Address concerns with the lecturer's approach
The Issue
FORMAL STUDENT PETITION
URGENT INTERVENTION REGARDING COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT COURSE DELIVERY, ASSESSMENT STRUCTURE AND ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE
TO:
Ms Mirashini Royan, Senior Manager
Prof Charles Maimela, Executive Dean
Prof Sehaam Khan, Deputy Vice-Chancellor
DATE: 23 September 2026
SUBJECT: Formal Petition for Investigation into Course Delivery, Assessment Practices, Academic Governance Failures and Urgent Remedial Intervention
1. PREAMBLE
We, the undersigned postgraduate students enrolled in the Compliance Management programme, hereby submit this formal petition requesting urgent institutional intervention regarding concerns relating to the academic delivery, assessment practices, administrative management and governance of the module facilitated by Mr John Symington.
This petition does not arise from dissatisfaction with academic rigor. Rather, it concerns a sustained pattern of conduct and systemic shortcomings which, in our view have materially prejudiced students' ability to engage effectively with the module, prepare adequately for assessments and demonstrate academic competence under fair and reasonable conditions.
While we acknowledge that postgraduate studies require independent learning, critical thinking and personal accountability, these obligations do not relieve the institution or lecturer of the responsibility to provide teaching, assessment and student support consistent with accepted academic standards and procedural fairness.
The concerns raised herein have previously been communicated in good faith with the lecturer. Regrettably, no meaningful corrective action has materialised, necessitating intervention by university leadership.
2. COMPROMISED LECTURE STRUCTURE AND CONTENT DELIVERY
Recorded lectures demonstrate recurring difficulties in managing classroom engagement, resulting in substantial teaching time being consumed by repetitive discussions and unresolved questioning. Consequently, prescribed content is frequently rushed or inadequately covered.
Mr John Symington routinely permits extensive unstructured discussions that divert attention from the agenda of the day and scheduled learning outcomes, often resulting in lectures concluding before planned content has been addressed. Students are therefore deprived of the structured teaching expected within a lecturer-led postgraduate programme.
2.1 Inadequate Academic Guidance
Students have repeatedly raised substantive academic questions requiring clarification. In many instances, these questions remain unanswered or are revisited without meaningful resolution.
Attempts to raise concerns directly with the lecturer have often been met with high level unconstructive engagement.
2.2 Failure to Deliver Promised Academic Support [ videos]
Mr John Symington undertook to provide supplementary video content summarising the course for students without prior compliance experience as our scheduled sessions are not constructive due to the interruptions mentioned above. The videos have not been provided.
3. ABSENCE OF FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK
A fundamental component of postgraduate education is meaningful formative feedback that enables students to identify deficiencies and improve performance.
Students have submitted weekly assignments throughout the semester however, these submissions are unmarked depriving students of any objective indication of their academic progress or preparedness for formal assessments.
Where model answers have been provided, they frequently lack sufficient detail to assist students in understanding the expected standard or identifying areas requiring improvement.
Furthermore, requests for academic guidance are routinely met with the assertion that "there is no right answer." While postgraduate study requires analytical reasoning and independent interpretation, this does not negate the institution's obligation to provide adequate guidance regarding assessment expectations, marking standards and the threshold required for academic success.
4. ASSESSMENT IRREGULARITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FAILURES
The administration of the recent assessment cycle raises serious concerns regarding fairness, transparency, predictability and academic planning.
Students have experienced conflicting communications regarding assessment procedures, uncertainty concerning the use of Respondus software, abrupt changes to test arrangements and ambiguity regarding the assessment framework. These issues have created significant uncertainty for students attempting to balance academic commitments with full-time employment.
4.1 Legitimate Expectation of an Open-Book Assessment
Students enrolled in the module with the understanding that assessments would be conducted on an open-book basis.
Shortly before the scheduled test , students were informed that Respondus software would be implemented. The software effectively restricted access to study materials ordinarily required in an open-book assessment creating an inherently contradictory assessment environment.
