The University of South Africa (UNISA) says it will comply with a Gauteng High Court order suspending the implementation of remedial action directed by the Public Protector against one of its senior executives, pending the outcome of a judicial review.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, the university said the matter relates to the Public Protector’s investigation into the appointment of Johannes Peu Matlala as Manager: Physical Security Services on a fixed-term contract after his retirement.

The investigation stemmed from a complaint about the appointment process.

On 27 March 2026, the Public Protector found that UNISA Vice Principal for Operations and Facilities, Matsiababa Motebele, had both recommended and approved Matlala’s appointment.

According to the Public Protector, this dual role was inconsistent with the university’s Delegations of Authority and governance framework and amounted to maladministration and improper conduct.

As part of the remedial action, the Public Protector directed UNISA to take appropriate action against Motebele for failing to comply with the institution’s governance requirements.

However, the university said the Public Protector made no finding that Matlala’s appointment itself was irregular.

“There was no irregularity found against the University in the appointment of Matlala post retirement,” UNISA said.

Following the release of the report, Motebele approached the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria to have the Public Protector’s findings and remedial action reviewed and set aside.

He also brought an urgent application seeking interim relief while the review proceedings continue.

UNISA said the High Court granted the application on 29 June 2026, effectively suspending the implementation of the Public Protector’s remedial action until the review has been finalised.

According to the university, the court found that Motebele had established a prima facie right to challenge the findings and that implementing the remedial action before the review was concluded could cause irreparable harm.

“The Court held that Motebele had established a prima facie right to challenge the Public Protector’s findings, that implementation of the remedial action before the review was determined could cause irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo until the review application is adjudicated,” the university said.

UNISA emphasised that it did not oppose or support Motebele’s urgent court application.

“The University further points out that, during the urgent application, it neither opposed nor supported the relief sought and elected to abide by the decision of the Court,” the institution said.

The university said it remains committed to the rule of law and will await the outcome of the review before taking any further steps regarding the Public Protector’s remedial action.

“UNISA remains committed to the rule of law and to upholding the principles of good governance, accountability and transparency. As a party to the proceedings, the University will comply fully with the order of the High Court and will await the outcome of the review proceedings before taking any further steps relating to the remedial action directed by the Public Protector,” the statement read.

The institution also reaffirmed its respect for both the Public Protector and the judiciary.

“The University wishes to assure its stakeholders that it respects the constitutional role of both the Public Protector and the Courts and remains committed to implementing all lawful and binding decisions in accordance with the Constitution and applicable legislation,” UNISA said.

The review application challenging the Public Protector’s findings is yet to be heard by the Gauteng High Court.