Stellenbosch University disqualifies popular anti-corruption candidate from SRC

The Democratic Alliance Student Organisation (DASO) at Stellenbosch University has expressed concern over the disqualification of Ben Anderson, an independent candidate and DASO member, from the 2025 Student Representative Council (SRC) election.

The SEC gave no justification for its decision. 

The Referendum Party issued a statement this morning, in support of Ben Anderson. RP Executive Committee member Robert King said: “At Stellenbosch, candidates only seem to be suspended when they threaten the status quo. This is not democracy – it is manipulation by bureaucracy.” 

The election was the largest turnout for a student election in 14 years, with 15.3% of the students participating, and Anderson secured 2,703 of the total 5 075 votes, making him the only candidate to achieve an outright majority.

DASO has criticised the Student Electoral Commission’s (SEC) decision as unwarranted and suggestive of an attempt to hinder SRC reform efforts. Ben Anderson had previously revealed serious financial abuses by previous SRCs on his Substack, available here. By scrutinising the budget, Anderson discovered that tens of thousands of Rands in funding at a time had been misappropriated repeatedly by student leaders for unjustified or unjustifiable reasons. In an interview after his election victory, Anderson made his reformist intentions clear:

“If we can get [things] right, like a budget, making sure that we’re meeting regularly […] and that we’re doing planning – that’s the way that we actually get change. I think that needs to be the priority.”

The disqualification, DASO argues, undermines the democratic process, effectively nullifying the votes of 2,703 students and eroding confidence in the electoral system. Anderson plans to pursue all available remedies under the Student Constitution, Electoral Act, and university regulations, including potential legal action. The organisation has publicly endorsed Anderson’s intention to challenge the ruling through the Student Court, urging its members to support his appeal.

However, the way the SEC is structured effectively protects the partisan interests of the incumbent SRC, who selects the commissioners. In the case of Ben Anderson, who directly exposed the corruption of this group of students, their vested interest in determining the outcome is unavoidable.

The Student Court are appointed by the Dean of the Law Faculty (and his other appointees), a notoriously far-left division of an already notoriously left-wing university. There is no body which may investigate their decisions, and the appeals process is to appeal to two faculty members also appointed by the Dean of the Law Faculty. This body is also the only body of appeal for any violation of student rights, and have jurisdiction over almost any action any student body may take – it is also notoriously difficult to start student societies which the administration does not like, since registrations are subject to the decisions of the Student Court.

But partisanship is not unusual. The university is well-known among alumni for its suppression of ideological dissent, though usually this is against conservatives and Afrikaners. Suppression of liberals is new. While the temperature has lowered since the days of FeesMustFall, the university generally gives positive recognition to the ideology of the Fallist movement even today, despite the overt racialism of its ideology.

Nor is this the first time that the Electoral Commission has intervened to prevent ideological diversity in student representation. In September 2024, AfriForum Youth issued a legal notice to SU’s Electoral Commission following attempts to disqualify pro-Afrikaans candidates from the SRC election. The SEC’s actions were based on the claim that a candidate benefited from an AfriForum Youth Instagram post. Being that it is clearly impossible to police third-party behaviour, and student societies are permitted to support candidates, the arbitrariness of the decision was transparent. The Student Court dismissed an initial complaint, but the SEC pursued further investigations, prompting accusations of bias and procedural delays beyond the 24-hour resolution timeline mandated by the SU Student Constitution.

While AfriForum managed to extract some limited victories, these have not resulted in lasting change to student and administration behaviour. However, it is possible that the DA holds sufficient clout, and represents a sufficiently diverse ethnic background, that the university may be forced to address its concerns, especially in the context of Anderson’s anti-corruption campaign.