Systemic Targeting of VC Puleng LenkaBula

Professor Puleng LenkaBula is the Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of South Africa (Unisa), appointed in January 2021, and the first woman to hold this role in Unisa’s nearly 150-year history.

In recent years, there have been multiple reports, contentious issues, media scrutiny, and official inquiries involving her leadership. The phrase “systemic targeting” suggests these are not isolated incidents, but rather a pattern—a sustained set of practices, criticisms, institutional pressures, or power dynamics that disadvantage, criticize, or undermine her position. This article explores whether systemic targeting is evident in her case, what form it takes, possible underlying reasons, and its broader significance.

Background

Some key facts about LenkaBula:

She has a strong academic background in social ethics, feminist theory, ecological economic justice, ubuntu, etc.
Prior to becoming VC, she held senior roles at University of the Free State, University of Witwatersrand, and earlier at Unisa.
On reappointment: In December 2024, Unisa’s Council reappointed her to another term starting 1 January 2026. The Council described her first term as having made improvements in teaching, international partnerships, research output, financial growth, and stability.

Evidence of Conflict, Criticism, and Scrutiny

There have been various criticisms, investigations, and controversies related to her leadership. Some examples:

Independent Assessor Report (2023)
- A report commissioned by the Minister of Higher Education (Blade Nzimande), compiled by Prof. Themba Mosia, found “a culture of fear, intimidation and bullying, instances of maladministration and financial irregularities” at Unisa.
- Specific allegations:
  • Upgrades to the VC’s residence cost far more than originally approved (e.g. R3 million vs an approved R1 million) and included luxurious changes.
  • A request or acquisition of a Mercedes-Benz GLE 400d (approx. R1.9 million) for the VC, argued to be more expensive than past VCs’ vehicles.
  • Backdated salary adjustments and upgraded posts for staff in her office, which cost millions, with no clear records of how these were approved
Media and Public Criticism
- Accusations in the media that she is “elitist”, that her lifestyle is extravagant (e.g. expensive curtains, furniture, car).Claims of poor administrative performance, delays in student services, or mismanagement affecting students: e.g., students struggling with audits, exam timetable changes, delayed delivery of laptops.
Defence, Pushback, and Responses
- LenkaBula and the Unisa Council have disputed some findings. In her response to the Mosia report, she described parts as “reckless”, “unbalanced”, over-emphasizing the last two years of her leadership
- The Council requested time (six months) to prepare corrective plans and asked for forensic investigation into alleged “corrupt networks”.

What Would “Systemic Targeting” Involve?

To say there is systemic targeting, several elements would need to be present:

Pattern of criticism / allegations over time that go beyond normal oversight or accountability duties.
Power structures or stakeholders who may benefit from the undermining of her authority.
Disproportionality: similar actions by others not receiving similar scrutiny, or leniency.
Bias elements: possible gender bias, racial bias, political bias.
Institutional mechanisms being used repeatedly: reports, media leaks, audits, public shaming, etc.

Analysis: Is There Systemic Targeting?

While conclusive proof of an orchestrated effort to target LenkaBula systematically is difficult without inside data, there is strong circumstantial evidence of multiple overlapping criticisms, pressures, and political dimensions.

Gender and firsts: LenkaBula being the first woman (and first Black woman) VC in Unisa’s history places her in a position where gender and racial expectations, biases, and resistance may naturally be more intense. The narratives of “extravagance”, luxury, etc., often map in public discourse onto women leaders more harshly. This suggests that bias could be part of how criticisms are framed.
Media framing: Accusations about curtains, cars, and upgrades tend to be attention-grabbing and personalized; they often overshadow deeper issues of institutional governance or policy. Focus on personal lifestyle can serve to shift debate from structural issues to individual blame.
Institutional scrutiny vs governance failures: Unisa is a large institution with real challenges (funding, technology/ICT issues, service delivery, learner access, audits, etc.). Some of the findings of the assessor are serious and typical for large universities, especially during COVID-era disruptions. But the intensity of the criticisms, especially pointing to her personal office, residence, staff etc., suggest a level of scrutiny that may be more severe than would apply to previous VCs—or perhaps in part because she is transforming some structures (which brings resistance).
Political context: Universities in South Africa are often arenas of political contestation—student bodies, unions, government, and varying power centres have stakes. The fact that political parties (ANC, student representative bodies) have publicly supported her indicates she has defenders, but also suggests that political actors see advantages or disadvantages in supporting or opposing her.
Timing and reappointment: Despite the controversies, she was reappointed, which may mean that, while there are many attacks or criticisms, at least some institutional actors accept her contributions and consider the critiques manageable or overblown. That suggests that the “targeting” has not (yet) been fully successful in derailing her leadership.

