the Municipality wants to illegally demolish were built between December last year and March this year. They were built by and for people who have been established members of the Arnett Drive community for many years. The main reasons why new shacks had to be built are that:

* Families have expanded through marriage or the arrival of relatives
* Children are now grown and need their own homes
* Old people need their own rooms to keep their dignity
* People who formerly rented rooms in old shacks are now in a position to have their own places
* It is unsafe (especially from the point of view of fires) to have too many people crowded into one shack.

The Municipality’s long standing attempt to stop all attempts to expand existing shacks or to allow new shacks to be built simply forces people to live in ever more crowded and dangerous conditions. It is inhumane. This was well explained by the Pemary Ridge Development Committee in a letter to the Land Invasions Unit in July this year.

On that same Sunday as people from Arnett Drive were preparing for a legal challenge to the threatened demolistions, 9 days after the march on Mlaba, 1 200 street traders were forced away from their precarious livelihood by the police. Obed Mlaba told the Daily News that: “It is happening everywhere. We have cleaned many areas in the city and also townships. This [2010] is a wonderful opportunity for us to clean up areas that have become unsavoury.”

On Monday morning Arnett Drive approached the Legal Resources Centre for help. Most people stayed at home waiting for the City to come and evict. But the City didn’t come to evict. Perhaps they stayed away because of the rain. On Tuesday the LRC sent the City a letter explaining, once again, that if these evictions are carried out they will be illegal and will result, again, in court action. So far the homes are still standing. But there has been no reply from the City and no guarantee that the threat to evict will not be carried out at any time. No one knows what will happen tomorrow, or the next day. No one knows whether to go to work or to stay at home.

Interdicts have been won in the past against private land owners and the Municipality. In fact both kinds of interdicts have even been won in the same place – Motala Heights.

Getting the Municipality to obey the law is not as easy thing. When they came to smash up people’s homes in Motala Heights Bheki Ngcobo tried to show them a lawyer’s letter explaining that their actions were illegal. They assaulted him. Then Bheki went to court. The judge gave him and the people he represented an interdict against the City. But the City just ignored it and came back to keep on smashing up homes in casual violation of the court order. It was only when Bheki was, with the help of the LRC, able to persuade the police that they were obligated to arrest municipal staff if they violated an order of the court and to get the police to make this clear to the municipality staff that they finally left Motala Heights in peace.

What do you do when you are poor and the people with the guns and the jails and the machines that can smash your home are criminals? What do you do if you live in a shack in Durban?

To stay in touch with the situation in Arnett Drive contact Zodwa Magwaza on 072 468 1156. Tonight she doesn’t know if she’ll have a home tomorrow.

FXI: Police repression in Protea South an indicator of a national trend

Police repression in Protea South an indicator of a national trend
5 September 2007
Issued by the Freedom of Expression Institute

The Freedom of Expression Institute’s concern about police repression of protests – especially those organized by poor communities against the lack of service delivery – was heightened this week with the highly- publicized housing protest in Protea South which was violently attacked by police.

FXI staff were eyewitnesses to acts of police harassment against Protea South residents Monday morning. Maureen Mnisi, a community leader and Gauteng Chairperson of the Landless People’s Movement, was arrested while trying to speak with the media. She and at least five other community members were taken into custody and released, without being charged, after spending the night in jail. FXI staff overheard a police captain admitting that he had “always wanted to arrest” Mnisi.

We were shocked by the police violence. SAPS members fired at random towards the protesters, leaving the pavement covered with the blue casings of rubber bullets. Police also deployed a helicopter and water cannon, and we saw at least two officers using live ammunition. One Protea South resident, Mandisa Msewu, was shot in the mouth by a rubber bullet, and several other residents were attended to by paramedics due to police violence.

