ABOUT 26 security guards at the Durban University of Technology (DUT) were forced by the institution’s officials to pay bribes or face job loss.
In a detailed list seen by the Sunday Independent, the guards responsible for providing all security services detailed how Jack Nduku from the DUT Pietermaritzburg Campus allegedly extorted R2 000 per security officer for job projection.
Some guards stated that they were fired for arbitrary reasons if they refused to pay bribes.
The university confirmed the list's authenticity, admitting that Nduku was suspended following a preliminary investigation.
”The employee involved was suspended, pending further investigation. Since the investigation continues, the university cannot provide additional details at this time,” said Alan Khan, DUT Senior Director of Corporate Affairs.
However, some guards feared that Nduku had two other colleagues collecting bribes for him. If Nduku returned, he would torment everyone for revealing his side hustle and reporting him to his seniors.
The guards also complained that the matter had been dragging on since March.
One of the DUT officials, whose identity will remain anonymous for fear of appraisal, said that their securities were led with an iron fist. He described how Nduku ensured that one of the guards returned to work after paying half the R2 000 Nduku demanded from him to protect his job.
“He was transferred to another campus outside Pietermaritzburg, but when Mr Nduku was called, he said that if he wished to be returned to his post, the guard must pay R2 000, but because he didn’t have it, he only paid R1 000 and the remaining balance was never paid,” the official said.
According to the list, one of Nduku’s cash-making strategies was to charge the guards R2000 if they wanted to evade accountability and be cleared for abandoning their posts or any other wrongdoing.
“He is the one who tells even the managers and the supervisors how the guards were performing, so everybody feared him that much,” said one of the guards.
“Managers and supervisors are not respected at all. Guards are close to Mr Nduku, and they do what he likes.
“Another thing that has confused us is that we are instructed to confiscate alcohol from students when they bring them to school; Nduku sells them to us or drinks with his friends and colleagues who collect money from him,” said the guard.
Nduku did not respond to questions from the publication.
Meanwhile, last month, a whistleblower accused the DUT of risking whistleblowers’ lives by demanding that they physically provide evidence or risk having the investigation dropped when complaints were reported.
This was after the whistleblower asked the university to investigate Kabulo Loji, a DUT lecturer, for allegedly falsifying “fraudulent conference invitations” to defraud the institution and fund his trips to Burundi.
The whistleblower told the publication that instead of investigating, the institution demanded the whistleblower's identity after DUT’s Risk Office representative Kuliswa Mda responded to the whistleblower, asking for the whistleblower's email address so that someone from the office could speak to the whistleblower via phone call or email to set up a virtual meeting.
However, the whistleblower told the Sunday Independent that he feared being targeted as there was no guarantee that his identity would be kept anonymous.
He then responded to Mda, asking if the university would not investigate the allegations simply because he did not wish to disclose his identity. Mda’s response to the whistleblower was that they wanted the whistleblower's identity to pose the right questions that would lead them to the required evidence.
“We are also mindful of DUT’s reputation with external stakeholders and would not want to jeopardise it. For example, how do we verify the authenticity of the invitation without jeopardising DUT’s reputation?” Mda replied.
DUT said the matter was investigated, adding that the invitation letter that the lecturer allegedly fabricated by the whistleblower was verified with the issuing institution.
“They confirmed that the letter was legitimately issued in 2022. However, the lecturer attended the event once in 2023, using the same letter, which was verified as valid by the institution. It should be noted that the lecturer did not travel in 2022,” DUT said.
When asked whether forcing whistleblowers to provide their details would not endanger their safety, the university said that its whistleblowing policy encouraged them to report confidentially, adding that the whistleblowers had the right to decline to reveal their identities and that DUT fully respected that choice.
However, records at the risk office indicated the university told the whistleblower it would drop the investigation because he refused to provide his details for a virtual meeting, which the university sought after having received evidence.