Dear Editor,
Against the advice of many, I am penning this response to Cox’s latest letter “Mr Alexander peddling half-truths”. I am doing so to ensure that Cox does not half my truths.
He seems to be clinging to some letter from the Loan Agency that stated that he had up to 2006 to clear his indebtedness. He further contends that I have to ‘reconcile with that fact.’ I don’t know who Cox is attempting to blindfold by selective disclosure. At the end of his first year, 2001, he had not fulfilled his obligation to repay his loan on a monthly basis.

He was therefore denied loans in 2002 and 2003. The registration forms to which he refers were an initiation of the registration process and were never signed off by the University because he had not fulfilled the final requirement for registration, i.e payment of fees. He was refused loans in 2001 and 2002. Let him produce those forms to a third party, in my presence, and I will expose his fallacy. In fact, he can produce all of his documents and let’s determine the truth, as opposed to the legalese, in the public court. He proposed this approach. I am prepared to facilitate such an encounter if your media house or anyone else is prepared to be the arbiter. He was not registered.

His massive further halving of the truth is that in 2003 monies sent to the University by the Loan Agency were not applied to his name. Any money sent by the Loan Agency is on the basis of a loan agreement, a copy of which is provided to the student after he or she would have been awarded a loan. In 2003, Cox was not awarded a loan. He cannot produce such a document. Had he been awarded one, there would have been no need for the facility that was offered to him. He would have simply provided that document and completed his registration. I repeat,there was no hiccup in 2003. Cox’ s contention is contrived. Mr Rheka and his letter entered the picture long after 2003, by which time the University had closed the case.

Imagine, Cox did not complete his registration and is now hanging his argument on some contention that he was never written to and that he had never withdrawn or been expelled. How can someone withdraw or be expelled when he or she is not on the record as a student?
All along the issue of being wronged was about the University not releasing ‘his grades’. Now it is about some application in 2004. I have no knowledge of that matter. No Registrar routinely deals with such matters and incidentally,I was not Registrar as he claims, in 2003. I became Registrar in 2009.

May it also be recorded that I never initiated public correspondence on this matter. I have been a respondent to Cox’s and his ilks’ exposés in the press. May it also be recorded that I never apologised and have no reason to apologise to Cox. On that matter I am prepared to face him in court. Here after I will desist from responding to Cox and company since I have agreed to public arbitration as Cox proposed.

Regards
Vincent Alexander