Introduction
The Mabuyane ruling has become one of the most closely watched legal moments in recent South African politics. The Bhisho High Court found that the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) acted outside its powers when it investigated Eastern Cape Premier Oscar Mabuyane’s admission to a master’s programme at the University of Fort Hare, calling the conduct abusive and unconstitutional.
Yet the story is far from over. The SIU and Fort Hare insist that broader investigations into irregular admissions and possible academic fraud still continue under a newer presidential proclamation.
This article unpacks how the judgment changes the legal, political and ethical landscape around the Fort Hare saga and what it means for public trust.
Mabuyane ruling: Background to Fort Hare’s qualifications scandal
The Fort Hare controversy did not begin with one premier. The university has been under scrutiny for several years after reports that some politically connected individuals received places or qualifications without meeting normal academic standards.
In response, President Cyril Ramaphosa granted the SIU authority to investigate maladministration, potential fraud and corruption linked to the awarding of degrees and certain contracts at the university. The original proclamation focused on issues such as irregular honours qualifications, procurement and related financial losses to the state.
Within this wider probe, questions were raised about whether proper processes were followed when the premier was accepted into a master’s programme in public administration. The case quickly moved from an internal academic dispute into a national flashpoint about political privilege, fairness and the strength of oversight institutions.
Mabuyane ruling: What the Bhisho High Court actually decided
The High Court was asked to decide whether the SIU had a lawful basis to investigate the premier’s master’s admission under Proclamation R84 of 2022. Acting Judge Ntsikelelo Mtshabe held that the proclamation did not clearly authorise inquiries into master’s or doctoral degrees. It was framed mainly around honours programmes and specific administrative issues.
Because of that gap, the court ruled that using this proclamation to target the premier’s admission was beyond the SIU’s lawful powers. The judge described the conduct as an abuse, unconstitutional, and ordered it to be reviewed and set aside, with a punitive costs order against the unit.
Importantly, the judgment did not decide whether the admission itself was honest or dishonest. It focused on legality and process, not on making a factual finding about academic fraud.
Mabuyane ruling: Why the SIU’s conduct came under fire
The court’s strongest criticism was reserved for how the SIU stretched a narrow mandate to cover an area it had not clearly been given permission to investigate. By reading an implied power into the original proclamation, the unit opened itself up to a legal challenge that it ultimately lost.
The judgment effectively warns that even in high-profile corruption cases, investigators cannot ignore the precise wording of presidential authorisations. When an institution as powerful as the SIU investigates a sitting premier, the legal foundation must be airtight, or the probe risks being thrown out on technical grounds.
The punitive costs order signals that the court viewed the overreach as more than a minor error. It suggests that the judge believed the investigation, in its earlier form, crossed an important constitutional line regarding fairness and the proper limits of state power.
Mabuyane ruling: How the SIU is keeping its investigation alive
Despite the legal setback, the SIU has emphasised that its broader Fort Hare investigation continues. The unit previously asked the president to amend and expand the original proclamation. In 2024, a new proclamation was issued that explicitly includes bachelor’s, honours, master’s and doctoral degrees, as well as irregular admissions and related misconduct.
Because of this change, the SIU now argues that the court order affects only the earlier phase of its work based on the 2022 mandate. Officials have described the judgment as “moot” for the current investigation, which is anchored in the updated legal framework.
The unit has also stressed that it is examining systemic patterns, not only one individual. If evidence places any person at the centre of irregular qualifications, findings can still be referred to the National Prosecuting Authority or lead to civil recovery.
Mabuyane ruling: Fort Hare’s reputation and official response
The University of Fort Hare has publicly rejected claims that the court decision brought all SIU investigations on campus to a halt. In statements and social media posts, the institution clarified that the order deals with the earlier proclamation and has no legal effect on the later, amended mandate.
For the university, the case highlights a deep reputational crisis. Allegations that degrees or admissions may have been traded for political influence or other favours strike at the heart of academic credibility. Leadership has framed cooperation with the SIU as part of a clean-up intended to restore confidence among students, staff and the public.
