“Breaking my silence”: A tale of two ballots

On 1 September, the Law House 2021/2022 executive committee, along with PDBY , were sent an email from the outgoing vice chairperson of Law House, Ulrich Steynberg titled, ‘Breaking my silence.’ In this email, Steynberg details a series of events that led to a perceived irregularity on the chairperson ballot. This caught the attention of various stakeholders bringing into question the legitimacy of the established election procedures and its consequential results.

Breaking the secret

Prior to Steynberg’s email, the Economic Freedom Fighter Student Command (EFFSC), sent out an email in which they allege that there have been a series of improper election practices during the most recent election cycle. Among these election irregularities, the EFF alleges that the incoming chairperson of Law House, Jeandre Otto, “did not submit a nomination form to run for chairperson but has [since] been added on the ballot [...] for the Chairperson position after interaction with Sipho Carneson.”

However, the story is not as simple as an irregularity on a ballot, but an election strategy that took a serious detour from its intended course. Steynberg’s email elaborates on these details by suggesting that Otto’s plan to get to the seat of Law House chairperson, was predicated on a series of obstacles that began with the nomination of Jozias MahubeReinecke, who Otto perceived as the only real challenge to his run for Law House chairperson. Due to this, Otto requested that Steynberg contest against Mahube-Reinecke for the seat of chairperson with the express purpose of Steynberg subsequently being able to select Otto as vice chairperson, upon his assumed victory.

However, the plan as envisioned by Otto could no longer go as planned, as Steynberg explained, “personal reasons [...] led me to decide that I had to drop out of the election as I could not stand another minute with the DSA. [After this], Otto went on a spree telling people how I intentionally sabotaged him and ‘f*cked up his dreams’”.

Thus, Otto’s plan was compromised and Mahube-Reinecke was still a thorn in his run for chairperson. However, in a strange turn of events, due to some political and procedural serendipity, Mahube-Reinecke was removed from the chairperson ballot. This was a result of his suspension after events at the second quarter 2022 Student Forum - the consequences of which allowed Otto to run for Law House chairperson.

Was there an irregularity?

The answer to this question is no. According to Sipho Carneson, the project coordinator for Faculty Houses, said “Otto’s election waiver stated that he wanted to run for both ballots, both chairperson and executive committee. However, the election ballot that we received that only had [Otto] appear on the EC ballot. When we crossreferenced the application form that was submitted on [Otto]’s behalf by Steynberg, Steynberg erroneously entered in [Otto]’s details as only wanting to run for the EC ballot.”

Steynberg confirms that it was indeed him who had submitted the election application on Otto’s behalf and agrees with Carneson’s explanations to an extent. Steynberg explains, “I did submit his form on the basis of the general agreement that we had”.

The reason Otto was able to appear on the ballot in spite of the due date for nominations is an unfortunate reality that many students cannot afford to tip car guards in generous amounts or even daily.

Car guards are a form of unarmed security officers. The Private Security Act of 2001 clearly states that “Any person who renders the security service of protecting property or a person for a reward must be registered with the PSIRA”. The Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) further stipulates that anyone who is not registered with the PSIRA is conducting a criminal offence and could be penalised or arrested. Therefore, no student or person is obliged to pay them. In fact, “begging” is against the rules and regulations of being a car guard or security officer in South Africa. having passed, is because of how the student life policy mandates elections. Carneson explains, “the Director of Student Affairs has the ability to dictate and delegate election processes and procedures in a given year and this is in the Organised Student Life Policy.” Meaning, the DSA can be flexible with the procedures within the Organised Student Life Policy, as Carneson elaborates, “as you can imagine, if a policy said something along the lines of, ‘Hey we need to vote by ballots in boxes and then COVID-19 happens, we do have the power to manoeuvre around something like that,’ and that’s what happened in this instance with Otto.”

In 2016, UP’s former Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Cheryl de la Rey, assembled a group of self-employed car guards and offered them assistance and a stable salary. This group, who had been working at UP since 2000, said that this relief was short-lived. After three months the “assistance plan” completely collapsed and the car guards said that they never heard from the university again. The Manager of Compliance, Chris Colyn, from the Department of Security Services did not comment, claiming that he is not allowed to disclose any information. After being referred to the Director of Institutional Advancement, Rikus Delport, Delport declined to comment or confirm the car guards’ “assistance plan”. Due to the lack of communication from UP, it is unclear whether there is a solution to these recurring problems. Students who have lodged complaints informed the Student Centre on Hatfield’s main campus, but they have been redirected to the Department of Security Services. Furthermore, Delport declined to answer questions regarding student safety, and whether there is another forum where students could report this issue, provided that it may not be the university’s responsibility.

Therefore, according to Carneson there was no unlawful or procedural irregularity as the EFFSC and Steynberg aver, merely a series of procedural happy accidents.

Controversy with a cost

Controversies such as the one discussed above, come with the obvious price of losing faith in systems constructed with the intention of putting the fates of students in the hands of students. Carneson responding saying that mistrust within the electoral system is with the intention of establishing their voter base.

Carneson continued saying, “if the voter base is kept small, then you create a voter base that you can segment, target and identify and attribute your messaging focused on that cohort.” Carneson’s analysis may be true to EFFSC, but that may not be the case for Steynberg.

Steynberg has no intentions of eroding trust in the system, for Steynberg this was about his reputation and integrity as Steynberg explains, “I really hope that this does clear the air somewhat. Please just know that I do not have anything against Otto as I am past the stage where Law House things bother me. I just needed to share my side of things as I have been villainised for quite a while now where I was forced to keep quiet, but the voting period has closed and I’m officially an outgoing Vice-Chairperson. I have nothing left to give but my side of the story.”