The Norman Arendse question: can UCT’s council chair still command trust?

On the surface, Norman Arendse is the embodiment of probity. A senior advocate of nearly four decades experience (Cape Bar profile). Evidence leader at the parliamentary inquiry into police corruption (MSN report). Entrusted with the governance of South Africa’s most prestigious university as Chair of the University of Cape Town Council (UCT Council page; IOL report on his election as Chair).

And yet, over the past year and a half, Arendse’s tenure as Chair of the UCT Council has been marked by a trail of serious allegations: bullying, breach of fiduciary duties, suppression of dissent, lying under oath, donor fallout, financial loss and a refusal to submit himself to independent scrutiny. Lawyers have been disbarred for less.

This is not political spin. These are matters recorded in sworn affidavits, court transcripts and internal investigation material that have circulated publicly and in litigation documents (PoliticsWeb affidavit materials; PoliticsWeb documents).

Let’s begin with bullying. At a meeting of the Council in December, UCT’s media spokesperson requested to be relieved of all Council-related responsibilities because the behaviour of the Chair – Arendse – made it untenable to continue in his role. More significantly, the Interim Registrar indicated that she did not wish to continue working with Council due to governance concerns, ad hominem attacks and combative, bullying behaviour by the Chair. When a Registrar – the custodian of institutional governance and compliance – says that she cannot continue working under the Chair because of governance and conduct issues, that is not a personality clash. That is a full blown crisis (UCT Watch documentation and reports).

Two Council members have described, under oath, a culture of intimidation, secrecy and suppression. They report that those who challenge Arendse have been subject to aggressive conduct and ad hominem attacks (PoliticsWeb affidavit documentation). He has become a law unto himself.

The law, however, may finally catch up with Arendse. In a recent case brought by a UCT professor alleging breach of fiduciary duties by the Council, three judges wrestled with being asked to accept that a Senior Counsel and Chair of Council had effectively lied under oath (PoliticsWeb litigation materials). That is not language courts use lightly. Judges understand what it means to accuse a senior advocate of dishonesty.

The professor’s court papers catalogue what he describes as a series of false statements in Arendse’s affidavits, including non-disclosure of donor warnings, mischaracterisation of Council dynamics and inaccuracies about what was said in meetings. He has sought a punitive personal costs order against Arendse – meaning he is asking the court to hold him personally liable because of bad faith (PoliticsWeb court documents). That is not normal litigation brinkmanship. This is Arendse’s reputation on the line.

The professor is not the only party questioning Arendse’s credibility. In the litigation, two major philanthropic foundations directly contradicted the version of events set out in Arendse’s answering affidavit (PoliticsWeb documentation). They claim that Arendse misrepresented basic facts under oath.

This was not a minor semantic disagreement. It concerned whether UCT’s Council had been misled by its own Chair and executive committee. (That the executive committee included Reeza Isaacs is also noteworthy: the new CEO of the Spar Group has been accused in court of breach of fiduciary duties.)

Arendse’s shifting versions came with real consequences. Appalled by Arendse’s misrepresentations in his court papers, one of the foundations demanded repayment of a R20 million gift to UCT (PoliticsWeb documents).

It is impossible to ignore the optics. A sworn affidavit is filed. A major donor says it contains inaccuracies. R20 million is clawed back.

This is not the only example of accusations of material misrepresentations under oath. During the litigation, Arendse attached multiple letters he averred on oath were voluntarily sent by donors. Arendse stated on oath that as far as he was aware “none of the donors to which I referred had been approached by any member of the University Council”. Subsequently, some donors complained that they had been directly approached to provide such letters (PoliticsWeb litigation documents).

This resulted in an independent investigation into unauthorised approaches to donors. The investigation produced a confidential report. This report records that Arendse requested donor names from the Development and Alumni office, and that he declined to cooperate in the independent investigation (UCT Watch documentation).

Pause there. His posture does not project rectitude.

Pattern of governance and credibility concerns

Taken together, what emerges is not a single misstep but a consistent pattern.

A leadership style repeatedly described as combative and intimidating. Sworn allegations of suppressing dissent. Senior university officials unwilling to work with him. Major donors publicly contradicting his sworn evidence. R20 million repaid after those contradictions were raised. Judges openly grappling with the possibility of dishonesty under oath. The looming prospect of a punitive cost order. A refusal to engage in independent scrutiny.

UCT’s Council Chair is supposed to be the steward of a public institution funded by donors, students and taxpayers. When that stewardship is repeatedly questioned – by colleagues, by donors, by senior officials and in open court – the issue ceases to be personal; it becomes institutional.

The key question is no longer only whether Arendse is fit to continue holding positions of public trust but, by corollary, whether he remains deserving to hold the trust of the legal profession.

In response to our request for comment, the UCT media spokesperson provided the following statement:

The University of Cape Town (UCT) notes that this query relates almost entirely to litigation concerning the Gaza resolutions. The matter was heard in the Western Cape High Court in October 2025, and UCT is currently awaiting judgment. Given that judgement is pending, it is entirely inappropriate for UCT to comment on the matter.

UCT can, however, respond to the allegation regarding donor approaches, as this issue was not part of the litigation referred to above. The matter was formally investigated by an independent external investigator in December 2025, and the investigation found no evidence to substantiate the claims.

The matters around university officials have been addressed and resolved through internal processes. All relevant university officials continue in their Council support roles.