This represented a significant departure from students' legitimate expectations and substantially altered the basis upon which many students had prepared.
4.2 Financial Prejudice
Several students considered incurring unforeseen costs of purchasing laptops solely to comply with the technical requirements of the Respondus App application due to work restrictions on company laptops.
Although some ultimately refrained from doing so following the postponement and subsequent abandonment of the Respondus App requirement, the uncertainty caused unnecessary financial anxiety and highlighted inadequate planning surrounding the assessment process.
4.3 Unreasonable Last-Minute Changes
Less than 48 hours before the scheduled assessment, the test was postponed.
Many students had already secured study leave, adjusted professional responsibilities, coordinated schedules with employers and made travel arrangements. The postponement caused unnecessary disruption and inconvenience and reflected a lack of planning and consideration for a postgraduate cohort comprised predominantly of working professionals.
4.4 Assessment Design, Unreasonable Time Allocations and Negative Marking
The test on 17 September 2026 required students to complete Part B consisting of scenario-based written questions within 45 minutes. The practicality of the time allocated for Part B is highly questionable for students to properly analyse the scenarios, formulate reasoned responses by making reference to appropriate authority and demonstrate understanding of the subject matter. The limited time provided effectively sets students up for failure, rather than allowing a fair and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and competence.
Students raised legitimate concerns regarding the practicality of completing the assessment within the prescribed timeframe. The issue is not whether students understand the content but whether the time allocation bears a rational relationship to the volume, complexity and standard of work required.
Equally concerning is the use of negative marking in respect of true-or-false questions, raising questions as to whether the purpose of the assessment is to evaluate knowledge and understanding or to penalise incorrect responses.
Part B requires students to analyse facts, apply compliance principles, refer to prescribed material, formulate reasoned responses and present answers at a postgraduate standard. The detailed model answers subsequently provided demonstrate the substantial level of analysis and academic engagement expected.
It is therefore difficult to reconcile the University's representation that the assessment was open book with a timeframe that effectively prevents meaningful consultation of prescribed materials, notes, or academic sources.
In practice, students are expected to produce responses of assignment-level quality within a period that scarcely permits adequate reading, comprehension and consideration of the questions. The assessment consequently risks becoming a measure of reading speed, typing speed and performance under extreme time pressure rather than a genuine assessment of academic competence, analytical ability, critical thinking and mastery of the prescribed material.
This concern is particularly significant because these assessments determine eligibility to sit for the final examination. Students therefore face the possibility of being denied admission to the final examination not due to a lack of academic competence but because of an assessment structure that imposes unreasonable and disproportionate timing constraints.
The issue is not academic ability or preparedness but rather the assessment structure itself. Serious consideration should therefore be given to whether the assessment design accords with principles of fairness, reasonableness and sound educational practice expected at postgraduate level.
5. REQUESTED OUTCOMES AND URGENT REMEDIAL ACTION
In light of the above, we formally request that the University to:
Institute an immediate and independent investigation into the concerns raised in this petition.
Review the conduct and administration of the module, including academic delivery, assessment design, communication processes and compliance with institutional teaching standards.
Review the current assessment framework including the time allocation for Part B and the suitability of the assessment methodology in relation to the stated open-book format
Implement interim measures to ensure that students are not academically prejudiced pending completion of the investigation.
5. Provide a formal written response setting out the institution's findings, proposed remedies and implementation timelines before the next test which is scheduled for 1 October 2026.
6. CONTINGENCY RECOURSE
Should the University fail to provide a substantive response and appropriate remedial measures within a reasonable timeframe, the undersigned students reserve all rights available to pursue further escalation through applicable institutional and external channels.
Given the significant academic, professional and financial prejudice suffered by students, such escalation may include seeking reimbursement of tuition fees and any other relief considered appropriate arising from the alleged deficiencies in academic delivery, assessment administration and module governance.
We trust that the University will treat this matter with the urgency, seriousness and impartiality that it warrants and we remain open to a meeting to ventilate these issues constructively.
