UCT officer speaks about allegation of ‘break-in’ at academic’s flat - TimesLIVE

University of Cape Town (UCT) campus protection officer Grant de Monk, who is at the centre of the controversial “Forest Hill incident”, has broken his silence, describing how vice-chancellor Prof Mosa Moshabela instructed him to check on an academic whose mother was worried about her, having not heard from her for several days.

In an affidavit filed amid the escalating legal battle between Moshabela and UCT’s council, De Monk denies unlawfully entering Dr Zama Mkhize’s flat, removing an envelope, or telling the university ombud that he had done something illegal.

He says the allegations have caused serious damage to his integrity and reputation, affecting his professional life and standing in his community, despite what he maintains was an act of care.

The incident has become one of the contentious issues in the dispute between Moshabela and the university council, which resolved at a special meeting on May 30 that the matter should be investigated further.

Moshabela is challenging a series of council resolutions through a high court review application. His affidavit questions why the incident warranted further investigation, particularly in light of an investigators’ report which found that 18 of the 20 people contacted denied lodging complaints. Both advocates involved in the investigation reportedly recommended that no disciplinary action be taken against him.

In his affidavit, De Monk, who said he had been seconded to the vice-chancellor’s office as his driver and protection officer since 2024, gives a detailed account of what happened on the night of November 13 last year.

“There are three things that were said about me that are not true. It was said I entered Dr Zama Mkhize’s flat unlawfully, that I took an envelope from it and called the university ombud to tell her I had done something illegal. I did none of these things,” he said.

He said Moshabela called him at about 8.30pm on November 13 in a conversation lasting about three minutes.

The vice-chancellor told him that an academic’s mother had contacted him because she had not heard from her daughter since the previous Saturday and was worried.

“He asked me to find the academic and to keep the matter confidential. I took that to mean be discreet and protect her privacy. He did not have her address, only that she lived in staff housing,” he said.

Moshabela subsequently sent him the academic’s name via WhatsApp as he was about to board a flight from Johannesburg to Cape Town.

De Monk said he immediately contacted a Forest Hill residence facilitator, who provided him with the number of a staff accommodation official.

He called the official, apologised for contacting her late and explained that he was acting on the vice-chancellor’s instruction to locate the academic.

He received the flat number and staff accommodation building details at 8.47pm. By then, he was already driving from his home in Delft towards the UCT campus.

He arrived at the building at about 9.20pm, knocked on the front door and called out the academic’s name, but received no response.

He said he could see through the kitchen windows that the flat was dark.

Concerned, he contacted the staff accommodation official again to ask for a spare key. He was told that the master key was kept at the office of the director of the commercial development department.

“At this point my instincts were kicking in. I was deeply concerned. A mother does not phone the vice-chancellor of a university unless she is frightened, and now there was no answer and no light. I am a father; I understood her worry,” he said.

He said he subsequently obtained the master key and returned to Forest Hill, moving his vehicle to a position where he could see the academic’s flat.

The manager of staff accommodation, Marco Swart, offered to go to Forest Hill and accompany him. De Monk said he understood Swart’s presence to mean that he would act as a witness while they tried to locate the academic. However, when he unlocked the security gate and front door, Swart declined to enter the flat and remained in the corridor.

De Monk said he found this strange because he had understood that Swart was there to accompany him.

He said that when he attempted to switch on the lights, Swart told him not to do so. So he used the torch on his cellphone to search the flat.

He walked through the kitchen, sitting room and bathroom, calling out the academic’s name, but received no response.

When he reached the bedroom, he found the door half-open and the room dark.

“By this stage I was worried. The bedroom door was half open and the room dark. I knocked on the door and called three or four times before I peeked in. I saw a body lying in a crouching position on the bed. My first reaction was that she might be dead, and in my mind I prayed for her to be all right,” he said.

He said the academic eventually made a sound and sat up. He remained in the doorway and introduced himself.

According to his affidavit, Mkhize told him that she had been ill with back pain throughout the week, had taken medication and left her cellphone charging in the sitting room.

Her account was also contained in her own affidavit, he said.

He offered to call an ambulance or take her to hospital but she declined, saying she was due to see her doctor the next day.

He asked her to contact her mother and gave her his contact details, promising to check on her the next morning.

De Monk said he secured the front door and gate before leaving with Swart, who had remained outside the flat.

He then sent Moshabela a WhatsApp message updating him on what had happened.

The next morning, he returned to check on Mkhize. She opened the door herself, appeared well and thanked him, saying she had spoken to her mother.

De Monk said he was subsequently contacted by lawyers from Fairbridges on March 2 this year and asked to explain what had happened at Forest Hill.

After initially declining to meet them because of work commitments, he said he privately approached Moshabela, who advised him to meet the lawyers and explain his version in good faith.

He eventually met the attorneys at the Protea Hotel in Mowbray on March 3.

He said they told him the meeting was confidential and part of a fact-finding exercise after they came across the incident in a report.

“I asked if anyone had complained and whether there was any charge against me, and the answer was no, it was a fact-finding. I told them what happened. The meeting lasted for two hours,” he said.

During the meeting, he was allegedly told that Swart had claimed he had removed a brown envelope from Mkhize’s flat.

De Monk denied taking any envelope and disputed Swart’s version that he had expressed discomfort about entering the flat.

He said investigators contacted him again in June and subsequently interviewed him at Fairbridges’ offices on June 10.

He claimed the questioning appeared aimed at discrediting him rather than establishing what had happened at Forest Hill.

This time, he said, investigators alleged that he had taken a white envelope from the flat.

He also disputed a statement attributed to the university ombud, which allegedly claimed that he had contacted her in February 2026, saying he feared for his job and had done something illegal.

A further alleged statement claimed that he had told the ombud that Moshabela instructed him to steal something from Mkhize’s flat and keep it.

He said he offered to produce his cellphone call logs to demonstrate that the alleged conversations had not taken place.

De Monk further claimed that investigators deleted a recording of the interview after realising that he was recording the proceedings on his cellphone. He asked why he was not allowed to retain a recording to protect himself.

He said investigators also told him that Mkhize had lodged a sexual harassment complaint against Moshabela and that there was a case against the vice-chancellor relating to the alleged unlawful entry into her flat.

He maintained that he had previously conducted welfare checks and understood the procedure to involve contacting residence facilities staff and visiting the person concerned together.

“Nothing was done in secret. Housing staff were involved, and their manager approved the master key and came to the flat with me,” he said.

He said he believed he had acted in the best interests of the academic and her family.

“I was raised to look after people and to respect them. If I had sat on that instruction and the academic had died, nobody would be asking about procedure. They would be asking why no one cared enough to go and check on her,” De Monk said.