In this section there is some scope for discretion from the ECA. Discretion is exactly what allows fraudulent practices to flourish. In an electoral process which seeks to boast of fairness and transparency it is best to minimise these windows.
Given the history of Ambazonia, there is no way a candidate would be able to provide documentary evidence to meet clause 2.1.1! This means discretion is introduced! Of course Ambazonia News would be pleasantly surprised to be reassured that every candidate managed to provide 200 years of background!
How was 2.1.2 decided? What excludes a 34 year old or a 71 year old? These limits do have the merit of eliminating the discretion that Ambazonia News objects to!
2.1.4 Professional, Moral and social status could be judged by letters from “reliable referees”. Granted. A reliable source of income could be establish by which criteria? Is the community to be consulted explicitly to complete this bit of vetting?
What about 2.1.6 “May have skills …”. Is that essential? Could a candidate be disqualified for an attribute the only “may” have? More scope for discretion!
184.108.40.206 There is at least one typographical error in this one and the whole concept does not cover the simple idea of visas! What are major restrictions that could impact the vetting outcome?
Look at the complete Modalities