Mark Oppenheimer, a prominent lawyer and defender of free speech, is facing expulsion from the University of Cape Town (UCT) Council. His sin? Raising the alarm about antisemitism at the university in a podcast interview. I am also facing suspension for supporting Mark.

Advocate Mark Oppenheimer and I are both members of the UCT Council, the highest governing body of the University.

Oppenheimer and I were duly elected in 2024 by UCT alumni, alongside Kelly Phelps, a former UCT legal academic, and Professor Emeritus Brian Kantor, an economist. We occupy four of the thirty seats on the Council, which is mid-way through its four-year term.

The remaining seats are held by the university executive, academics, donor representatives, support staff, students, as well as several political appointees (the Minister of Higher Education appoints five members, the Mayor of Cape Town and the Premier of the Western Cape appoint one representative each).

During a Special Meeting on Sunday 19 October, the Council adopted the findings of two retired judges who were appointed to investigate various complaints brought against certain members of the Council. These complaints were brought by both members and non-members of the Council.

Dozens of complaints were laid against Oppenheimer and two were laid against me.

Following a year-long investigation, one of the retired judges has recommended to the Council that Oppenheimer be expelled from the Council and that I be suspended. These developments speak to a worrying trend of intolerance for dissenting views at the University.

Background

In March 2025, Oppenheimer appeared as a guest on a podcast hosted by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a well-known author and public commentator. Hirsi Ali fled persecution in East Africa to seek asylum in Europe and later became a prominent critic of radical Islam. She is now based in the United States.

The interview covered a range of topics, including, inter alia, race relations in South Africa, the influence of the South African Communist Party (SACP) on domestic politics, the violent incitement of Julius Malema, load-shedding, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and the proliferation of race-based laws in the country.

The interview also dealt with antisemitism in South Africa and the growing influence of Islamism as a political ideology. The 49-minute episode and the full transcript are publicly available.

Antisemitism on Campus

During the interview, Oppenheimer noted several concerning incidents of antisemitic behaviour at UCT. He described how:

• •Jewish students holding posters of Israeli hostages were attacked by people wearing Hamas t-shirts and waving Hezbollah flags (both Islamist terrorist organisations);
• •A Jewish student performing the religious ritual of laying tefillin had his yarmulke grabbed from his head and thrown to the ground; and
• •Israeli flags were covered in red paint, and Jewish students had the words “We are Hamas” screamed in their faces.

Screenshots from an online video showing Anwar Adams, chairperson of UCT Palestine Solidarity Forum (PSF) celebrating Islamist terrorist groups following the adoption of the Gaza Resolutions, circa June 2024. You can see the video here.

In the interview, Oppenheimer explained that these incidents preceded the Council’s adoption of the so-called Gaza Resolutions by the University in June 2024, which effectively imposed an academic boycott on Israel.

Oppenheimer described what was happening as an “Islamist takeover of the university”. In doing so, he was referring to those who espouse the political ideology of Islamism, as opposed to adherents of the Islamic faith. 

As Oppenheimer later commented to the Daily Friend, “These events raised serious questions about the university’s willingness to protect Jewish students and uphold freedom of expression.”

Complaints

The interview triggered a volley of complaints to the Council – all similarly worded and dripping with hyperbole. The complainants variously accuse Oppenheimer of Islamophobia, racism, and even blasphemy.

The Council subsequently resolved to appoint retired Judges Malcolm Wallis and Mohammed Navsa to adjudicate the complaints. Judge Navsa was tasked with assessing 24 of these complaints against Oppenheimer.

In his written representations to Judge Navsa, Oppenheimer presented images, video, and testimonial evidence of the antisemitic incidents to substantiate the statements he made on the podcast.

Oppenheimer also clarified what he said and what he did not say during the interview: 

“I said in substance that UCT had adopted an academic boycott directed at Israeli academics; that Islamist elements had gained influence over the institution; that people seeking to take a reasonable position had been terrorised; and that academic freedom had been trampled. I then referred to serious antisemitic incidents associated with Israel Apartheid Week, including students openly identifying themselves with Hamas.”

Having now watched the interview twice, I can say that this is an entirely accurate depiction of what Oppenheimer said. Each of the points he raises above is true.

Oppenheimer denied that he had singled out specific individuals, as the complainants accused him of doing: 

“I did not say that every person who proposed, supported or voted for the Gaza resolutions was an Islamist. I did not name any complainant, any member of Senate, or any member of Council as an Islamist or terrorist. I did not say that Muslims as a group had captured UCT. I did not describe Islam as a race, nor did I attribute collective guilt to Muslims.”

He also addressed the deliberate misrepresentations of the complainants regarding the Gaza Resolutions:

“Nor did I say that Islamist elements had ‘terrorised Senate into voting’ for the resolutions. That formulation appears in several complaints, but it is not what I said. The word ‘terrorise’ referred to intimidation and antisemitic conduct in the campus environment. It was not a claim that Senate members had abandoned their consciences or cast votes under duress.”

“Hatchet Job on South Africa”

In his report to the Council, Judge Navsa disregarded much of Oppenheimer’s evidence and dismissed his concerns about antisemitism on campus:

“The attempt by Advocate Oppenheimer to explain that these four incidents are what motivated his statement that ‘Islamist elements had taken control of UCT’ must be seen for what it is – deflection. These were incidents that allegedly occurred at Israel Apartheid Week. They are not illustrations of anyone taking control of the University or of any of its constituent academic, management or governing bodies. In my view, the explanations proffered by Advocate Oppenheimer are exercises in sophistry (emphasis mine).”

Judge Navsa also took exception to Oppenheimer’s other political views expressed on the podcast and cynically accused him of:

“[contributing to] a right-wing narrative, including a mischaracterisation of South Africa’s transformation policies and crime statistics. The narrative is racist and undermines the credibility of South Africa and UCT.”

