Students were expecting Saturday 3 October. On Friday 2, the CROUS Ziguinchor management told them that the reopening of the social campuses, in Ziguinchor and Kolda, would not take place on the date announced four days earlier. Two texts, both dated 2 October 2026, explain the decision. They deserve a close reading, because they are precise on some points and silent on others.

First text: statement no. 001081#

The first statement is brief. The management informs “all students and partners” that the conditions needed for the official reopening, initially planned for Saturday 3 October at dinner, “are not met”. It therefore decides to postpone the reopening until further notice, “to avoid any inconvenience to residents and to ensure they are welcomed in suitable conditions”.

The rest looks ahead: the new date will be the subject of a statement “as soon as possible”, and the management thanks students and partners for their understanding and cooperation.

What is missing is obvious: no explanation of the conditions that were not met. For students who had planned their return, the brevity of the text left room for questions.

Second text: clarification no. 001083#

The management therefore published a clarification the same day. It begins by acknowledging that it follows “feedback that deserves clarification”. The tone then becomes more precise.

“The postponement of the social campus opening is justified by many shortcomings that seriously hinder student well-being.”

One example is given. The operator of the main restaurant “says he is not in a position to open”, which could “negatively affect students’ living conditions given the low capacity of the Diabir restaurant, which is willing to provide its services”.

The text then gives the timeline: “administration being a continuity and an anticipation”, the new management held talks with partners “right after taking office on 2 October”. Those talks “revealed the availability of a single restaurant (Diabir)”. Hence the decision: to guarantee optimal living conditions for students, the postponement is “confirmed”.

What the text establishes#

• The decision was taken by the new management within hours of the 2 October handover.
• The reason given is catering: the operator of the main restaurant would not be in a position to open.
• The Diabir restaurant is presented as available, but with low capacity compared with the number of students to be served.
• Talks with partners continue, with the aim that “the situation returns to normal” and that the social campus works “for the benefit of the university community”.

What the text does not say#

The statement does not name the operator of the main restaurant, does not explain the nature of the obstacle, and gives neither the capacity of the Diabir restaurant nor the number of students concerned. Nor does it describe the “shortcomings” it mentions beyond catering. These are details the management had not published at the time of writing.

Things then moved quickly: the very next day, the director met the Student Coordination, and on 6 October a new date was set for 8 October. To place these two texts within the whole sequence, read our chronicle of the start of the year.