Similar acts of protester repression were reported by the Anti- Privatisation Forum in other parts of Gauteng yesterday. Several protesters in Kliptown were reportedly beaten and arrested by private security guards. And in the Vaal, according to the Coalition against Water Privatisation’s organizer, Patra Sindane, police opened fire without any warning on protesters who were just beginning to gather and then proceeded to go from house to house in pursuit of the protest’s organizers.

Monday’s events in Protea South seriously undermined media freedom as well. A Sunday Times journalist, Lirhuwani Mammburu, was harassed by police after photographing Mnisi’s arrest. A SAPS member demanded to see his press badge and, even after Mammburu displayed his credential, the officer pushed Mammburu violently in the face, threatening to beat him up.

The deliberate intimidation of journalists is not only a Gauteng problem. Last Friday (31 August), a journalist for the Durban-based Mercury allegedly was kidnapped and assaulted following his research into repression of shack dwellers in Pinetown. A local business leader, believed to be seeking the destruction of the Motala Heights shack settlement, allegedly stole the journalist’s film, promised to assault another Mercury journalist, and threatened to kill the journalist if the Mercury published the story.

These distressing events over just the last few days indicate continuing violations of the rights of protesters and the rights of the media to cover such protests. The constitutional right to protest is increasingly under threat, and the Regulation of Gatherings Act (RGA) – which which aims to facilitate such assemblies – is being routinely violated – usually by police who do not understand the provisions of the Act and act contrary to both its spirit and its letter.

These rights infringements this week come just days after the nationwide Freedom of Expression Network (FXN) Day of Action last week which protested against such acts of repression. It is just such violations that have prompted the FXI to assist in setting up the FXN, which seeks to build capacity among movements of the poor to better defend their rights from continuing attempts to silence them. The FXI believes that this on-going situation regarding the harassment of protesters demands the urgent response of Safety and Security Minister Charles Nqakula. We have sought a meeting with the Minister to apprise him of the situation that protestors face and of the ongoing violations of the Constitution and the RGA.

For more information, contact:

o Virginia Setshedi: (011) 403 8403; Cell: (078) 473 3086
o Na’eem Jeenah: (011) 403 8403; Cell: (084) 574 2674
o Henry Seton: (011) 403 8403; Cell: (076) 977 7618

APF Statement on Soweto Protests

Anti-Privatisation Forum Statement (3 September 2007)

APF Service delivery protests by range of communities across the Vaal and Greater Soweto attacked by police early this morning

Community member in Protea South knocked down by car in road and killed instantly

8 arrested in Kliptown and 6 in Protea South. Scores shot at and chased into their homes. Journalists being harassed

In Vaal, heavily armed police everywhere firing randomly and are conducting house-to-house searches for community leaders who remain in ‘hiding’

From very early this morning, a range of poor communities – which include Boiketlong, Kanana, Dunusa and Sonderwater in the Vaal as well as Kliptown, Freedom Park and Protea South in Greater Soweto – embarked on a series of protests against lack of service delivery.

In Protea South, one community resident taking part in the protest was knocked down by a car in the road and died instantly. Police began shooting randomly and chasing protesters through the settlement but residents fought back and forced the police back onto the main roads. While conducting a press interview, Protea South community leader, Maureen Mnisi was arrested along with 5 others residents. They are presently being held in Protea Police Station without charge.

In Kliptown, 7 residents alongside APF organiser, Thabo Modisane, have been arrested by a private security near the railway line. All these comrades were heavily beaten by these private security thugs. They are presently being held in Kliptown Police Station without charge.

In the variously mentioned communities in the Vaal, police forces immediately attacked community residents who had taken up positions on various roads, shooting randomly and chasing residents back into the homes. At present, although no one has been arrested, police are systematically conducting house-to-house searches to try and ‘flush out’ community leaders.

THE APF EXTENDS ITS HEARTFELT CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY OF THE COMRADE KILLED IN THE PROTEA SOUTH ACCIDENT

THE APF CONDENMS THE INDISCRIMINATE USE OF VIOLENCE BY THE POLICE AGAINST COMMUNITY PROTESTERS AND THE VIOLENT CONDUCT OF PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS.