Potential Motivations / Underlying Drivers

What might be motivating or fueling the alleged systemic targeting?

Resistance to change: LenkaBula has stated goals related to transformation: gender justice, social equity, community engagement, support for marginalized groups, open access, etc. Such agendas can threaten entrenched practices, people used to old power dynamics, supply chain / procurement networks, etc.
Governance and financial pressure: University governance in South Africa is under pressure (budget constraints, demands for efficiency, public accountability). When things go wrong, leaders are held accountable. But some of the failures may stem from systemic under-resourcing or inherited legacies; not all are personally driven.
Public perception & media sensationalism: Media reports often focus on things that will draw public outrage (luxury purchases, renovations). That can amplify or distort criticisms, sometimes before full investigations are concluded.
Political rivalries / institutional politics: Within the university or in broader higher education, there can be allegiances, competition for power, influence over policy, grants, etc. Leadership positions carry a lot of exposure. The involvement of government (Minister of Higher Education) in ordering assessments adds a political dimension.
Bias (gender, race, etc.): As noted, female leaders, especially in historically male-dominated spaces, often face harsher scrutiny. The way criticisms are framed (lifestyle, appearance) may reflect implicit or explicit bias.

Implications

For LenkaBula: Constant public scrutiny and allegations can distract from leadership tasks, possibly demoralize staff, make implementation of long-term projects harder, or impair her ability to lead by fear of backlash.
For Unisa: If criticisms are partly valid, unresolved issues (financial, governance, HR, student service) can harm the university’s reputation, funding, morale, and student outcomes. On the other hand, unfair criticisms could destabilize leadership, reduce investor/donor confidence, create internal divisions.
For similar institutions: This case may serve as a warning to other public university VCs (especially those who are “firsts” in gender/race/transformative identity) about the intensity of scrutiny and the need for strong governance, transparency, stakeholder communication.
For higher education policy & justice: Raises questions about how accountability is enforced, the role of independent assessments, standards for leadership, conflict resolution, and how bias (gender/race/power) is addressed in institutional critique.

Unanswered Questions / Areas for Further Inquiry

Are there comparative cases of past Unisa VCs (male, non-firsts) who made similar decisions (residence upgrades, car purchases, staff-office expenditures)? And how were they treated in public/media/institutional responses? This would help judge proportionality.
What is the internal governance structure of Unisa: how transparent are procurement, HR promotions, backpay, etc.? Are minutes, approval documents, internal audits accessible?
How much of the reported failures (student service, ICT, etc.) stem from external factors (funding, infrastructure, pandemic) vs leadership choices?
What safeguards exist to protect leaders from personal bias in assessments or media framing?
What is the effect of this criticism on morale of academic and administrative staff, and on student trust and engagement?

Conclusion

From the evidence available, it seems reasonable to argue that Professor Puleng LenkaBula is subject to what could be described as systemic targeting: multiple, overlapping criticisms and institutional pressures that go beyond routine oversight, some of which seem to emphasize her personal lifestyle or identity (gender, being first female VC) rather than purely structural issues. At the same time, there appear to be some legitimate governance challenges at Unisa, which require attention and accountability.

The key is distinguishing valid oversight from unfair targeting. Transparency, clear processes, fairness in comparison with past cases, and mindful media reporting are essential to avoid harm to individuals and institutions.