At the same time, Fort Hare’s decision to deregister the premier from his master’s programme is now under legal challenge. How courts evaluate that process will further shape perceptions of whether the institution acted fairly and consistently with its own rules.
Mabuyane ruling: Impact on Eastern Cape political power dynamics
Politically, the judgment is a clear boost for the premier inside the ANC. The Eastern Cape branch quickly framed the outcome as a “court victory”, accusing the SIU of harassment and suggesting that the investigation was driven by factional hostility rather than objective concern for academic standards.
This framing allows supporters to portray him as a leader who stood up to an overreaching state body and won. It also gives his allies ammunition against internal critics who may have hoped the controversy would weaken his standing in provincial or national structures.
However, the win carries risks. If later SIU findings or other evidence expose serious irregularities involving any senior figures, the same rhetoric may appear premature or defensive. The balance between protecting a political ally and showing commitment to clean governance will remain a delicate one for the ruling party.
Mabuyane ruling: What this means for anti-corruption institutions
For anti-corruption agencies, the case underlines how fragile progress can be when legal foundations are not carefully managed. The ruling does not say that corruption investigations are unwelcome; it says that they must be strictly authorised, especially when they affect high-profile office-bearers.
The need for a revised proclamation shows that mandates must be broad enough to cover complex schemes, but also clear enough to withstand court scrutiny. Without that clarity, anti-corruption bodies can lose momentum, face reputational damage and give suspected wrongdoers a chance to argue that they are victims of unlawful targeting.
In the long run, this judgment may encourage more rigorous legal drafting, closer coordination between the presidency and investigators, and more cautious strategic planning before prominent cases are launched.
Mabuyane ruling: Academic fraud, ethics and public trust
The Fort Hare saga has revived a difficult question: what happens when political power and academic status become tangled? If senior figures can secure admission or degrees through irregular means, the signal to young people who work hard for their qualifications is deeply discouraging.
Ethically, universities carry a special duty to guard the integrity of learning. Allowing shortcuts based on influence undermines that duty and hurts students who follow the rules. The ongoing investigations are therefore about more than one institution. They speak to the strength of ethical norms in public life.
Restoring trust will depend on transparent processes, clear communication and visible consequences where wrongdoing is proven. Without that, doubts about the credibility of both academic and political leaders will remain.
Mabuyane ruling: What ordinary South Africans should watch next
For the public, several developments are worth following closely. The first is the outcome of the premier’s challenge to his deregistration at Fort Hare. That case will reveal more detail about the evidence the university relied on and whether internal procedures met legal standards.
The second is the SIU’s final reporting on Fort Hare. If investigators confirm widespread irregularities and identify responsible individuals, it will test whether the state is prepared to act against powerful figures linked to the scandal.
The third is the political reaction. Citizens will be watching to see whether leaders respond with reform and accountability, or whether the judgment becomes an excuse to downplay real problems in higher education and governance.
FAQs
1. What did the Mabuyane ruling decide about the SIU?
The Mabuyane ruling held that the SIU used an earlier presidential proclamation that did not clearly cover master’s degrees, so its investigation into the premier’s admission was unlawful and had to be set aside.
2. Did the Mabuyane ruling stop all investigations at Fort Hare?
No. The Mabuyane ruling applies to the older 2022 proclamation, while a 2024 amended proclamation still authorises the SIU to investigate irregular admissions and degrees across several levels at Fort Hare.
3. How does the Mabuyane ruling affect Premier Mabuyane’s position?
The Mabuyane ruling strengthens his short-term political position by criticising the earlier investigation, but separate SIU work and court cases about his deregistration mean questions around his academic record have not completely disappeared.
Conclusion
The Mabuyane ruling is a turning point, but not the end of the Fort Hare story. It exposes how important precise legal mandates are for anti-corruption bodies while showing that academic integrity scandals can shake both universities and provincial governments.
As the SIU continues its work under an amended proclamation and the courts weigh further challenges, South Africans will be able to judge whether this moment leads to stronger accountability or simply shifts the terms of an ongoing political battle.
