MBABANE — A disputed proposal to use E10 million in government subvention funds to buy a farm has become a central issue in a High Court battle over who should investigate the Eswatini Medical Christian University — and whether the investigation itself can command public confidence.
The allegation is contained in a replying affidavit filed by the EMCU Council in proceedings challenging a government-appointed committee established to investigate governance and financial concerns at the university. According to the council, Mbuso Simelane, who has since been appointed to chair the investigative committee, previously headed the EMCU Foundation when the proposed farm transaction arose.
The council alleges that approximately E10 million originating from government subventions to the university was proposed for the acquisition of the property. It further says the transaction was stopped before the money was spent.
While the allegations have not been tested or upheld by the High Court, the case raises a broader question: whether someone previously connected to a disputed financial proposal involving EMCU should later chair an investigation into the institution.
The money trail
At the centre of the dispute is not simply the proposed farm purchase, but the source, intended use and governance of the E10 million.
According to the EMCU Council's affidavit, the money in question originated from government subventions to the university and was later proposed for use in acquiring a farm through the EMCU Foundation. The council says the proposal was stopped before any funds were transferred. If correct, that account raises an immediate public-finance question: was money appropriated to support the university being considered for a purpose that fell outside the conditions attached to the government subvention?
The key records would include the government's funding agreements with EMCU, correspondence relating to the proposed farm purchase, council and foundation minutes, any property valuation or offer to purchase, internal approval memoranda, and documents identifying the proposed source of the E10 million.
Those records should establish who initiated the transaction, how the purchase was justified, who would have owned or controlled the property, which governance structures considered the proposal and whether government approval was required before subvention funds could be committed.
The relationship between EMCU and the EMCU Foundation is also critical. If the foundation was established primarily to raise additional resources for the university, the question becomes whether it had any authority to direct or commit money already provided by government to EMCU. It would also be necessary to establish whether university funds and foundation funds were maintained separately and what controls governed transfers or transactions between the two entities.
The council's claim that it stopped the proposed purchase is significant, but it does not end the inquiry. If the E10 million proposal progressed far enough to require council intervention, there should be a record of how it originated, who supported it and what approvals had already been sought or obtained.
That matters because effective financial control is not measured only by whether public money ultimately disappears. It is also measured by whether institutions can detect and stop expenditure that may fall outside approved purposes before funds are committed. Conversely, if the proposed farm purchase was properly authorised, consistent with the conditions attached to the subvention and intended to advance EMCU's institutional objectives, the allegation of an attempted diversion would require much closer examination.
The issue therefore cannot be settled by competing characterisations of the transaction. The decisive evidence lies in the funding conditions, the approval trail and the financial records.
Until those documents are tested, the central accountability question remains straightforward: what was the E10 million allocated for, who sought to redirect it towards the farm purchase, and under what authority?
Inquiry chairman drawn into the controversy
The dispute has become more sensitive because Simelane is now positioned on the other side of the accountability process. He has been appointed to chair the government committee investigating EMCU. The council is using his previous association with the EMCU Foundation as part of its argument that the committee's independence is compromised. Its contention is essentially that an investigation into EMCU cannot be seen as fully independent if the person leading it was previously involved in structures whose own decisions may become relevant to the inquiry.
That argument does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing by Simelane. Nor does previous involvement with EMCU automatically disqualify anyone from participating in a later investigation. The issue is whether the nature of that involvement creates a reasonable concern that the investigator may be required to examine events, decisions or people with which he previously had a material connection. That is particularly important where financial transactions involving government money are part of the institutional history now under scrutiny.
High Court freezes the investigation
The dispute has already moved beyond political argument. The High Court has restrained the government-appointed committee from proceeding while EMCU's challenge to its establishment and composition is determined. That order should not be confused with a finding that the university is innocent of the allegations it faces. It is equally not a finding that the committee members acted improperly. The court intervention instead shifts immediate attention to the legality and integrity of the investigative process itself.
Before the committee can interrogate EMCU's governance, the court is being asked to decide whether the committee was lawfully constituted and whether concerns raised about its membership are serious enough to undermine confidence in its work. For government, that creates an awkward accountability problem. The administration established the committee because it considered the situation at EMCU serious enough to warrant further investigation. It now faces a legal challenge arguing that the body it appointed to conduct that investigation may itself be compromised by prior relationships with the institution.
