港大校委會爭議不斷，有傳政府有意冷處理事件，趁特首梁振英突然離港，計劃於元旦日委任李國章任港大校委會主席。外界盛傳李將於周四獲任命之際，《蘋果日報》今取得11月討論禁制令事宜會議的發言錄音。錄音之中，李國章批評偷錄者「非常熱衷於惹麻煩（very passionate about this to go to the trouble）」，令外界覺得校委會成員均為壞人（Bad Guy），同時批評港大學生會主席馮敬恩公開會議內容，指若馮不簽署保密條款，需禁止他參與討論任何保密議題。

＜11月12日會議，港大校委會討論禁制令事宜，李國章發言英文摘錄＞

You are very clear in what you have just told us. But I think there's only one side of it. Obviously there are some members of this council, member or members of this council, who is holding a very different view in terms of public accountability, public's right to know, freedom of the press and so on.

I would like, at this point, to challenge that whether who will do come out and try to convince us their positions. Because this is what council meeting is about --- discussion, alright? So if they have the courage to believe that what they have done is correct, I would like to challenge that person or persons to come out and say what I did that because I believe that and the reason I need you to believe.

So that it may convince some of us, to say, ‘Look, the injunction was wrong and maybe we shouldn’t have an injunction.'Other than just hearing one side, I'd like to say whoever it is who did the recording or know about the recording come out and defend, or at least have the courage to put their case to this council.

Yes Chairman this is exactly the point I try to refer it, it was that we just keep hearing from legal advisor telling us this is it or that. I haven’t heard an opposing view to that, alright?

And I think in a discussion, which is what the council should be, I would like to hear an opposing view. And obviously, some people who are very passionate about this to go to the trouble of secretly illicitly recording council proceeding--- probably right now! I would like to see… if they got the courage to come out and say ‘Yes I believe this is freedom of whatever!’ So I put the challenge to them.

Thank you Chairman. I think one of the…firstly I ought to state a conflict of interest that… I’d like to declare it first. I see it as two important issues. One I agree with the first thing that it is the reputation of the university that we believe in confidentiality to protect other people not so much ourselves.

But the second important issue I think is that we must have a better public relation, because, at the moment, it makes as if we're trying to keep confidential in order to hide something, that we have something that we should look out.So it is transparency.

Oh! These people are all bad guys that are hiding. And quite honestly, I have nothing to hide. I'm very happy to have everything I said including this meeting to be released to the public. But at the same time the whole emphasis is that we are hiding something, we are doing something underhand. And I think if we take the root that we are gonna uphold confidentiality we have to be very clear in our public relation that we're not doing it in order to hide something.

These people are all bad guys that are hiding. And quite honestly, I have nothing to hide. I'm very happy to have everything I said including this meeting to be released to the public.（這些人（校委會成員）在隱瞞事情，全是壞人。坦白說，我沒有事情要隱瞞，我樂把自己於會上發言公之於世。）

＜11月24日會議，校委會討論如何懲處港大學生會會長馮敬恩，李國章發言英文摘錄＞

I think the important thing is that, for the Vice-Chancellor has already said, is that he has breached confidentiality, full stop.

Now it is mitigation, whether you accept it or not, he believes in transparency and openness. And then, for he would make decision on every item, whether he would disclose confidentiality. In other words, for every item in the future, we will have to rely on his judgment to say, you know, this is openness and I am gonna disclose so and so or so and so said and so on.

I think this is a fundamental breach of collective responsibility which, according to our code, is paramount. We may disappoint you to certain decision, but if we disagree with certain decisions because of openness and transparency, we argue it out in this meeting; we don’t go outside of this meeting.

If you could not keep this, I cannot see how we could go back to any restricted or confidential items until he is prepared to say that he is going to lead part of the collective responsibility, unless he is going to sign the code of confidentiality. I cannot see how we can have a member here and we wasted an hour just arguing over this and each time, each meeting we would get arguing over this again and again.

So, lets be very clear to say that, yes, you have breached confidentiality. And now the question is: do we accept the fact that his reason is openness, transparency and public interest? We accept that, fine. We can take a vote on that and accept that. Then in that case there will be no more confidentiality in this council, alright? And this is a fundamental change of policy of this university.

If on the other hand we don’t accept his mitigation, then we will say, stop what we want and you are now excluded from all confidentiality. It is really as simple as that my chairman.