THE APF DEMANDS THAT POLICE IMMEDIATELY STOP THEIR CONTINUED HARRASSMENT OF JOURNALISTS AND GENERAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND STOP THE CONTINUED VIOLATION/INVASION OF RESIDENTS HOMES

For further comment/information contact on the scene contact:
IN THE VAAL: Patra Sindane on 073-052-7005 and/or Mish on 079 812-4724
IN KLIPTOWN: Thabo Modisane on 078 129-7797
IN PROTEA SOUTH: Virginia on 078 473-3086
OR CONTACT APF ORGANISER – Silumko on 072 173-7268

Cape Town: 10 vans of city police arrive in Zille Raine Heights to break down one 60yr old man’s shack

Zille Raine Heights Residents Committee Press Statement
Friday 6th July 2007
3pm

GRASSY PARK, CAPE TOWN – Ten vans of city police are currently breaking up a tiny unfinished shack belonging to Mr David Tarentaal (60 years old).

Mr Tarentaal is the father of the Zille Raine Heights Residents Committee Co-ordinator, Lorraine Heunis.

He has been living on the same piece of land, in a shack, for the past 57 years! He was three years old when his parents moved onto the piece of land. Over the past 57 years, five generations of people have come to live in the same small shack.

Mr Tarentaal’s daughter, Zille Raine Heights Residents Committee Co-ordinator, Lorraine Heunis lives in the sme shack with her children and her grandchildren. Another child and her children also live there. There are more than 12 people living in this tiny shack.

Because of this overcrowded and unacceptable situation, the family decided to erect a tiny room behind the shack where Mr Tarentaal could like in privacy. They did this as a last resort after Mr Tarentaal spent 30 years on the housing waiting list to no avail. Two years ago, Mr Tarentaal was told by council that he would be getting a house but this never materialised.

Shortly after the family began erecting the tiny room, ten vans of city police arrived and started breaking up the shack. They produced no documentation at all and have been insolent and aggressive in their approach.

If you phone the family now, you will hear the noise of the tiny shack being broken up in the background, and the sounds of the poor residents trying to get the police not to damage the building material.

…/ends

Call Lorraine Heunis on 083 4319794

Letter to Prof. Makgoba from FXI, October 2006

http://southafrica.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/11357.php

October 2006

The Vice Chancellor
Professor Malegapuru William Makgoba
University of KwaZulu Natal
King George V Avenue, Glenwood
Durban
Fax Number: 262 2192

Dear Professor Makgoba

We write to you because of a growing concern that the Freedom of Expression Institute has had over the recent past regarding the state of freedom of expression and of academic freedom at the University of KwaZulu Natal. We
believe that free expression and academic freedom are in severe decline at your university and urge you to act expeditiously to stem this trend which is already derailing your vision of being “the premier university of African
scholarship”.

The latest incident that has caused us to stand up and take notice and which has raised the level of our concern is the matter of Fazel Khan, a lecturer in Sociology and Social Studies on the Howard College campus of UKZN. Khan gave interviews to certain media that had approached him regarding the publication of an article in the latest issue of ukzndaba (Vol. 3, No. 6/7, June/ July 2006), the newsletter published by your Public Affairs and Corporate Communications Department. The article is about a film that Khan co-directed, but the article makes no mention of him or his involvement in the film, while mentioning his co-director as the director. The article was accompanied by a picture showing Khan’s co-director. The original picture had included Khan but he was cropped out in the version that appeared in your newsletter. As a result of his being excluded in this manner, an aggrieved Khan, when approached to comment by a few newspapers, was quite critical of the newsletter. These criticisms (detailed in the charge sheet
presented to him by your university and supplied to us by one of the staff unions) will now be used against Khan in a disciplinary hearing where he faces possible dismissal.

