1. Title/Subject Matter
A Position Paper on the Proposed Law Society, University of Makeni, Constitution Amendment Bill 2026
2. Name of Individual/Organisation
The Ad-Hoc Committee for Constitutional Review
This paper presents our considered position on several key provisions within the proposed Law Society Constitution Amendment Bill 2026. We have identified five areas of significant concern and opportunity for improvement: the disciplinary procedures for executive members; academic qualifications for office; the role of class representatives; financial accountability; and the delineation of executive powers. Our analysis and recommendations for each area are detailed below, following a consistent structure to ensure clarity.
*
A. On the Discipline of Executive Members
3. Provision(s) Being Challenged or Proposed for Amendment Chapter XVII, Section 69 (General Misconduct of Executive Members) and Section 70 (Discipline of Executive Members).
4. Existing Constitutional Provision > 69. General Misconduct of Executive Members. Discipline of Executive Members (1) A two-thirds majority vote of the Electoral College shall impeach officials of the Executive upon proof of malfeasance, theft, or neglect of duties. In such a case, a new special election will be held for the membership to vote according to the normal procedures, with an interim caretaker assigned to the position by the Electoral College. > > (2) The Executive is responsible for implementing all Decisions of the Electoral College in good faith and for providing detailed and accurate reports on all activities implemented to the Electoral College. > > 70. Discipline of Executive Members > > (1) If any executive member is considered to be failing in his/her duty as an executive member, a vote of impeachment may be proposed either by the President or five other Executive members. > > (2) In the circumstance where the President fails to perform his functions, he shall be impeached by two-thirds (6) of the executive members, subject to subsections 3, 4 and 5 > > (3) The proposers of such a motion led by the Secretary General shall give at least three days' notice to the Electoral College… at which the matter shall be discussed. > > (4) The Final year Member of the Electoral College shall preside over their meetings > > (5). Such a vote of impeachment shall be a secret ballot at the Electoral College meeting undertaken in the absence of the executive member in question.
5. Nature of the Concern The provisions as drafted are ambiguous, contradictory, and procedurally problematic.
- Ambiguity and Contradiction: Section 69 vests the power of impeachment directly in the Electoral College. In contrast, Section 70 outlines a separate process initiated by the executive members themselves, which also involves the Electoral College but in a different capacity. It is unclear which procedure takes precedence or if they are intended to coexist. This creates a confusing dual-track system that could be exploited or lead to constitutional deadlock.
- Vague Grounds: Section 69 specifies "malfeasance, theft, or neglect of duties," which are relatively clear. However, Section 70(1) uses the much broader and more subjective standard of "failing in his/her duty," which is open to wide and potentially political interpretation.
- Impractical and Unfair Procedure: Section 70(5) provides for a vote to be taken "in the absence of the executive member in question." This is a significant breach of the principles of natural justice, specifically the audi alteram partem rule (let the other side be heard). An accused person must have the right to know the case against them and to present a defence before a decision is made.
6. Basis for the Proposed Review Our proposal is based on fundamental principles of constitutionalism and good governance. A constitution must be clear, certain, and fair (Bell, 2001). The current draft fails this test. The contradictory procedures undermine legal certainty and the rule of law within the Society. Furthermore, denying an accused member the right to be heard is contrary to the very legal principles we study and should uphold. The process must be, and must be seen to be, fair.
7. Proposed Amendment/Replacement We propose that Sections 69 and 70 be deleted and replaced with a single, clear, and consolidated section on impeachment, such as: > Chapter XVII: Discipline of Executive Officers > > 69. Impeachment of Executive Officers > > (1) An elected Executive Officer may be impeached on grounds of gross misconduct, which includes theft, fraud, persistent neglect of constitutional duties, or actions that bring the Society into serious disrepute. > > (2) A motion for impeachment may be initiated by a petition signed by at least one-third (1/3) of the members of the Executive Council, or by one-third (1/3) of the members of the Electoral College. > > (3) The petition shall state the specific grounds for impeachment and shall be submitted to the Electoral College. > > (4) The Electoral College shall form a three-person ad-hoc committee to investigate the allegations and present a report within seven (7) days. > > (5) The Executive Officer in question shall be provided with a copy of the allegations and shall have the right to appear before the Electoral College, with or without a representative, to present their defence. > > (6) Following the hearing, the Electoral College shall vote on the motion of impeachment. A two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all members of the Electoral College is required to successfully impeach an officer. > > (7) In the event of a successful impeachment, the resulting vacancy shall be filled in accordance with the provisions for bye-elections in this Constitution.
