At the Congress, the Chairman of the Constitution Review Committee of the Students’ Representative Council (SRC) was called upon to inform congressmen of the amendments to the Students’ Union Constitution, particularly Article XVI (Elections), Article V (Students’ Representative Council), Article IV (The Executives Committee of the Union) and VI (Accountability of Union Officials). Congressmen were equally allowed to critique the amendments.
The most controversial of the amendments was the new provision in section 5, Article XVI which provides that: “candidates for the post of President, Speaker or General Secretary of the Union shall neither be in their first year, second year nor final year.” The reason given by the Chairman of the Review Committee for this new provision was that the admission policy of the university allows the admission of students aged 16 to be admitted, and thus students in their second year are mostly aged 17 years, which is less than the age of majority. Several congressmen contended whether age had become a criterion for determining capability of leadership and then called upon the Student Union to jettison such provision.
It was equally tabled, undisputedly, before the Congress that the newly amended Constitution in Section 7, Article XVI provides that; “E-voting may be considered in Union election if justice will be done using it” while Section 5, Article XVI provides that; “Candidates governed by CGPA of 7.0 shall have minimum CGPA of 3.5 or equivalent for candidates governed by 4.0. In all no reference shall be admissible in case of students of medicine and dentistry.”
It was also mentioned that by virtue of Section 9, Article XVI, “First year students shall not have voting rights in Union’s elections.” The Students’ Representatives Council argued that the law was made because most first year students are new to the system and thus may be easily manipulated to vote for wrong candidates.