Multiple watchdogs, one institution
The dispute is complicated further by the fact that EMCU is not operating outside scrutiny. The university has already faced attention from institutions including Parliament, the Auditor General and the Anti-Corruption Commission over allegations concerning governance, financial management and administration. That raises a further question about the purpose of the additional government committee. Was it intended to fill gaps left by existing investigations? Was it meant to consolidate them? Or has government created another layer of inquiry over matters already being examined by statutory oversight bodies?
EMCU has argued that the new investigation risks duplication. Government, on the other hand, has maintained that serious and longstanding governance concerns justified intervention and that Cabinet approved the process. Both positions deserve scrutiny. Duplication can waste public resources and create competing findings.
But the existence of one investigation cannot automatically be used to prevent another where legitimate questions remain unanswered. The real test is whether each investigative body has a clear legal mandate, access to evidence, independence from interested parties and the authority to act on what it finds.
The university cannot escape scrutiny either
The legal challenge against the committee should not obscure the allegations surrounding EMCU itself. A successful challenge to the composition of an investigative committee would not resolve concerns over university governance. Nor would questions about the inquiry chairman answer questions about the university's own stewardship of public money. EMCU's receipt of government subventions means taxpayers have a direct interest in how those funds are controlled.
The most important accountability questions therefore extend far beyond the disputed farm proposal. How much government funding has EMCU received over recent years? How was that money allocated? What expenditure conditions accompanied the subventions? Were those conditions consistently enforced? What role did the council play in approving major transactions? What authority did the foundation have over university resources? And were there sufficiently clear lines separating government funding, university finances and foundation activities?
Those are questions that should be answered through financial records, council minutes, funding agreements, bank statements and audit findings — not through competing allegations alone.
Follow the documents
The E10 million allegation is significant because it is made under oath. But an affidavit is evidence presented by one side in litigation. It is not the same thing as a judicial finding. The strength of the allegation will ultimately depend on the documentary trail behind it.
There should be records showing whether the farm was identified, how its value was determined, who proposed the purchase, what source of funding was discussed, which meetings considered the transaction and why the proposal was eventually stopped. If such records support the council's version, they could become important evidence in assessing both the proposed transaction and the alleged conflict surrounding the inquiry. If they do not, the allegation itself will require much closer scrutiny.
The same evidentiary standard should apply to the allegations against EMCU. Public accountability cannot depend on which side produces the most dramatic accusation. It must depend on records capable of being independently tested.
A test for government
The case now places government in a particularly difficult position. It has an obligation to ensure that public money given to institutions such as EMCU is properly spent. It also has an obligation to ensure that any investigation it establishes is credible, independent and procedurally fair. Those obligations are not in conflict. In fact, one depends on the other. A weak or conflicted investigation risks allowing genuine wrongdoing to escape scrutiny because its findings may later be challenged. An unnecessarily politicised inquiry can also damage public confidence even where legitimate concerns exist.
If the government believes the allegations surrounding EMCU are serious, it has every reason to ensure that the people investigating them are beyond reasonable questions about conflicting interests.
Accountability must cut both ways
The EMCU dispute has therefore become about more than a university and more than one alleged E10 million transaction. It is now testing the country's wider accountability architecture.
The university must account for the public funds it has received. Its governing council must account for decisions made under its authority. The foundation's role and access to university resources require clarity.
Government must explain the mandate and composition of the committee it appointed. And investigators must themselves be capable of withstanding the same scrutiny they intend to apply to others.
The High Court proceedings may eventually determine whether the current committee can continue. They will not, however, answer every question raised by the E10 million allegation. That will require following the money, the approvals and the documentary record.
Until then, the central fact remains narrower than the political controversy surrounding it: the EMCU Council has alleged in a sworn High Court affidavit that government subvention funds amounting to about E10 million were proposed for a farm purchase, that the transaction was stopped, and that the previous involvement of the man now appointed to lead the EMCU investigation raises a conflict-of-interest concern.
Whether those allegations withstand scrutiny is now part of the accountability test facing both EMCU and government.