As the consultations on the Presidential age limit came to an end, human rights abuses had been registered in various parts of the country. Some of the fingers had been pointed at the Police accused of taking political sides and relying on coercive means to punish those with alternative views. The legal fraternity and former Law Society Presidents met to take a position on the age limit matter. They resolved to challenge any illegalities associated with the contentious amendment.
The lawyers gave a variance of opinions for supporting the motion. “This country is crying for an opportunity to see a peaceful handover from one President to another. We have a unique opportunity through this moment to resist adulterating our Constitution.” “For only this provision 102 (b), the Bill needed to explain how badly is the country being managed because of the age limit.” “It is not saying that you are retiring, only it is saying is you can serve in other capacities. When Judges retire, when Public Servants retire and even when lawyers leave their practice we go and serve in other places.”
“The number one failed state in the world is Somalia, DRC was number four when I last looked at it on that list. We are rapidly hitting all the indicators of failed states; one by one.” Furthermore, the lawyers agreed not to appear before the Parliament Legal Committee which was currently scrutinizing the Bill. “It is unfortunate that there a group of very many fellows, very many MPs who do not even know how to speak English.” A section of lawyers who were pinned to give their views could suck them into the partisan and combustible age limit debate. “If the question was whether the amendment of that Article 102 (b) was legal? Then you can do in. but that’s not the question in the table, it’s whether you support or you don’t support.” “In defense of the law, you cannot be neutral. Because if you defend the law, you will offend the violators of the law.” “Is it medical doctors who are going to guide the country?” “People are either in denial or pretentious.”
The framers of the 1995 Constitution found it frugal not to allow persons above the age of 75 to stand for Presidency citing that at that age a person would be Senile but some argued that at that age depending on the lifestyle, some people are still fit to do so. However, a question as to whether a person above 75 could stand for Presidency or not could be medically interpreted.