We find the action of the university in hauling this academic before a disciplinary hearing in such a manner – and for such comments – to be appalling. Only in the most authoritarian societies do universities prevent academics from speaking to the media about their work, their research and their opinions and criticisms on the development of society and of their own institutions. South Africa, fortunately, is not such a society, though one might not realise that fact if one were to base one’s understanding on the state of free expression at UKZN.

From the charge sheet and from examining the newspaper articles referred to, we are convinced that Khan simply acted on the basis of his constitutional right to free expression and was neither ‘dishonest’ nor ‘reckless’ in the statements he made – as the charge sheet alleges. In our opinion any disciplinary action taken against Khan would constitute an unreasonable limitation on Khan’s right to freedom of expression and thus unconstitutional.

Khan would moreover have the right to review any disciplinary action taken by UKZN in any competent court. Our courts have consistently upheld the right of workers to engage in speech critical of their employers, most
famously in the 1999 Constitutional Court case of SANDF Union vs Minister of Defence. In the 2006 case of Costa Gazidis vs The Minister of Public Service and Administration, the Pretoria High Court found that Dr Gazidis’ criticism of government’s policy in the media, including his utterance about the Minister of Health, did not amount or constitute prejudice to the administration of the department. Dr Gazidis was therefore reinstated.

This year the FXI successfully intervened as amicus curiae in the CCMA case of Vusi Sibeko, a member of the Commercial, Services and Allied Workers’ Union (Cosawu), who was dismissed for writing an article in the newspaper of the Democratic Socialist Movement that was critical of working conditions at Superspar. Sibeko won his case for unfair dismissal at the CCMA. His employer, the Royal Ascot Superspar in Cape Town, was ordered to reinstate Sibeko and pay 5 months of back pay. The case became a cause celebre for labour organisations both locally and internationally and Superspar attracted much criticism in the media.

Should disciplinary action be taken against Khan, UKZN will face a similar barrage of local and international condemnation. The FXI undertakes to intervene in all legal processes as a witness or amicus curiae, as well as launch a media campaign in support of Khan.

However, the fact that we believe that the charges cannot hold up in a court are irrelevant to the main issue of concern for us: that this is an example of the manner in which freedom of expression is being eroded at UKZN.

Professor Makgoba, in your statement on the UKZN website, you say: “A critical prerequisite for human development is the creation of a humane and enabling institution; one that is based on respect for human rights, dignity, diversity and sound ethics.” Having spoken to a number of academics
at the university over the past year, however, we are convinced that the “respect for human rights, dignity, diversity and sound ethics” that you aspire to for the university is being severely compromised. Indeed, we
believe that, particularly in the past six months, a climate of fear has taken root at the university, where academics, workers and students are afraid of, in any way, challenging or criticising the university administration. Such a climate is disastrous at any academic institution and very seriously threatens the spirit of enquiry and academic freedom. It also can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression more generally at the institution – something any university should be vigorously guarding
against. A number of incidents over the past year have led us to this conclusion and we mention some of them below.

