UNISA Puleng LenkaBula Crisis
Introduction
The University of South Africa (UNISA), the continent’s largest open-distance learning institution, has long stood as a symbol of accessible higher education and academic excellence. However, in recent years, the university has found itself engulfed in controversy and leadership turmoil, often referred to as the UNISA Puleng LenkaBula crisis. This crisis has sparked nationwide debate about governance, accountability, and transformation in higher education.
At the center of it all is Professor Puleng LenkaBula, UNISA’s first female Vice-Chancellor, appointed in 2021. Her tenure, initially celebrated as a historic milestone for gender equality and leadership transformation, has become marred by allegations of mismanagement, internal conflict, and institutional instability. This article explores the origins, developments, and implications of the UNISA crisis under VC LenkaBula’s leadership, as well as the broader lessons it holds for the future of academic governance in South Africa.
The Rise of Professor Puleng LenkaBula
Before examining the crisis, it is essential to understand who Professor Puleng LenkaBula is and what she represents. An accomplished academic and ethicist, she built her career across leading South African universities. Her appointment as Vice-Chancellor in 2021 marked a transformative moment — a woman of strong moral principles and academic merit taking charge of Africa’s largest university.
Her vision for UNISA centered on three pillars: ethical leadership, academic excellence, and institutional transformation. However, translating that vision into reality proved far more complex than anticipated.
The Onset of the Crisis
Governance Tensions and Institutional Strain
Soon after Professor LenkaBula took office, internal divisions began to surface. Reports emerged of strained relations between the Vice-Chancellor’s office, senior executives, and council members. Disputes over financial management, procurement processes, and staff appointments triggered a series of internal audits and investigations.
Some critics accused her of centralizing authority and creating a climate of fear within the university’s management structure. Others argued that she was being targeted for attempting to dismantle entrenched networks of corruption and inefficiency within the institution. These opposing narratives created a polarized environment, fueling what became known as the UNISA leadership crisis.
Investigations and Allegations
The situation escalated when reports surfaced of alleged irregularities under her administration. These included concerns over financial decisions, questionable procurement practices, and alleged mismanagement of university resources. In response, the Department of Higher Education and Training intervened, commissioning investigations to evaluate the state of governance at UNISA.
Some of these reports highlighted systemic governance failures and called for corrective measures, including potential leadership changes. However, supporters of Professor LenkaBula claimed that such findings were politically motivated, asserting that her efforts to reform the university had angered powerful interests resistant to accountability.
Leadership Under Fire
Accusations vs. Defense
As the crisis deepened, Professor LenkaBula found herself under intense scrutiny from staff unions, student organizations, and segments of the academic community. Critics accused her of mismanagement, lack of transparency, and poor communication. Some even called for her suspension or removal from office.
In her defense, Professor LenkaBula maintained that her administration was committed to integrity, ethical governance, and institutional transformation. She stated that much of the backlash was the result of resistance from individuals benefiting from past irregularities. According to her, the pushback was not about performance but about disrupting her mission to clean up the system.
Student and Staff Reactions
The crisis had a ripple effect across the university community. Students complained of administrative delays, poor service delivery, and limited engagement from leadership. Staff unions expressed frustration over perceived victimization and lack of consultation in decision-making processes.
This growing discontent culminated in strikes, protests, and public statements demanding change at the highest levels of management. For many observers, the turmoil symbolized a deeper institutional struggle between reform and resistance — between a leader determined to rebuild UNISA and internal forces clinging to the status quo.