STUDENT SIGNATURES
145
The Issue
FORMAL STUDENT PETITION
URGENT INTERVENTION REGARDING COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT COURSE DELIVERY, ASSESSMENT STRUCTURE AND ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE
TO:
Ms Mirashini Royan, Senior Manager
Prof Charles Maimela, Executive Dean
Prof Sehaam Khan, Deputy Vice-Chancellor
DATE: 23 September 2026
SUBJECT: Formal Petition for Investigation into Course Delivery, Assessment Practices, Academic Governance Failures and Urgent Remedial Intervention
1. PREAMBLE
We, the undersigned postgraduate students enrolled in the Compliance Management programme, hereby submit this formal petition requesting urgent institutional intervention regarding concerns relating to the academic delivery, assessment practices, administrative management and governance of the module facilitated by Mr John Symington.
This petition does not arise from dissatisfaction with academic rigor. Rather, it concerns a sustained pattern of conduct and systemic shortcomings which, in our view have materially prejudiced students' ability to engage effectively with the module, prepare adequately for assessments and demonstrate academic competence under fair and reasonable conditions.
While we acknowledge that postgraduate studies require independent learning, critical thinking and personal accountability, these obligations do not relieve the institution or lecturer of the responsibility to provide teaching, assessment and student support consistent with accepted academic standards and procedural fairness.
The concerns raised herein have previously been communicated in good faith with the lecturer. Regrettably, no meaningful corrective action has materialised, necessitating intervention by university leadership.
2. COMPROMISED LECTURE STRUCTURE AND CONTENT DELIVERY
Recorded lectures demonstrate recurring difficulties in managing classroom engagement, resulting in substantial teaching time being consumed by repetitive discussions and unresolved questioning. Consequently, prescribed content is frequently rushed or inadequately covered.
Mr John Symington routinely permits extensive unstructured discussions that divert attention from the agenda of the day and scheduled learning outcomes, often resulting in lectures concluding before planned content has been addressed. Students are therefore deprived of the structured teaching expected within a lecturer-led postgraduate programme.
2.1 Inadequate Academic Guidance
Students have repeatedly raised substantive academic questions requiring clarification. In many instances, these questions remain unanswered or are revisited without meaningful resolution.
Attempts to raise concerns directly with the lecturer have often been met with high level unconstructive engagement.
2.2 Failure to Deliver Promised Academic Support [ videos]
Mr John Symington undertook to provide supplementary video content summarising the course for students without prior compliance experience as our scheduled sessions are not constructive due to the interruptions mentioned above. The videos have not been provided.
3. ABSENCE OF FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK
A fundamental component of postgraduate education is meaningful formative feedback that enables students to identify deficiencies and improve performance.
Students have submitted weekly assignments throughout the semester however, these submissions are unmarked depriving students of any objective indication of their academic progress or preparedness for formal assessments.
Where model answers have been provided, they frequently lack sufficient detail to assist students in understanding the expected standard or identifying areas requiring improvement.
Furthermore, requests for academic guidance are routinely met with the assertion that "there is no right answer." While postgraduate study requires analytical reasoning and independent interpretation, this does not negate the institution's obligation to provide adequate guidance regarding assessment expectations, marking standards and the threshold required for academic success.
4. ASSESSMENT IRREGULARITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FAILURES
The administration of the recent assessment cycle raises serious concerns regarding fairness, transparency, predictability and academic planning.
Students have experienced conflicting communications regarding assessment procedures, uncertainty concerning the use of Respondus software, abrupt changes to test arrangements and ambiguity regarding the assessment framework. These issues have created significant uncertainty for students attempting to balance academic commitments with full-time employment.
4.1 Legitimate Expectation of an Open-Book Assessment
Students enrolled in the module with the understanding that assessments would be conducted on an open-book basis.
Shortly before the scheduled test , students were informed that Respondus software would be implemented. The software effectively restricted access to study materials ordinarily required in an open-book assessment creating an inherently contradictory assessment environment.
