University Loses Bid to Revoke PhD After Six-Year Battle

The University of KwaZulu-Natal (“UKZN”) has been ordered by the KwaZulu-Natal High Court to reinstate a PhD degree it withdrew from Dr Nobubele Potwana (“Dr Potwana”)in 2011, following a lengthy legal battle that raised fundamental questions about academic institutions’ power to revoke qualifications years after graduation.

In his judgment, Judge M.R. Chetty ruled that the university’s Senate lacked the legal authority to withdraw Dr Potwana’s doctorate, which had been conferred in April 2005. The court found that the university was “functus officio” once the degree was granted, and could not revisit its decision without court approval.¹

The case stems from a turbulent series of events involving Dr Potwana, her doctoral supervisor Professor Msweli-Mbanga, and allegations of corruption that ultimately led to criminal charges. Potwana had completed her PhD in Management Studies in 2005, with her thesis titled “Integrating Participation with Organisational Citizenship Behaviour in State Owned Enterprises: A Framework for Reducing Resistance to Change.”

The controversy began when the university vice-chancellor received anonymous information alleging serious irregularity in relation to the awarding of the degree to another student, Mr Pillay. It would later transpire that Mr Pillay had engaged in an intimate relationship with one of his dissertation supervisors, Professor Msweli-Mbanga and had paid her R80,000. This revelation prompted a broader investigation into payments made to the professor by students, including Dr Potwana, who had paid R16,150 for statistical assistance with her research.

Following forensic investigations, both Dr Potwana and Prof Msweli-Mbanga faced criminal corruption charges. However, Dr Potwana was acquitted of all charges in August 2009. Shortly after her acquittal, the university initiated proceedings to review her degree, appointing a fourth examiner to assess whether she had adequately addressed the concerns raised by her original examiners.

The original examination process in 2005 had been contentious. While two external examiners recommended the degree be awarded subject to corrections, the internal examiner believed the thesis should be rejected outright. The required coordinator’s report was not completed until more than a year after graduation due to administrative oversights during an office relocation.

Judge Chetty was particularly critical of the university’s attempt to exploit its own administrative failures to justify the revocation. “The respondent elevates Coldwell’s decision-making status… These contentions in my view are entirely opportunistic and seek to maximise an error or neglect of duty on the part of its own staff to the detriment and prejudice of the applicant,” he wrote.

The court found that the university was estopped from relying on its employees’ negligence to justify revoking the degree. Judge Chetty noted that when the coordinator eventually filed his belated report, he found no reason why Dr Potwana should not have graduated when she did.

A central issue in the case was whether universities have implied powers to revoke degrees under the Higher Education Act.² The university argued that its express power to confer degrees necessarily included the power to withdraw them. However, Judge Chetty rejected this interpretation, finding that such powers could only be exercised in narrow circumstances involving fraud, material error, or misconduct, and only with court sanction.

The judgment also addressed the question of which university body has authority to revoke degrees. The court found that the Senate, which made the revocation decision, lacked this power. Under the university’s institutional statute, such decisions require concurrence between the Council and Senate.

Judge Chetty expressed concern about the precedent of allowing universities to revoke degrees years after conferment without clear legal authority. “Can the respondent choose whether its public duty to protect the integrity of its degree extends only to academic reasons?” he questioned, noting that degrees serve as “objective indices of merit” and passports into professional careers.

Needless to say, the UKZN learned the hard way that you can’t simply ask for your doctorate back like a regrettable WhatsApp message. Wherever she is now, I hope Dr Potwana updated her LinkedIn profile to read: “PhD holder (court-certified genuine, no returns accepted)”…a qualification that, ironically, may prove more valuable than the original degree itself.

You can read the full Potwana v UKZN judgement here.

Written by Theo Tembo