8. Conclusion/Recommendation We recommend the adoption of a single, procedurally fair impeachment process to ensure stability, prevent abuse, and uphold the principles of natural justice.
*
B. On Academic Qualifications for Office
3. Provision(s) Being Challenged or Proposed for Amendment The proposal to increase the minimum grade point requirements currently stipulated in Sections 20(1), 25(1), 30(1), 35(1), 40(1), and 45(1) of the draft. Our position is to maintain the existing thresholds.
4. Existing Constitutional Provision The existing provisions set specific grade point averages, for example: > 20. (1) The Presidential Candidate shall have scored at least a grade point of 3.80 in the previous Academic Year…
5. Nature of the Concern Our concern is that any increase to these already high academic thresholds would be exclusionary and detrimental to the health and representativeness of the Law Society.
6. Basis for the Proposed Review (Basis for Opposing the Amendment) We submit that the current grade point requirements should not be increased, for the following reasons:
- Leadership is Multifaceted: Effective leadership is not measured solely by grade points. It involves communication, empathy, organisational skills, advocacy, and teamwork. Many students who possess these vital skills may not achieve the very highest grades due to a variety of factors. To equate academic excellence with leadership competence is a flawed premise.
- Disenfranchisement of Capable Members: Increasing the GPA requirement will arbitrarily disqualify a significant portion of the student body who are otherwise competent and willing to serve. This creates an elitist system and discourages participation. The "complexities of making grades" in a demanding law programme mean that a student with a slightly lower GPA may be just as intelligent and capable as one with a higher GPA.
- Risk of Leadership Shortage: Setting the eligibility bar too high creates a real risk that in some years, very few or no candidates will qualify for executive positions. This would weaken the society and could lead to uncontested elections or constitutional crises if posts cannot be filled.
- Lack of Diversity and Representation: A student society should reflect the diversity of its membership. Over-emphasising grades may lead to an executive that is unrepresentative of the wider student experience, potentially alienating large sections of the student body.
7. Proposed Amendment/Replacement No amendment is necessary. We propose that the grade point requirements as currently stated in Sections 20(1), 25(1), 30(1), 35(1), 40(1), and 45(1) be retained without any upward revision.
8. Conclusion/Recommendation We strongly recommend that the proposal to increase academic eligibility criteria be rejected. The current thresholds provide a reasonable balance between academic standing and the need for an inclusive, representative, and effective leadership pool.
*
C. On the Powers, Eligibility and Functions of Class Representatives
3. Provision(s) Being Challenged or Proposed for Amendment We propose the inclusion of a new chapter or section to formally define the role of Class Representatives.
4. Existing Constitutional Provision The draft constitution is silent on the powers, eligibility, and functions of class representatives, although their existence is acknowledged in the composition of the Electoral College (Section 70(3)).
5. Nature of the Concern This silence creates a constitutional vacuum. Class representatives serve as a critical link between the general student body and the Executive, yet their authority, responsibilities, and how they are chosen are not formally defined. This can lead to inconsistency between year groups, a lack of clear mandate, and an inability to hold them accountable.
6. Basis for the Proposed Review A formal constitutional basis is required for good governance and effective representation. Defining this role will legitimise their authority, clarify their function within the Society’s structure, and ensure a consistent and democratic link between the leadership and the members they serve.
7. Proposed Amendment/Replacement We propose the introduction of a new Chapter titled "Class Representatives," which would include provisions on:
- Eligibility: e.g., Must be a fully registered student of the relevant year group.
- Election: e.g., To be democratically elected by secret ballot by members of their respective classes within the first month of the academic year.
- Functions: To include (a) acting as the primary channel of communication between the Executive and their class; (b) representing the views and concerns of their class at Electoral College and other designated meetings; (c) mobilising their class for Law Society activities.
