Of Manifesto Reviews and Excos’ Clapbacks

Two publications ago, the press commenced a manifesto review series, where the manifesto plans of executive council members were recalled and reviewed to determine the progress and feasibility of implementation. Last week, the manifestoes of the Hall Secretary and Sports Minister were reviewed.

Also, the office of the Attorney General was probed with regards to the fulfilment of his constitutional duties. More than the issues raised in the articles, the reactions from the offices of the Hall Secretary and Attorney General were not just attempts at exculpation but a challenge on the credibility of the press. It is therefore pertinent to address the points of controversy.

It is a no brainer to restate the mission of the press, but to clear any misconception, the aim of the press is not to antagonize student leaders, or other authorities. The press is an outlet for objective analysis of prevalent issues, information dissemination and a watchdog on the arms of government. This is why it is dubbed the fourth estate.

It is within the ambits of these roles that the press commenced a review of the manifestoes of the executive council members. Certainly, it is not reasonably expected that the highlighted plans in the manifestoes would have been completely executed. Therefore, the aim of the review at this time serves as a reminder to the excos of their expressed plans during the elections, bring to the public’s mind the plans of their elected representatives, and assess the level of implementation.

With respect to the article on the Hall Secretary titled, “A Steady Watchdog: Fadaca’s Hall Secretariat”, the point of controversy borders on the assertion in the article that the Hall Secretary is yet to fulfil any of his plans. It is admitted that given the fact that the Hall Secretary had promised to orientate freshers on academics, which was fulfilled during the freshers’ orientation programme, the assertion was made in error. However, with respect to other plans, it is factually incontrovertible to aver that none has been fulfilled.

Although in his reply, the Hall Secretary had stressed that the article failed to take cognizance of the effect of the delay in budget approval on the organization of tutorials, it is important to bear in mind two things. First, the delay in budget approval is an issue that lies between the legislative and executive council. Keeping in mind the importance of early tutorials for freshers, the circumstances that culminated in the delay of budget approval could have been better managed.

Secondly, it is important to note the difference between the time of budget approval, the time the article was published and the time the tutorials started. On the 6th of November, the executive council’s budget was approved while the article in question was published on the 6th of December, a difference of 29 days. Also, the tutorials started on the 10th of December, a further difference of 33 days. Granted, budgets were approved late, but a 33-day lapse from then till when the tutorials were organized says less about implementation. And if there would be another rebuttal from the Hall Secretary’s office contending that some logistics delayed early tutorials since the approval of budgets, then perhaps it can be inferred that little has gone into preparation in the weeks leading to budget approval.

Furthermore, with the rejoinder from the AG’s office in response to another article titled, “The Mr. Otumala-run AG Office, and the Zik Hall Judicial Council: A Panorama of Questions, Questions and More Questions”, the controversy heightens. The AG’s 2-page rebuttal to the article can be summarized in two points; one, that the time that has lapsed for the AG to perform his constitutional duty was wrongly referenced, and two, that the article implied that the AG is responsible for the constitution of the Judicial Council.

Truly, the article indicated that ten months after the AG’s appointment his office has been largely ineffective. But is this factually wrong in showing the time span between the AG’s statement in February and current events now in December? In all honesty, the reference to 10 months or 8 months in the article seems to infer too much, since every organ was expected to be inactive given the prevalent ASUU strike. However, with the intention to constitute an effective ethics and litigation committee as constitutionally required, wouldn’t it have been wise that through the 10 or 8 months period the AG had commenced a preliminary selection process probably by reaching out to prospects, after all the ‘stringency’ of the process is time demanding? But then, who is the Press to point out such things?

On the issue of constituting the Judicial Council and the AG’s revival plan, the AG’s rebuttal is as pointless as it rather raises more questions. Didn’t the article explicitly quote a constitutional provision that points out whose role it is to constitute the judicial council? For emphasis, the article states in part, “…the Executive Council will then appoint subject to the ratification of the Legislative Council.” Indeed, there is no part of the article that says it is the AG’s duty to constitute the Judicial Council. In fact, the article apportions that blame on the three councils, executive, legislative and judiciary for dawdling the process. Moreso, doesn’t the failure of the AG to constitute his committee early say much about what his posture towards reviving the Judicial Council will be?

While the AG describes the writer of the article as clout-chasing, isn’t it curious that the AG is yet to provide any tangible reason for the delay in constituting his ethics and litigation committee? Saying that “the wait is required to create a committee that will be effective” does not explain away the fact that after the 9th week of the semester, the AG is yet to constitute his committee, the most basic of his constitutional obligation. Instead, the AG resorts to taking a swipe at a pressman, calling the article clout-chasing, and maligning the image of the press.

It is strongly advised that the AG considers critically the imports of the questions raised in said article and discharge his constitutionally duty as required to bring to fulfilment his promise of judicial revival. Overall, the manifesto review series should be regarded as a reawakening of the elected representatives of Zikites to the promises they advanced to get into power, not an attack on them or their office. 

All correspondence should be addressed to the office of the editor @ 08135476779