What does the pejorative “right-wing” refer to here? Is Judge Navsa saying that it is only leftists who are allowed to hold seats on the UCT Council? How is this a “racist narrative”?

Judge Navsa also revealed his own political leanings when he added:

“Simply put, this was a hatchet job on South Africa (emphasis mine), and Advocate Oppenheimer used the opportunity to also denigrate UCT’s institutions, contrary to his obligations as a Council member.”

Judge Navsa also noted that Oppenheimer had failed to issue the necessary disclaimer at the beginning of the episode. He concluded by recommending that Oppenheimer be expelled from the Council.

The incidents Oppenheimer referred to on the podcast were raised sincerely. Antisemitic actions on campus deserve closer scrutiny and investigation, especially given the prima facie evidence that is widely available. Instead of engaging these issues, the Council is now considering whether to sanction Oppenheimer for making his concerns public.

There is a clear double standard at UCT: invective against Zionism and targeted sanctions against Israel are acceptable political discourse, but criticism of Islamist political actors who openly identify with terrorist groups is Islamophobic and must be sanctioned.

This does a great disservice to the Jewish community at UCT – and the university as a whole.

Collateral Damage

My offense is that I reposted a complimentary post on the social media platform X.com by retired labour lawyer and mediator John Brand.

Brand praised Oppenheimer, stating that “it is good to see that there is at least one lawyer brave enough to speak out to the world”. Brand’s post included a link to the original Hirsi Ali interview (see screenshot below).

I agreed, which is why I clicked “repost”. I still agree. 

Of the 24 complaints brought against Oppenheimer, two were brought jointly against me and Oppenheimer by UCT academics (neither of whom sit on the Council). One complainant said that my repost makes me guilty of spreading “discrimination and misinformation with arrogant confidence” and:

“reflects a growing inflammatory, exclusionary, and authoritarian political trend. This creates a hostile environment for me, my fellow Muslim academics and other colleagues.”

Wow. Really?

Like Oppenheimer, I was given the opportunity to make written representations to Judge Navsa (Judge Wallis did not adjudicate any of the complaints against me).

In my representations, I explained that I had merely reposted John Brand’s post and had not made any further comment on the contents of the interview. I simply noted that by reposting Brand’s post that I had endorsed the sentiments expressed by him on the character of Mark Oppenheimer.

Nevertheless, Judge Navsa concluded that:

“In endorsing the offensive statements, (emphasis mine) Mr Ansara, like Advocate Oppenheimer, promoted his own views and prejudices to the detriment of UCT. He did not, as required by the Code, act in good faith, honestly, truthfully, and for proper purpose and did not preserve the dignity and respect of Council and respect and abide by its decisions.”

Judge Navsa went on to accuse me of expressing offensive views:

“Mr Ansara and Advocate Oppenheimer made common cause in their offensive views concerning UCT and members of Council, which they expounded employing social media. Mr Ansara’s present position is that the statements made were appropriate and deserving of support (emphasis mine). It is true that Mr Ansara did not personally make the statements, and that he reposted Mr Brand’s laudatory comments. He did, as set out above, persist in saying that he agreed with Advocate Oppenheimer’s views.”

As he did with Oppenheimer, Judge Navsa took me to task for not including the required disclaimer in my social media post.

Judge Navsa then recommended that I be suspended from the Council for a period of six months. Out of scores of complaints against various Council members, Oppenheimer and I are the only ones who have been identified as worthy of punishment. I believe the proposed sanctions are unduly disproportionate, and I am concerned that they appear to be justified on political grounds.

More Trouble

The attacks kept coming.

Last week, Yousuf Gabru, chairperson of UCT Alumni for Palestine, called on the UCT Council to suspend Adv. Oppenheimer and me following our participation in the White Cross Project in Washington DC in September. 

Note: Gabru’s letter was sent on 15 October, after Judge Navsa filed his report on the prior complaints.

Gabru intentionally misrepresents the White Cross Project in an attempt to discredit me and Oppenheimer. He accuses us of aligning “with a racist, right-wing, white supremacist movement” and, in a fit of pique, says:

“That movement, which includes antisemites, has promoted a racially charged and false narrative about our country. By joining it, they have undermined social cohesion and national sovereignty, engaged in potentially seditious behaviour, played into the racist agenda of a foreign power, and contributed to economic risks the cost of which would fall hardest on millions of South Africans, most of them poor and black.”

Lex Libertas responded by saying that Gabru’s letter was “malicious and defamatory”. It was also heartening to see many other organisations and individuals expressing their support.

Given the coordinated nature of these attacks, one can only conclude that organised groups representing interests external to the university are attempting to remove duly elected members of the Council on spurious grounds.

What Happens Next?

As far as I am aware, the subcommittee appointed by the Council has yet to meet to decide our fate. So far, neither Oppenheimer nor I have had an opportunity to make any representations to the subcommittee.

Oppenheimer has spent his career using his talents to defend those whose free-speech rights have been threatened or violated. It is out of concern for the preservation of freedom of expression that we relaunched the Free Speech Union of South Africa (FSU-SA) in May this year (Oppenheimer is the executive director, while I am a director). 

Oppenheimer has a thick skin, and is prepared to fight his corner, but his rights to free expression matter just as much as everyone else’s. I am therefore proud to stand by Mark’s side as he has done for so many others.

UCT has already endured a torrid decade. Its problems are well documented and are precisely the reason why Oppenheimer and I stood for the Council in the first place.

The UCT Council should think carefully about the further reputational damage it would incur should it decide to expel Mark Oppenheimer from its ranks. South Africa – and the world – is watching.

Ansara is CEO of the Free Market Foundation and a member of the UCT Council. He does not speak for the Council or the University.