1. The recent report by Leana Uys and Charlotte Mbali that found that, “The executive management of the University of KwaZulu-Natal is not trusted by a significant number of faculty and staff to follow through on its promises or
to honour its commitments,” as reported by The Mercury (25 September 2006). The report also found that there was, at the university, a lack of consultation and a lack of meaningful communication; an authoritarian attitude; the privilege of position; intimidation and bullying; a lack of
transparency and democratic procedures. The fact that such perceptions exist among staff should be extremely worrying – whether they are true or not. It is disconcerting when an institution that is supposed to be a bastion of free thinking is regarded by those who have the responsibility to foster such free thinking believe it to be authoritarian and bullying.
2. Your refusal, yesterday, to meet with representatives of the Student Solidarity Counselling and Appeals Committee and the Socialist Students’ Movement to discuss student exclusions simply because they had spoken to the
media.
3. An email notice from Professor Dasarath Chetty, on the 2 March 2006, to the university community informing members of the community of the university’s intention to prevent them from speaking to the media about the impending strike action by staff.
4. An academic from Rhodes University, Professor Jimi Adesina, being sued by your Professor Dasarath Chetty for defamation for an email that Adesina had sent out wherein he had criticised Chetty’s email notice to the university
community (referred to in 2. above). (See summons served on Adesina on the 17th May 2006.)
5. An email notice from yourself to the university community on the 4 August 2006, informing the community that, “Senate resolved that all members of the University Community should exercise due care when communicating with the media, so as not to bring the University into disrepute.”
6. The issue of the banning of Dr Ashwin Desai has still not been resolved by UKZN – months after a national public debate about the matter and months after you had promised that the matter would be resolved.
7. The UKZN “Electronic Communications Policy”. We note that Professor Ahmed Bawa wrote to the university community on the 3 October 2006 that the policy is still in draft form and has not been adopted yet. However, the document
itself states that it is effective from the date stated thereon – the 12th January 2006. This policy is a gross violation of academic freedom and freedom of expression more generally. Apart from allowing the university to
spy on individuals’ email correspondences, it also allows the university to read documents on staff members’ personal computers (that belong to the university). Further, it makes “illegal” any email and web content that
“contains material that is unlawful or in violation of any University Policy including but not limited to pornographic, oppressive, racist, sexist, defamatory against any User or third party.” This is a severe restriction on academics conducting research on various aspects of racism, sexism, feminism, freedom of expression, etc.
8. The recent incident (The Mercury, 28 September 2006) when an academic at the university was prevented by software installed on his computer from sending out emails because he had not assented to the “Electronic Communications Policy”.

In the May 2006 issue of ukzndaba, Professor Dasarath Chetty writes about the newsletter: “Views inimical to management’s have never been excluded from ukzndaba but we have now decided to give these a regular slot in the
interest of stimulating debate and building a more open Institution.” Referring to a new column that had been published for the first time in that edition of the newsletter, Chetty remarked: “It is a column aimed at
soliciting contributions from members of the University community who occupy leadership positions, those who are outspoken, controversial and provocative, but who enhance the quality of the debates on transformation and other University issues.” These are noble intentions and in keeping with the spirit of academic freedom and freedom of expression that should be fostered in South Africa. It is such a pity that UKZN has, rather, fostered an environment of fear, apprehension and uncertainty among many of its staff and students. It is a climate, the impression is given, where “those who are outspoken, controversial and provocative, but who enhance the quality of the debates on transformation and other University issues” have to be silenced. Why else would Jimi Adesina be sued? And why else would Fazel Khan be hauled before a disciplinary hearing?

If allowed to go unchallenged, this decision will set an extremely negative precedent for freedom of expression in South Africa’s academic institutions, because it will create a climate of self-censorship at the very heart of
policy-making and intellectual life in this country. It will mean that academics will have to refrain from any form of commentary on or reasonable criticism of their universities out of fear of being dismissed. This is
surely not what a democracy is about. As workers and citizens of this country, these academics have an inalienable right to engage in political speech about matters of public interest, and should be able to do so freely. By attempting to stifle healthy criticism and debate, especially amongst its own workers, UKZN has been exposed as intolerant and censorious.

Professor Makgoba, while we respect internal institutional procedures regarding disciplinary actions against staff, we do believe that the impending action against Fazel Khan is unnecessary. We therefore urge you to withdraw all charges against Khan and to begin the process of transforming
the fearful environment that has been created at the university that you head. We are seeing attempts to attain good short-term publicity for the institution which will ultimately result in the very purpose of the university being subverted. If we allow UKZN to continue sliding into the abyss of a complete disregard of academic freedom and freedom of expression, we will end up with the kind of university that only dictators can be proud of, the kind of university that is not concerned with fostering academic
enquiry but thought control. We doubt that this is the kind of institution you will like to be known to have presided over.

Yours faithfully

______________
Na’eem Jeenah
Head: Anti-Censorship Programme