A row has erupted at the embattled University of South Africa (Unisa) over the imposition of new requirements for candidates vying to become president of the convocation. 

This comes after Higher Education Minister Blade Nzimande was forced to withdraw his notice last month to place Unisa under administration after the institution filed an urgent application to oppose the move.

In the latest saga, a former student, Simamkele Xani, who has been nominated to run for president of the convocation during elections scheduled for 11 December, is taking Unisa to court after it "unilaterally" amended the criteria for nomination without getting the blessing of the convocation.

Members of the convocation comprising alumni who graduated with a degree or diploma from the institution are eligible for election as president.

Among the sticking points is that a nominee must now have a degree from Unisa or another recognised institution and also a minimum of five years of experience in a senior management, professional or academic role.

Unisa insiders said the post of president of the convocation is very prestigious as the successful incumbent automatically became a member of council, wielding influence. 

Nzimande's decision to place Unisa under administration followed damning reports on the state of the institution by independent assessor Professor Themba Mosia and a ministerial task team chaired by Vincent Maphai.

Mosia's report revealed financial and other maladministration of a serious nature and serious undermining of the effective functioning of Unisa.

On 28 October Nzimande announced the appointment of former vice-chancellor of the University of Johannesburg, Professor Ihron Rensburg, as administrator of Unisa.

But he was forced to make a U-turn after acting North Gauteng High Court Judge Andre le Grange, ruled that his decision was in breach of an order granted by Judge Leicester Adams on 24 August ordering the minister not to act on Mosia's recommendations until two separate applications challenging it are finalised.

They were brought by council chair, James Maboa, and Unisa’s vice-chancellor, Professor Puleng LenkaBula.

Meanwhile, aside from Unisa, the other respondents cited in Xani’s court papers include LenkaBula, acting registrar, Professor Moloko Sepota, the executive committee of the convocation, and Unisa’s council.

LenkaBula has been acting as president of the convocation for more than a year following the resignation of its president, Sabelo Mhlungu, around May last year.

Unisa's convocation is "responsible for raising matters of concern about the development of the university" and it also assists the institution and the Unisa Foundation with fund-raising.

A professor, who did not wish to be identified, said while it was not a bad thing for the president of the convocation to have a minimum of five years' experience, the statute did not make provision for that.

"Any amendments should first be presented to a meeting of the convocation before it can be adopted. The president of the convocation automatically becomes a member of council and is paid for attendance at council meetings."

Xani, who has a law diploma, said in court papers that "the ramifications of these irregular amendments are very draconian and they take away and disqualify many members from being elected to senior positions". 

"This is a unilateral amendment that did not follow due process."

He stated that by virtue of graduating with a diploma in 2019, he qualified to be a member of the convocation.

The former student has been nominated by three Unisa graduates to stand for president of the convocation.

These amendments disqualify me from running. They do so unjustifiably as they are bad in law in terms of how they were made.

He stated that "any member can be elected as president simply by being a member and without further qualifications".

Xani urged the court "to put to a halt [to the amendments] as a matter of urgency, especially considering that Unisa is the biggest university in South Africa and so many of its members will be negatively affected".

After becoming aware of the convocation notice on 14 November from a Facebook post, he emailed the university on the same day and also copied LenkaBula and Sepota, indicating to them that the amendments "were bad in law and explaining why they ought to be revoked".

"If these amendments are allowed to stand and the election is conducted accordingly, the genie would be out of the lamp and it will simply be too little too late.

"This means that a patently unlawful decision will be allowed to stand and regulate the affairs of the institution."

Xani has already started campaigning among convocants after he was nominated for the post of president.

"My candidature will be disqualified by these amendments which are inconsistent with the law and the constitution of the convocation. 

"The constitution requires that the president must be elected from members of the convocant of which I happen to be. Thus, I qualify to stand for presidency."

He alleged that the respondents did not follow the prescripts of the Higher Education Act and that there were no consultations.

"This decision adversely affected the members' existing rights yet there was no due notice given prior to the implementation thereof. This is not only unlawful but was procedurally unfair."

Xani said that the changes to the eligibility requirements "makes a mockery of such an influential public institution with a rich history".

Law firm, S Pearl Ndaba Attorneys, which is representing Unisa, asked Xani's lawyers on Friday to remove the matter from the roll and enrol it for a hearing on 7 December on the opposed roll so that they can have time to file an answering affidavit.

"The timelines are truncated and unreasonable and our client needs reasonable time to consult and prepare a defence," the email read.

Responding to the mail, Xani's lawyers said their client's current challenge "is the newly and improperly adopted impugned criteria which excludes persons in his position from contesting for posts" at the forthcoming annual general meeting.

"Our client is amenable to a removal of the matter only if your client commits to halt the implementation of the new criteria which excluded our client pending the review application."

Maboa, chair of Unisa’s council, declined to comment. Unisa did not respond to media queries at the time of publication.