Exiled former cabinet minister Professor Jonathan Moyo has lambasted the University of Zimbabwe following the Dexter Nduna ‘fake graduation scandal.’
Moyo said the UZ had gone to the dogs.
He criticised the institution’s way of communicating with its students saying it was unethical, unprofessional and outrageous.
“IF THIS UNETHICAL, UNPROFESSIONAL AND OUTRAGEOUS notice dated 24th September 2024 purportedly from the ‘Department of Legal Undergraduate Programmes, Faculty of Law, University of Zimbabwe’ is authentic; then the University of Zimbabwe has gone to the dogs; as this is no way that any proper university would communicate such information to any student!,” said Moyo.
However, United Kingdom based Zimbabwean lawyer Brighton Mutebuka said Moyo was offside in his criticism, saying during his time at Law School, that is exactly how the results were communicated to all students, so it’s not a new development.
Be that as it may, Mutebuka said a fair assessment should have condemned both the Candidate & the University.
Thus, on one hand, he said, the former should be ashamed if all the allegations against him are well founded.
Mutebuka added that on the other side, the University should clearly update and modernise it’s policies & practises when dispatching results, and ensure that it places privacy and data protection at the forefront.
“Your take is thus one sided and appears primed to ingratiate yourself with Candidate Nduna. It corrupts the moral fabric of society and should be nipped in the bud forthwith, even from Kenya, as Candidate Nduna is not a sacred cow!” He said.
Read Mutebuka’s full thread below:
- We have to excuse your ignorance if you perhaps did not get to experience such a practise your studies were terminated early due to a “supervening impossibility” in the form of a coup.
-
During my time at Law School, that is exactly how the results were communicated to all Students, so it’s not a new development.
-
I am of course not defending it, I am merely pointing out that it is an established one – meaning it would be both misleading and disingenuous to seek to criticise it now as if it was a new development.
-
Thousands of other Students have been subjected to the same treatment over the years, so the right course of action is to criticise it with historical reference & context and then seek to advocate for it to be changed and brought in line with modern trends which make privacy / data protection sacrosanct.
-
That’s not the end of the matter. We have got the “small matter” of the allegations against Nduna the Law Student, which is the actual source of the controversy.
-
The allegations suggest that he failed 3 Modules and was therefore ineligible to graduate on that account.
-
Rather than resigning to his fate quietly like other Students, Candidate Nduna is alleged to have written a threatening letter to the Faculty of Law, alleging (without providing any evidence), that he felt that the examiners had been biased against him because of his political allegiance, and he believed that this was the reason why he had been so discriminated against and failed.
-
Now, if this is true, it is unfortunate that Candidate Nduna not only failed to adduce cogent evidence to support his case – he based his allegations based on “feeling,” and failed to anticipate the formidable obstacles he had in the form of not only another candidate from the same party who had successfully navigated the same exams – but also that he himself had been successful in a great many other Modules – meaning he had not been discriminated in them.
-
Leaving a trail of unresolved matters in his wake, Candidate Nduna is alleged to have then gone on to masquerade in full view of other graduands, and to thereafter peddle himself or allow a falsehood to be peddled via misrepresentation through images wearing a gown – that he had in fact graduated when he had not.
-
That act was communicated publicly by his person via his social media handle, thereby generating confusion and derision in some quarters.
-
That conduct necessarily brings to the fore matters to do with the candidate’s honesty and integrity, and also threatens to bring the legal profession and the University of Zimbabwe into disrepute.
-
If you have assumed agency on behalf of Candidate Nduna, you cannot address one without the other.
-
Where I stand, if the notice published by the Faculty of Law is accurate, as unfortunate as the manner of communication is to Candidate Nduna’s pride, it has got the chilling & powerful effect of arresting his attempted misdemeanour pronto and at source, thereby exposing what would have been fraudulent misrepresentation & chastening him!
-
That public rebuke should put him in good stead, and hopefully act as a deterrent to him and other like minded Candidates in similar situations of being humbled by the debilitating and soul destroying enterprise of failing Modules close to the finishing line – they should be encouraged to be resilient and earn their accolades through sheer hard work and honesty!
Conclusion
A fair assessment should have condemned both the Candidate & the University. Thus, on one hand, the former should be ashamed if all the allegations against him are well founded.
On the other, the University should clearly update and modernise it’s policies & practises when dispatching results, and ensure that it places privacy and data protection at the forefront.
In a hierarchy of culpability, I would say the University’s oversight is tolerable and in the public interest, whilst Candidate Nduna’s alleged misdemeanours are, if credible, unacceptable in a civilised and democratic society steeped in the rule of law, which includes the doctrine of equality before the law!
Your take is thus one sided and appears primed to ingratiate yourself with Candidate Nduna. It corrupts the moral fabric of society and should be nipped in the bud forthwith, even from Kenya, as Candidate Nduna is not a sacred cow!
