These two individuals have come under wide spread condemnation over some utterances attributed to them.

It is alleged that their utterances amount to incitement to certain communities to evict supposedly alien communities from their midst, if deemed to be occupying the host community’s ethnic land as recognized in the proposed constitution Chapter 5, section 63.

As fate would have it I actually don’t find a lot to like in these two politicians brand of politics.
We are the farthest it can get.

However, on this one, in all fairness, did they mis-interpret the constitution or is what they are saying actualy valid?

Even assuming that they mis-interpret it, aren’t they entitled to their understanding albeit misguided.

Lawyers always take two divergent interpretations on issues but they are never questioned about it.

Even a bench of judges listen to one case and end up delivering divergent judgments - different interpretation of law!

Why is it different for these two.

Help me understand people!