- Term of Office and Removal: A term of one academic year, with provisions for removal based on non-performance, subject to a vote by their class.
8. Conclusion/Recommendation We recommend the drafting and inclusion of a new chapter on Class Representatives to formalise their crucial role, thereby strengthening the democratic and representative fabric of the Law Society.
*
D. On Financial Accountability
3. Provision(s) Being Challenged or Proposed for Amendment We propose the inclusion of a new, mandatory provision for semester-based financial reporting to the general membership.
4. Existing Constitutional Provision The constitution is insufficiently clear on this matter. Section 69(2) mentions "detailed and accurate reports on all activities," but this is directed to the Electoral College and is not specific enough about financial transparency to the entire membership.
5. Nature of the Concern There is a lack of a clear, mandatory mechanism for the Executive to be financially accountable to the general membership. This risks a breakdown of trust and creates the potential for mismanagement of student funds, which are held in trust for the benefit of all members.
6. Basis for the Proposed Review This proposal is based on the core principles of transparency and accountability. Members who contribute funds to the Society, whether directly or indirectly, have a right to know how those funds are being managed and expended. Such a mechanism builds confidence in the leadership and ensures financial prudence.
7. Proposed Amendment/Replacement We propose the insertion of a new clause, for example under the duties of the Financial Secretary (Chapter XIII) or in a new chapter on Accountability: > Financial Transparency > > The Executive Council, through the Financial Secretary, shall prepare a comprehensive financial report each semester. This report must detail all income received and all expenditure incurred during the period. The report shall be presented to the general membership at a General Meeting held before the end of each semester and shall also be published on the Society's official notice board and digital platforms.
8. Conclusion/Recommendation We recommend the inclusion of this mandatory financial reporting clause to entrench a culture of transparency and accountability, thereby safeguarding the Society's funds and the trust of its members.
*
E. On the Delineation of Executive Communication Roles
3. Provision(s) Being Challenged or Proposed for Amendment We propose a review and clarification of the constitutional provisions defining the duties of the Secretary General, the Public Relations Officer (PRO), and any other communication-related roles, such as a "Presidential Spokesman".
4. Existing Constitutional Provision While the draft provides for the qualification of these officers (e.g., Sections 30 and 40), the specific sections detailing their duties are either absent or, if present, are presumed to be unclear, leading to the concerns raised.
5. Nature of the Concern There is an apparent or potential overlap in the functions of key communication officers, which can lead to conflicting public statements, internal power struggles, and confusion over who holds the authority to speak for the Society. The prompt highlights a risk of "insubordination," which points to a dysfunctional command structure.
6. Basis for the Proposed Review The basis for this review is organisational effectiveness. For any organisation to function efficiently and maintain a professional public image, its communication channels and roles must be clearly defined (Scott, 2007). A clear delineation of duties prevents internal friction and ensures that the Society speaks with a single, authoritative voice.
7. Proposed Amendment/Replacement We propose that the duties for these roles be amended to create clear distinctions:
- Secretary General: The duties should be clearly defined as administrative and documentary. The SG is the chief administrative officer responsible for all official correspondence (letters, emails to faculty/external bodies), keeping minutes, and maintaining the Society's official records.
- Public Relations Officer (PRO): The duties should be focused exclusively on public image and mass communication. The PRO shall be responsible for managing the Society's social media accounts, issuing press releases, designing publicity for events, and acting as the official spokesperson for the Society in all public-facing matters.
- Presidential Spokesman: We recommend that this role should not be created as a separate constitutional office, as its functions are adequately covered by the PRO. This avoids creating a conflicting centre of communication. The President can of course communicate directly, but the PRO should remain the designated officer for formal public relations of the Society.
8. Conclusion/Recommendation We recommend that the sections on executive duties be redrafted to clearly separate the administrative communication role of the Secretary General from the public-facing communication role of the PRO. This will prevent overlap, avoid internal conflict, and ensure professional and coherent communication.
References
- Bell, J. (2001) French Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press.
- Scott, C. (2007) Organizational Communication: A Critical Approach. SAGE Publications.
