By Lisakazi Stemela, Savannah Farris
Two weeks after the poorly attended Student Constitution revision engagement session was criticised by students for scheduling and communication drawbacks, the Students’ Representative Council’s (SRC) proposed amendments faced a larger wave of disapproval and scrutiny in the second student plenary sitting of the year.
The second agenda point of the sitting, on 30 April, was titled “constitutional amendment procedure” following the release of the proposed constitutional amendments by the SRC on 13 April through the SRC Instagram page.
The agenda point was a heated discussion about potential procedural gaps by the SRC in the revision of the Student Constitution, disputed claims of whether consultation with other relevant parties took place, and a notable absence: Natalie Nortje, SRC Policy Officer, the member tasked with facilitating the process, who was granted wellness leave.
The prompt for the agenda point was read out by Solomzi Mphambo, the Speaker of Student Assembly. The prompt said, “On Monday, the 13th of April 2026, the proposed constitutional amendments were released by the SRC. To my knowledge, the person discharged to do said amendments would be the Policy Officer, Ms Natalie Nortje.
“There have been, however, several blemishes in the process she has followed in amending the Stellenbosch University (SU) Student Constitution, which included, but are not limited to, one, a lack of constitutional review and amendment committee; two, a lack of adequate public participation, i.e. members of student leadership structures not consulted in the process and the voices of students across campuses are unheard, etc.
“Ms Nortje has repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of the constitutional review process, yet you are expected to recognise the amendments as valid. Moreover, there are substantive issues with the amendments themselves, namely the name change of ‘council’ to ‘committee’, the inclusion of the Dean of Students for consultation for mass meetings, and the power given to the Dean of Students to choose an interim commissioner, should the SRC fail to do so.”
The prompt concluded, “The Constitution is meant to empower students and student-led structures, yet this Constitution proposes to weaken them. As such, it is imperative that the SRC, specifically Ms Nortje in her capacity as Policy Officer, account for these constitutional failures.”
Pulane Mtshali, SRC Chairperson, read a prepared account on Nortje’s behalf and added that she (Mtshali) could not provide an explanation for Nortje, but could do so for the procedure followed.
Nortje defended that the role of the policy officer is to facilitate submissions of amendments to Student Imbizo, a right granted to any student under Section 130 of the Student Constitution. She added that her role is not “to amend the Constitution nor validate amendments. The role played here was to facilitate a process for submission, not to determine outcomes.”
Nortje’s statement emphasised that these submissions were made neither on behalf of the SRC body collectively nor in a purely private capacity, but rather within her functional role as a facilitator.
According to Nortje’s account, the amendment process began in 2024, under the previous Policy Officer, continuing into 2025 with a constitutional review committee, before being handed over to Nortje in 2026. Mtshali read, “The policy officer only contributed to facilitating a process to collect proposed amendments to initiate step one, which is the submission to the Student Imbizo. Thereafter, the process is owned by the Student Imbizo and Student Assembly.” Nortje’s statement reaffirms that her role ends at the point of submission.
The most criticised act of misconduct from Nortje was exposed in her own statement. As listed by Mtshali, Nortje held consultations regarding the possible amendments with the following individuals and committees: the previous Policy Officer, the Chief Electoral Commissioner, the Speaker of the Student Assembly, the Prim Committee (PC) executive, the Chairperson of the Senior Prim Committee (SPC) and the Tygerberg SRC. Her statement acknowledged a notable omission – the Societies Council.
Nortje’s statement explained, “There was not a direct conversation with the chairperson of the Societies Council as there were no structural or functional amendments being considered related to Societies Council.” This statement was challenged by Senkosi Nuku, Vice-Chairperson of the Societies Council, since one of the proposed amendments explicitly included the renaming of Societies Council to the Societies Committee.
Nuku said, “When you change the name from council to committee to give SRC exclusive rights over the word council, it means you lack an understanding of what the SRC is and its ex officio bodies,” further adding, “If Societies Council and Academic Affairs Council (AAC) are an extended leg of the SRC, that means by default they are also the Council.”
Nuku explained that, since the Societies Council is an extension of the SRC body, the Council acts as the highest decision-making body for registered societies whilst still being accountable to the SRC. Although the SRC has final say over any decision presented by the Societies Council, if the Council disagrees, the matter can be litigated in Student Court.
Nortje’s statement acknowledged the Societies Council’s feelings of exclusion regarding the proposed name change, and assured that the issue “will be addressed at a later point”
In addition to her criticism of the name change, Nuku highlighted fundamental inconsistencies with Nortje’s outlined procedure for the submission of amendments. Due to these inconsistencies, Nuku said that “all of the proposed amendments are invalid”. She further added, “The mere fact that public participation was expected after the amendments were already compiled without consulting any of the relevant stakeholders, already renders the document illegitimate.”
Josh Simone testified to the ineffectiveness of the SRC’s communication strategy. He serves as the Societies Council Visibility and Engagement Officer and holds additional social media portfolios across other student leadership structures. “I was completely unaware of the 16 April engagement session,” he stated. “Despite holding social media roles across various student leadership positions, I never saw a single post, email or announcement about this session until after it had already happened.”
“If someone in my position, someone whose entire portfolio is digital communication, doesn’t know about a constitutionally significant engagement,” Simone continued, “then how can the SRC expect the average student to know?”
Mtshali faced direct criticism from Noxolo Njiji, Administration Officer for the Student Assembly. Njiji asked, “As the leader of the students, do you know your Constitution?” She elaborated, “If you knew your Constitution as the President of the SRC, we wouldn’t be having a conversation about constitutional amendments.”
Njiji identified a further procedural violation regarding the public engagement session hosted by Nortje to discuss the submitted amendments on 16 April. She noted that “public engagement is only supposed to be done by the Speaker of Assembly, which is Solomzi Mphambo”, highlighting a constitutional error in how the proposed amendments had been presented by the Policy Officer.
Another flashpoint was the proposed expansion of the Dean of Students’ powers. The proposal was the following: if the SRC failed to appoint an Electoral Commissioner within a reasonable time frame, convening power is granted to the Dean of Students to appoint the Commissioner instead.
The student body heavily criticised the proposed involvement of university management in student governance matters, and viewed this as prioritising management interests over student voices. If management interests are prioritised, it can undermine the point of having a student governance body which aims to involve students in shaping their own governance. Nuku said this is “extremely problematic because we are then not empowering students. We are empowering management.”
Nortje’s statement directly addressed the accusations as it stated, “It [the amendments] strengthens [student governance] by ensuring that proposed changes are structured, consultative and ultimately decided by students through the constitutional mechanisms provided.” However, her statement reiterated that none of the proposals are currently in effect or “binding”.
