Former Black Management Forum (BMF) president and academic Dr Sibongile Vilakazi says her dismissal from Wits Business School was skewed and engineered to make her look like a liar by acting Labour Court judge Sean Snyman.
In her book released in November last year titled Put Her In Her Place: The Shadow Side of The Moonlighting Judgment, Vilakazi outlines how she ended up being fired by Wits University after being accused of moonlighting at another company while she was a lecturer at the institution.
Vilakazi accused Snyman of being conflicted when he presided over her case.
Based on the moonlighting allegations, the BMF suspended her as its president in January last year. However, in September last year, Sunday World reported that the PhD holder and businesswoman was cleared of all the charges against her after the decision to suspend her was overturned after a disciplinary hearing convened by the BMF.
In her book, Vilakazi states that after she had completed her PhD, she accepted an opportunity to work at multinational company Alexander Forbes.
While she was at Alexander Forbes, Vilakazi also accepted a part-time lecturing position at Wits Business School to
supervise masters
students. She said that while juggling the two jobs, she felt increasingly strong about transitioning fully into academia.
“I approached my line manager, the academic director, Professor Paul Alagidede, who later changed his name to Imhotep Alagidede, for guidance on how to proceed, given my circumstances and the persistent feeling I had,” Vilakazi wrote in the book.
She said after Alagidede advised her to follow her heart, she resigned from Alexander Forbes to focus on academia at Wits. Vilakazi said that after parting ways with Alexander Forbes, she was approached by two companies, Plus 94 and Kantar with offers that would allow her to pursue both her academic career and her ambitions as a business consultant.
“I chose to sign with Kantar. A few weeks after signing with Kantar, I received a request for a meeting from Professor Alagidede. He held a contract in his hand, mentioning that he had found it in his pigeonhole. Curious, he asked what it was about and who had placed it there. I admitted I didn’t know who had left it but I explained its contents,” she said.
Vilakazi said that Alagidede cautioned her to be careful in the Wits environment, as it could be very toxic. She was shocked when he became a key witness in her moonlighting case during the disciplinary hearing conducted by the university.
She stated that Alagidede threw her under the bus and that led to her getting the boot from Wits. She said she took her dismissal to the Labour Court after the CCMA had upheld the award for being sacked.
“I knew that I had a problem when the acting judge’s opening utterances were that he had only read CCMA reward and that he thought it was the best he had ever seen.
“He had not read the policy I had brought for review; in fact, he did not have it. The university’s lawyers had to present it to him on the spot. As I sat in court, I knew I had a problem. True to this feeling, my matter was dismissed on the spot. Snyman did not permit arguments but ruled in favour of the university,” she said.
She argues that the judgment relied heavily on hearsay evidence regarding her character to support its conclusions, particularly in interpreting the Wits policy.
Wits University spokesperson Buhle Zuma said: “The matter was exhausted at both the CCMA and the Labour Court, which both found in favour of the university. The university has nothing further to add.”
Snyman told Sunday World that Vilakazi’s case did not have merit.
“I dealt with her case in detail. Dr Vilakazi had the opportunity to appeal. She initially did, but in my view was clearly advised that an appeal had no merit. She withdrew the appeal.
“Then Dr Vilakazi sought to report me to the JSC for misconduct. This complaint included the allegation that I was
allegedly conflicted. The allegation was false, as I do not act for Wits University, and never have. The JSC has now dismissed the complaint.
“The simple answer is that Dr Vilakazi simply cannot see, nor accept, that her conduct was unacceptable.
“For such an educated person, this is concerning.”