This represented a significant departure from students' legitimate expectations and substantially altered the basis upon which many students had prepared.
4.2 Financial Prejudice
Several students considered incurring unforeseen costs of purchasing laptops solely to comply with the technical requirements of the Respondus App application due to work restrictions on company laptops.
Although some ultimately refrained from doing so following the postponement and subsequent abandonment of the Respondus App requirement, the uncertainty caused unnecessary financial anxiety and highlighted inadequate planning surrounding the assessment process.
4.3 Unreasonable Last-Minute Changes
Less than 48 hours before the scheduled assessment, the test was postponed.
Many students had already secured study leave, adjusted professional responsibilities, coordinated schedules with employers and made travel arrangements. The postponement caused unnecessary disruption and inconvenience and reflected a lack of planning and consideration for a postgraduate cohort comprised predominantly of working professionals.
4.4 Assessment Design, Unreasonable Time Allocations and Negative Marking
The test on 17 September 2026 required students to complete Part B consisting of scenario-based written questions within 45 minutes. The practicality of the time allocated for Part B is highly questionable for students to properly analyse the scenarios, formulate reasoned responses by making reference to appropriate authority and demonstrate understanding of the subject matter. The limited time provided effectively sets students up for failure, rather than allowing a fair and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and competence.
Students raised legitimate concerns regarding the practicality of completing the assessment within the prescribed timeframe. The issue is not whether students understand the content but whether the time allocation bears a rational relationship to the volume, complexity and standard of work required.
Equally concerning is the use of negative marking in respect of true-or-false questions, raising questions as to whether the purpose of the assessment is to evaluate knowledge and understanding or to penalise incorrect responses.
Part B requires students to analyse facts, apply compliance principles, refer to prescribed material, formulate reasoned responses and present answers at a postgraduate standard. The detailed model answers subsequently provided demonstrate the substantial level of analysis and academic engagement expected.
It is therefore difficult to reconcile the University's representation that the assessment was open book with a timeframe that effectively prevents meaningful consultation of prescribed materials, notes, or academic sources.
In practice, students are expected to produce responses of assignment-level quality within a period that scarcely permits adequate reading, comprehension and consideration of the questions. The assessment consequently risks becoming a measure of reading speed, typing speed and performance under extreme time pressure rather than a genuine assessment of academic competence, analytical ability, critical thinking and mastery of the prescribed material.
This concern is particularly significant because these assessments determine eligibility to sit for the final examination. Students therefore face the possibility of being denied admission to the final examination not due to a lack of academic competence but because of an assessment structure that imposes unreasonable and disproportionate timing constraints.
The issue is not academic ability or preparedness but rather the assessment structure itself. Serious consideration should therefore be given to whether the assessment design accords with principles of fairness, reasonableness and sound educational practice expected at postgraduate level.
5. REQUESTED OUTCOMES AND URGENT REMEDIAL ACTION
In light of the above, we formally request that the University to:
Institute an immediate and independent investigation into the concerns raised in this petition.
Review the conduct and administration of the module, including academic delivery, assessment design, communication processes and compliance with institutional teaching standards.
Review the current assessment framework including the time allocation for Part B and the suitability of the assessment methodology in relation to the stated open-book format
Implement interim measures to ensure that students are not academically prejudiced pending completion of the investigation.
5. Provide a formal written response setting out the institution's findings, proposed remedies and implementation timelines before the next test which is scheduled for 1 October 2026.
6. CONTINGENCY RECOURSE
Should the University fail to provide a substantive response and appropriate remedial measures within a reasonable timeframe, the undersigned students reserve all rights available to pursue further escalation through applicable institutional and external channels.
Given the significant academic, professional and financial prejudice suffered by students, such escalation may include seeking reimbursement of tuition fees and any other relief considered appropriate arising from the alleged deficiencies in academic delivery, assessment administration and module governance.
We trust that the University will treat this matter with the urgency, seriousness and impartiality that it warrants and we remain open to a meeting to ventilate these issues constructively.
STUDENT SIGNATURES
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 23 September 2026