NWU EXPELS STUDENT LEADER AFTER INTERNAL FINDING OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

Mhlengi Khumalo

@into.mbiyakwakhumalo

 

The expulsion of Tshepiso Tau, former Chairperson of the Student Campus Council (SCC) and Secretary-General of the Student Representative Council (SRC), has closed a contentious chapter for the North-West University (NWU). While the university publicly attributed his removal to unspecified “misconduct,” confidential documents reviewed by Wapad indicate that the internal disciplinary committee found him guilty on charges listed in the record as serious sexual misconduct.

 

This matter underscores a growing tension on campus: the contrast between a disciplinary system intended to protect students and an institutional communications approach that leaves the wider community without critical information.

 

It is important to clarify the legal status of this case. The findings against Tau were determined by the NWU Student Judicial Services (SJS) Disciplinary Committee under the NWU Manual on Student Discipline, and the Statute of the North-West University. These are internal administrative processes, not criminal proceedings. The committee’s decisions rely on a balance-of-probabilities standard rather than the criminal threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Tau has not been convicted of any crime in a South African court. He does not have a criminal record relating to the incident. It remains unknown whether the matter was reported to the SAPS, whether an arrest occurred, or whether any formal criminal charges were laid. Wapad is not aware of any active criminal case in which he has pleaded.

 

Ordinarily, the identity of a person accused of a sexual offense is withheld until they have pleaded in a criminal court. These protections help safeguard the right to a fair trial and avoid irreparable reputational harm should allegations be unfounded. An internal university finding cannot substitute for criminal prosecution, and the student body has a legitimate interest in understanding why the internal route has been relied upon.

 

Tau’s role as an elected student leader appears to have influenced the university’s decision not to disclose the nature of the allegations. However, continued withholding of essential information — particularly in the absence of formal criminal action — risks reinforcing public perceptions that perpetrators of gender-based violence (GBV) often evade accountability.

 

For this reason, Wapad has chosen to publish Tau’s name and the nature of the internal charges. This decision is based on his position as a public representative of the student body and the substantial public interest in the outcome of a disciplinary process linked to his conduct in office.

 

On 30 October 2025, the Disciplinary Committee delivered its ruling. While not a criminal conviction, the outcome report explicitly states that Tau was found guilty of sexual misconduct under university rules. According to the findings, the incident occurred on 25 July 2025 inside Office 117 of the F14 Building. Wapad did not receive permission from the victim to disclose what happened that day.

 

The committee recommended expulsion, and the sanction was finalised on 28 November 2025 after an unsuccessful appeal. Tau had attempted to maintain his innocence throughout the proceedings, entered a plea of “not guilty,” and submitted a bare denial as his primary defence. His legal representatives argued that the allegations were part of a politically motivated smear campaign orchestrated by staff members and student election opponents. The committee rejected these claims, concluding that the complainant’s version was more credible on a balance of probabilities. The outcome record also notes corroborating physical evidence, including marks on the complainant’s body and a broken nail, supported by witness testimony.

 

Wapad contacted Tau via WhatsApp to request comment on both the findings and his expulsion. Although the messages were delivered, no response was received by the time of publication. The complainant declined to comment, stating only: “I have no comment.”

 

While the disciplinary process ultimately removed Tau from campus, the communication surrounding the incident has heightened student anxiety. Throughout November, students held demonstrations against GBV, frequently expressing frustration with how such cases are handled. Much of the unrest stems from the university’s limited disclosure. When Tau was first suspended in October, the university referred only to “misconduct” without further explanation.

 

Even now, following the finalisation of the sanction, the university has not disclosed the nature of the offense. Responding to a Wapad inquiry, University Spokesperson Louis Jacobs confirmed that no details of the charges would be made public.

 

While this approach protects the privacy of all parties and reduces institutional liability, it contributes to a perception of opacity. The university publicly asserts a “zero-tolerance stance on GBV,” yet in this significant case involving a high-profile student leader, the term “misconduct” continues to obscure the gravity of the findings.

 

The removal of Tau may represent an institutional victory for student safety, but the refusal to articulate the reasons for his expulsion diminishes the impact of that action. Accountability cannot thrive behind euphemism. If the university is committed to combating gender-based violence, it must demonstrate the courage to name it — not bury it beneath bureaucratic silence.

 

 

Edited by Simoné de Witt