In this empirical article, we argue that, while emergency remote teaching (ERT) may have achieved its goal of saving the academic years during the COVID-19 pandemic, it also constructed unintended pedagogical consequences that were possibly overlooked at the time of advocating it. The research question that the article attempted to answer is, what unintended pedagogical consequences did students and lecturers suffer because of the move to ERT at rural-based universities (RBUs) in South Africa? Drawing on students' and lecturers’ lived experiences of ERT, this article foregrounds unintended pedagogical consequences that arose at one RBU in South Africa during the transition from face-to-face teaching to ERT. Underpinned by the tenets of critical realism philosophy, as well as student integration theory, in-depth interviews with three lecturers and six students were conducted. The findings of the study indicate that home conditions, individual characteristics, pre-COVID-19 blended learning experiences, university training and support, and teaching, learning, and assessment practices and policies altogether contributed to the construction of unintended pedagogical consequences of ERT presented in this article. These consequences include (1) exclusion of low-income students in active teaching and learning, (2) equipping middle-class students with better chances of success than working-class students. (3) distressing female students and lecturers more than their male counterparts, and (4) unproductive assessment practices. This study may be beneficial to academics and policymakers from similar contexts in their plight to continue with remote teaching and assessment (RTA) beyond the pandemic.