Disclaimer: For international donors, please remember $1 USD = R16.53. Donations are required to be sent with amounts typed in rands, and not in the dollar amount. For example if you intend to donate $1000, you will have to enter and send an amount already multiplied by 16.53 in order for the receipant to receive the value of your donation in Rands (South African currency). Donors are encouraged to be carefully aware of this

In 2022, while participating for elections of president of the Student Representative Council in Rhodes University, South Africa. Arthur Vamva's facebook messenger texts and posts that he made before he ran for the presidential elections of student leadership, were leaked. He expressed on these chats and posts that homosexuality is a sin according to the book of Leviticus 18:22 and that transgenderism is a mental sickness.

LGBTQ activists initiated a petition against him and over 1000 signtuares were made, pressuring him to withdraw from the elections and some made death threats against him.

Following these events, the university initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, alleging that his expressed beliefs constituted hate speech against the LGBTQ community. As a result, he faced an expulsion from the university.

Senior university leadership including the vice chancellor testified against him in his disciplinary hearing and stated that his views were “dangerous” and that he should be compelled to “unlearn” them. This raises serious concerns about whether students are still free to hold and express lawful and religious views within academic institutions.

This campaign is not about targeting or harming any group. It is about whether freedom of thought, belief, and expression still have a place in higher education, even when those beliefs are unpopular.

In August 2023, Arthur Vamva took Rhodes University to court to reverse his expulsion and his case has dragged eversince. He is seeking financial assistance to fight against the university right throughout. Your support will help ensure that academic institutions remain places of open inquiry—not ideological enforcement.

This case has implications far beyond one student. It speaks to the future of intellectual diversity, conscience rights, and free expression.

The money raised will go towards supplementing his legal costs and prepare for any appeals in the Supreme Court of Appeals and in the highest court of South Africa, known as the "Constitutional Court", should there be any appeals in the event of Rhodes winning in the current high court or either when Rhodes would lose should they decide to make an appeal against Arthur Vamva. The case is about changing precedent, it would be expected for the university to appeal a favourable court verdict for Arthur Vamva more particularly when one considers the nature of the university taking up on appeals in many past cases it has lost before.

The money raised will also be reserved for launching lawsuit proceedings against the institution when Arthur Vamva wins the current review application against the university. Arthur Vamva would sue the university for violation of freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religious rights and freedom of access to education, and would also sue the 3 advocates who presided over his hearing for biasness, including the 2 members of the prosecution for unlawful and biased prosecution, including suing the university vice chancellor for politically influencing the prosecution and expulsion of Arthur Vamva and would also sue for emotional distress, reputational damage and potential loss of income. All this would require a lot of money to pursue

Please click on the links below to see articles written about Arthur Vamva:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/christian-student-expelled-from-south-african-university-for-opposing-lgbt-ideology/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/grocotts.ru.ac.za/2022/08/25/rhodes-university-condemns-hate-speech/%3famp=1

https://www.google.com/amp/s/grocotts.ru.ac.za/2022/08/03/students-protest-hate-speech-of-src-presidential-candidate/%3famp=1

A petition signed against Arthur Vamva by LGBTQ activists:

https://www.change.org/p/removal-of-arthur-vamva-as-src-presidential-candidiate?source_location=topics_page

God bless all for their gratitude and generosity.

Legal aspects of the case:

• Arthur Vamva has argued in his court papers that since his hearing was initiated from complaints that alleged him for spewing hate speech during his presidential election campaign for student leadership in 2022, the prosecution in his hearing presented no evidence to prove that he spewed hate speech during the elections. The evidence complained about predates the timeline of the presidential elections even though the university prosecuted him for propagating hate speech during the student leadership elections. It is believed that the university acted unlawfully and crossed the scope of the complaints by leading evidence whose timeline is not rationally connected to the timeline alleged by the complaints. The university contends that it is not limited by any scope and that it has the power to prosecute anyway, no matter when an incident occurred or irrespective of whether a complaint has been lodged. Vamva argues on this regard, that the university's argument is misconceived and is of belated reasons and that the university's argument was rejected by the Supreme Court of Appeals for in fact the principle of limiting the scope of the complaints is a necessary control of public power to protect victims from abuses of authority.

• Vamva also argues that while the prosecution used evidence outside its mandate, the board made a vague, contradictory and confusing ruling riddled with errors- finding him guilty and not guilty of hate speech at the same time. Proving the findings against him to be of a material error of fact. 

• To prove hate speech, the board ignored using the mandatory legal test that was prescribed by the South African constitutional court in judgements for cases such as the Qwelane vs Human Rights Commission to prove hate speech. The disciplinary board merely mentioned and paid lip service to the case of Qwelane Vs Human rights Commission and they did not engage with the case law. They simply compared Arthur Vamva to the case which has different facts were Qwelane reffered to homosexuals as animals whereas Vamva simply exercised his religious rights to comment about what the Bible says about homosexuality. Hence the argument is that the board ignored the use of the legal criteria prescribed by the constitutional court in that case in order to prove hate speech legally and objectively. The boards disregard of the legal criteria stands to be declared as a material error of law. 

• In addition to this, in the above-mentioned case law of Qwelane Vs Human rights Commission that the board referenced and relied on to expel Arthur Vamva, Qwelane who was found guilty of hate speech for calling homosexuals animals was only ordered by the constitutional court of South Africa to make an apology within 30 days of the court ruling, whereas Arthur Vamva who only stated according to his religion that homosexuality is a sin was expelled, making this punishment odd and unreasonably harsh. Vamva got an expulsion that entirely ended his academic career- reflecting the unreasonable harshness of the expulsion that in which brought adverse circumstances of preventing him from pursuing his studies.

• And in reaching a sanction for expulsion, the board applied an irrelevant labour law principle of legality that is only applicable in cases were an accused has committed treachery and dishonesty, but according to the record, Arthur Vamva was accused and expelled for hate speech and not treachery and dishonesty at all. This flaw would mean that the board committed a material error of law, subject for the expulsion against Arthur Vamva to be found unconstitutional. It is argued that even if the principle was permissible in its own use, the principle still required the board to discipline Arthur Vamva progressively by considering his disciplinary record and resort to give him a far more lessor sanction since it was his first time to commit a disciplinary transgression in his whole 4 year tenure in the university. This measure has been considered and practised in many similar cases that took place in the university before but Rhodes University ignored considering these preliminary measures in Arthur Vamva's case, raising questions as to why his case was treated with exclusivity.

• Arthur Vamva's case is also about matters of constitutionality with regards to inquiring about the university's laws, making his case to be a consequential case. He argues that Rule 4.18 (c) of the student disciplinary code that he was found guilty for contravening is in conflict with the constitution of South Africa and that the code should be found unconstitutional for limiting free speech. 

• Arthur Vamva was expelled in his final year towards obtaining his Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology and Industrial and Economic Sociology and as a result his academic transcript is endorsed together with his academic credits are withheld meaning he can't transfer or rather study anywhere else.

• Arthur Vamva has also been banned from entering into the university's premises. He couldn't witness his little sister enrolling in the university for her first year as she wanted her big brother to walk her through her dormitory and the corridors of the university for the first time. This expulsion has had an emotional and psychological toll on Arthur Vamva and his family.

We pray that may you stand with Arthur Vamva and assist him to fight off this heinous expulsion that in which according to the law is unjust.

God bless all for their gratitude and generosity.