A University of Johannesburg (UJ) PhD candidate, Norman Shoko, has been found guilty of plagiarism and expelled for three years after a lengthy disciplinary process that has left him in limbo for four years. Shoko, a theology student, was charged with academic dishonesty in September 2021 after his thesis was found to contain significant plagiarised material.
The case came to light when Shoko submitted his thesis to UJ’s Turnitin software, a tool used to detect plagiarism. The software flagged a similarity index of 45%, indicating that nearly half of his work matched other sources. According to the findings of the disciplinary committee, Shoko’s thesis contained numerous extracts from the works of other academics, including Professor Craffert, which were not properly cited.
MJ van As, the chairperson of the disciplinary committee, ruled that “large portions of the Thesis are no more than ‘cut and paste’ extracts from other academic works which address the central theme in the Thesis.” Van As further stated that Shoko’s failure to attribute these quotations to the correct authors constituted academic fraud, falling within the broader definition of plagiarism.
Shoko, however, has vehemently denied the allegations and has refused to accept the verdict without a fight. Through his lawyer, Advocate Ebenezer Iheanyi, he has petitioned the university’s manager for student ethics and judicial services, challenging both the findings and the harshness of the sanction.
In the petition, Iheanyi argues that the expulsion is unduly harsh, particularly given Shoko’s willingness to participate in educational programmes on academic integrity. “The sanction of expulsion appears unduly harsh, particularly given Mr Shoko’s willingness to participate in educational programmes on academic integrity. A more rehabilitative approach would be more appropriate,” Iheanyi stated.
Shoko’s legal team also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest during the disciplinary hearing. They claim that Van As, the chairperson, had a prior professional relationship with the external presenter, which was not adequately addressed. Additionally, they argue that Professor Craffert’s testimony should have been deemed inadmissible due to his prior exposure to the entire bundle of documents related to the case.
Shoko, a Zimbabwean national and UJ alumnus, completed his first degree in 2009, followed by honours and master’s degrees in 2010 and 2019, respectively. He registered for his PhD soon after and had hoped to pursue post-doctoral research opportunities. In April 2021, he approached the University of Pretoria to enquire about such opportunities and attached his draft thesis.
However, this move backfired when his supervisor at UJ discovered that the thesis had been published on the University of Pretoria’s website. Shoko explained, “I had hoped that the draft would help the University [of Pretoria] decide whether it would be a good fit in the area of research. I also sent the thesis to Unisa. Sometime later, my supervisor emailed me, wanting to establish if I had sent my thesis to the University of Pretoria as it was on their website.”
Shoko’s supervisor advised him to rework the thesis due to the high similarity index. According to Shoko, he made significant changes, including altering the diction and sentence structure, before resubmitting it. He maintained that he believed the initial high similarity index did not constitute “real plagiarism” since it reflected his own work.
Despite his efforts, the disciplinary committee found him guilty. Shoko applied for leave to appeal the finding and sanction but was only granted leave to appeal the sanction. He submitted 23 grounds for appeal, including the institution’s alleged failure to apply relevant plagiarism policies, consider his testimony, and address the accuracy of the plagiarism findings.
Van As dismissed these claims, stating that Shoko chose not to testify at his disciplinary inquiry and that there was no evidence to support his allegations of barred witnesses or excluded evidence. “These bald and unsubstantiated allegations do not constitute a ground of appeal,” Van As ruled.
The case has sparked debate about academic integrity and the handling of plagiarism allegations. Professor Mpine Makoe, a senior academic at Unisa, explained that while a similarity index of between 5% and 20% is generally acceptable, anything above 30% raises red flags. She also noted that Shoko’s decision to publish a paper based on his thesis before graduating further complicated matters.
“He wrote an article based on the work that he was doing at the University of Johannesburg and published it before he graduated. Now, the minute that work is published, it is no longer original for the University of Johannesburg as expected of a thesis,” Makoe said.
Shoko, however, believes he is being made a scapegoat for systemic failures within the university. “I believe I am being made a scapegoat so that the university avoids taking responsibility for its academic system failures. What frustrates me most is that the university refuses to issue a letter attesting to the fact that they have failed to conclude the matter so that I can take it to court,” he told City Press last year.
As the legal battle continues, Shoko’s case highlights the complexities of academic integrity, the challenges of navigating plagiarism allegations, and the need for transparent and fair disciplinary processes in higher education institutions.
For now, Shoko remains in Pretoria, determined to clear his name and fight for his academic future. The outcome of his petition could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, not only at UJ but across South Africa’s academic landscape.
