Registration and student debt – addressed by Sinawo Sangovana
By Emma Giles and Zirquinn Phillips
Registration and the Student Debt Working Group (SDWG) was discussed during the fourth and final agenda point addressed at the student plenary sitting on 4 March. It was addressed by Sinawo Sangovana, Treasurer of the 2025/2026 Student Representative Council (SRC).
Solomzi Mphambo, the Speaker of Student Assembly, read the prompt that asked Sangovana, as a member of the SDWG committee, to provide clarity on his availability and communication regarding student concerns on 27 February, the last day of registration for 2026 at Stellenbosch University (SU).
Sangovana said that he was attending an emergency SDWG meeting on 27 February and was fulfilling his SRC responsibilities. Following that meeting, he attended a check-in with the Dean of Students, Dr Leslie van Rooi, and then went to the SRC office to attend to students who needed his help.
On 31 March, Sangovana said to Die Matie, “Our role as SRC Representatives on SDWG is representational and communicative in nature. Specifically, it involves and is not limited to:
- Amplifying SDWG announcements through student networks and societies;
- Providing a student perspective in deliberations and decisions;
- Ensuring transparency and fairness in the process;
- Assisting with communicating the SDWG’s existence and outcomes to the broader student body; and
- Providing student-centred oversight of the process.”
Sinawo Sangovana, the 2025/2026 Treasurer for the interim SRC, at the student plenary sitting on 4 March. Photo: Emma Giles
Sangovana said on 31 March that he does not hold any operational or administrative function within the SDWG and that the processing of applications, assessment of student financial circumstances, and institutional debt negotiations are carried out by the relevant SU structures.
He did acknowledge that “there was a lack of communication in terms of the responses from SDWG”. However, he said the SDWG secretary is responsible for communicating on behalf of the SDWG.
“With that context in mind, I acknowledge that my communication both with students and with colleagues during the final day of registration fell short of what my role demands,” said Sangovana on 31 March. He said he has committed to working with the SDWG committee to “establish clearer protocols so that the student representative function within SDWG is consistently fulfilled, especially during high-pressure periods”.
The recorded reasons for application declines were graduation debt, already registered for 2026, previously received SDWG funding, were referred to an Acknowledgement of Debt (AOD) facility, no academic readmission, no outstanding debt, incomplete information, income above R9 000, employed, or special student status, said Sangovana.
“These are not just statistics. They represent students who are at risk of losing access to education. I remain committed to using my platform as SRC Treasurer to advocate for greater institutional funding and a more responsive SDWG process,” said Sangovana to Die Matie on 31 March.
Liyema Langa, a member of the Economic Freedom Fighters Youth Command (EFFYC), said that he and other student leaders attended a meeting with Dr van Rooi, and that, according to Langa, the numbers Sangovana provided were inaccurate. Another student also said that those numbers were inaccurate. Langa said that the difference of approved students between 2025 and 2026 was 161 and not 160, and that either the Student Affairs office was lying or Sangovana was lying.
Dr Van Rooi confirmed to Die Matie on 30 March that he did have two meetings with Langa and student representatives of the EFFYC and South African Students Congress (SASCO) on the week of 23 February. However, they did not discuss SDWG, but rather “NSFAS related matters”.
“Sinawo’s details are correct. Liyema’s numbers are not related to the SDWG but refers to the number (at that stage) of NSFAS students who still had financial blocks on the day that we met. We did not discuss SDWG-related numbers during our meeting (the SDWG process was, after all, still ongoing),” said Dr Van Rooi.
Sangovana said to Die Matie on 31 March, “I can confirm that all SDWG figures presented at the plenary sitting were sourced directly from official SDWG and institutional records. I stand by the accuracy of every figure presented. The data was not fabricated or estimated, and it was drawn from the formal records of the process, and I am confident in its integrity.”
Despite multiple attempts to contact Liyema Langa, Die Matie did not receive comment by the time of publication.
