Pete Henriott has an interesting Op'ed in the Post which asks important questions of the misguided NCC adventure :
I would ask readers...to simply pause for a moment, take a deep breath, and sincerely seek an answer to questions like these:
First, was the 50 per cent plus one decision honestly reached by wise debate? What is one to make of impassioned references to Zimbabwe and Kenya, without reasonable references to Ghana, Liberia and DRC? And the incredibly irresponsible charge (by a supposedly responsible Minister) that the push for 50 per cent plus one was only an NGO conspiracy to create anarchy in the country?
Second, would the new clause requiring a university degree for a presidential candidate have ever been introduced or accepted if there were not a prominent opposition candidate whose credentials were considered suspect? What about considerations of the paucity of university graduates in a country which has, especially recently, put such low priority on providing good university training?
Third, would restoration of immunity to a president acquitted of crimes ever have been an issue at all, if one particular individual had not been “acquitted” (in a still controversial case) and whose desire for “restoration” was passionately sought by himself and promoted by persons seeking his political support. Really, were the motives behind this act purely universal, completely non-partisan, exclusively sound?