A full bench of the Western Cape High Court is presiding over a landmark case pitting a University of Cape Town professor against the university’s council over a resolution passed in solidarity with Palestine.
The application, brought by Professor Adam Mendelsohn, seeks to have the court review and set aside a resolution passed by the UCT Council in June of last year. The resolution stipulates that no UCT academic may enter into new, or continue with existing, relations with any group or network affiliated with the Israeli Defence Force (IDF).
The court heard submissions from legal representatives for Professor Mendelsohn, the UCT Council, and a number of other respondents. Several organizations were also admitted as friends of the court to provide additional context.
The South African Jewish Board of Deputies joined the proceedings, expressing deep concern over the resolution’s implications. A spokesperson for the Board stated that the decision could lead to the loss of hundreds of millions of rands in donor funding for the university.
Beyond financial concerns, the Board alleged a deteriorating atmosphere on campus. “What’s really been worrying for us is how incredibly hostile the campus has become,” the spokesperson said. “We’ve seen incidents of anti-semitism arising. We’ve seen intimidation and threats to Jewish academics on the campus.” The Board argued that the treatment of Jewish students and academics is a central issue in the case.
Advocate Edward Fagan, representing Professor Mendelsohn, contended that the UCT Council failed to conduct thorough research on the implications of the resolution and did not follow due process during its adoption.
In response, the advocate representing both the UCT Council and the university argued that no information was deliberately concealed, including the potential for financial fallout. He read from the meeting record, acknowledging that the financial consequences were discussed. He stated that a council member argued they would be “condemned morally” if they did not pass the resolution, and that they must do so despite the potential financial cost. The advocate defended this as a legitimate exercise of the council’s policy-making authority.
The court was informed that the resolution has not yet been implemented. It has been referred to the university senate to formulate specific guidelines for enforcement, and until those are in place, no sanctions can be applied. Despite this, the university maintains that the resolution stands as a “powerful moral statement” on a pressing global issue.
A contrasting perspective was presented by the organization South African Jews for a Free Palestine, which also applied as a friend of the court in support of the UCT Council’s resolution. Their senior counsel, Advocate Jeffrey Blander, challenged the representative authority of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies.
“It doesn’t represent South African Jews,” Blander stated. “The claim is simply false and it needs to be rebuted.” He emphasized the diversity of the South African Jewish community, noting that many hold stances not aligned with the Board.
The full bench of judges hearing the case urged the parties to consider mediation as an ideal course of action, warning that the court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences. The matter has been postponed to Thursday for further proceedings.
