The Stellenbosch University Student Parliament recently convened for its first plenary sitting of the term. This sitting on 4 March, followed nearly two years without a meeting. Opinions differed on the sitting’s productivity and whether the allocated time was sufficient.
Students attending the plenary sitting at Stellenbosch University on 4 March. PHOTO: Nerine Pienaar
Students were invited to submit agenda items before the meeting. The agenda, in order, included: the SRC broad priorities, the SRC budget, mandate and collective responsibilities, registration and Student Debt Working Group (SDWG), the appointment of SRC managers and SRC engagements with student movements.
The sitting started in an orderly fashion, but amid frequent interruptions from attendees voicing their opinions and calling out questions without recognition from the Speaker, maintaining order became increasingly challenging as the evening progressed. According to some attendees, this hindered the productivity of the meeting. “I would say that the sitting would have been more productive without the frequent interruptions occurring in the manner they did,” said Simiso Langa, Interim President of the SRC. “I encourage all students to relay their questions, disagreements, and comments, especially when the platform exists; there is, however, only so much one can achieve/convey if not allowed to complete a sentence or explanation.”
Audience members requested access to a document outlining the SRC’s priorities and vision, stating that, in accordance with the Student Constitution, it should have been made available earlier. Simiso Langa said that issues with the SRC’s website had prevented some documents from being uploaded. As a result, the SRC created a SharePoint platform where it can be accessed upon submitting a request. However, a week after the request was made, SMF News still had not been granted access to this SharePoint. Click this link to seek permission from the SRC.
Simiso Langa, Interim President of the SRC, responds to a question from the audience. PHOTO: Nerine Pienaar
Some attendees felt the time allocated for the sitting was insufficient and that many questions were left unanswered. “We were able to get through most of the stuff,” said Liyema Langa, a leading member of the Economic Freedom Fighters Youth Organisation (EFFYC). “However, many questions were not answered, and I feel like the last two points, that we were not able to get to, were supposed to be the main points,” he said. The last two agenda points addressed the appointment of SRC managers and the SRC’s engagements with student movements. Liyema Langa said that he felt that two hours were not sufficient for the first sitting in two years. “There were many factors that contributed to the sitting running out of time before all agenda points were addressed,” Simiso Langa responded.
Liyema Langa, executive member of the Economic Freedom Fighters Youth Organisation (EFFYC), raises his hand to direct a question to the panel. PHOTO: Nerine Pienaar
The treasurer, Sinawo Sangovana, presented the SRC budget, detailing the amounts that were requested by each portfolio, the funding that was allocated, and the differences compared to the previous year. The total funds assigned to the SRC amount to R977 324.72, consisting of 20% carried over from the previous SRC budget allocation and 80% from the SRC 2025/26 budget allocation provided by student governance. The presentation of the budget prompted questions from the attendees, particularly regarding how funding was allocated across the various portfolios.
Attendees also raised their concerns about the increase of food and beverage prices in the Neelsie, the perceived lack of interfaculty engagement from the SRC, and student safety. The SRC did not respond to these concerns during the sitting.
Ben Anderson, a member of the SRC, said that he felt the sitting fell short in terms of productivity. “I don’t think any students gained from any of the discourse that occurred last night, and I think many students would have gone away feeling like their voices are not valued by parliament,” he said. “I would have liked to see an environment where a greater variety of intellectual diversity was on display, and where a greater variety of students felt safe and willing to share their honest opinion about the issues that currently face our university and the things the SRC should be focusing on.” Anderson faced repeated interruptions during his address.
Anderson left the sitting before it concluded due to personal reasons.
Ben Anderson, SRC member, observes the discourse during the sitting. PHOTO: Nerine Pienaar
The sitting concluded after the allocated time had elapsed. Attendees expressed a range of reactions, with some questioning the productivity of the sitting. No information has been provided regarding the date of the next plenary meeting.