Following weeks of infighting that led to a speaker’s walkout, the Oxford Union is asking members to vote today on a set of rule changes. President Ebrahim Osman Mowafy is also facing a vote of no confidence after Thursday night’s Kashmir protests.
Thus far into the term, racism allegations have been volleyed, two Returning Officers were elected with contested legitimacy, multiple top-ranking students resigned, and speaker Lord Heseltine walked out of a debate – attracting national media attention. With the Union deeply divided between two factions and the president’s position called into question, here’s a developing timeline of what happened.
The lead-up to this year
Current president Ebrahim Osman Mowafy was elected at the end of Hilary Term last year but was later disqualified from the role of President-elect in tribunal proceedings. He alleged that the tribunals were “racist” and “Islamophobic”.
Toward the end of Trinity Term, Osman Mowafy and three ex-presidents of colour signed a letter alleging that Union tribunals have been “disproportionately targeting individuals from non-traditional backgrounds”. The Union’s three governing committees – Consultative Committee, Standing Committee, and Secretary’s Committee – each passed a motion declaring the Union “institutionally racist”. Over a dozen committee members also threatened to resign over Osman Mowafy’s disqualification. He was reinstated as president by an Appellate Board at the beginning of summer.
Rules changes proposed
At the centre of Osman Mowafy’s allegations was the group of officers in charge of rules and elections – Returning Officers – colloquially known as RO World. The president’s faction believed the RO World had no oversight nor democracy: They were not required to be recused in a conflict of interest, and new ROs were selected from a pool of Deputy Returning Officers (DROs) in a process overseen by the previous RO.
Thus the term kicked off with Osman Mowafy, President-Elect Israr Khan, and their supporters pushing for 130 pages of constitutional changes that primarily aimed to reform the RO World. While the old rules stipulated a conclave would elect an RO from a pool of eight DROs, the new rules increased the number of DROs to 12 and gave electoral power to the Standing Committee.
Another controversial change states that the president will no longer be automatically resigned for failing to attend Access Committee meetings. Opponents criticised this as detracting from the Union’s commitment to accessibility. Other changes include opening up the Union for longer and reversing the ban on online campaigning.
At the Week 1 Debate, Osman Mowafy introduced the changes with a tearful speech to the chamber, which voted by voice – a method that was criticised for its ambiguity due to the large number of non-members present during the Union’s open period. The chamber voted in favour; however, the outgoing RO posted a notice that the changes could not be validly passed.
A tale of two constitutions
Now divided over two different versions of the constitution – one with the changes and one without – the Union saw weeks of heated arguments in committee meetings. The president’s faction blocked several students from becoming DROs, amongst them Russell Kwok.
The contention also spilled over to public debates. In Week 2, Kwok accused Osman Mowafy of alleging that Kwok was “racist by association”. A spokesperson for the president said that the term was never attributed to the president but in fact has only been used by members of “RO world.
The social events officer at that time, Shermar Pryce, also accused Osman Mowafy of being in a room where his friend called Pryce a “coconut” and allegedly downplaying the term’s racism. A spokesperson for the president said that the allegations are “baseless and politically motivated”.
By Week 3, the faction operating under the old rules had elected Kwok as the new RO. At an emergency meeting the next day, the president’s faction disputed Kwok’s legitimacy and struck three more students from the list of DROs. Days later, the president’s faction elected Mohammad Zulfiqar RO under the new rules. As such, the Union had two ROs, each abiding by a different version of the constitutions.
Opponents of Zulfiqar have criticised his lack of experience: He only matriculated this term. The subsequent string of removals also meant that the Union’s leadership shifted to students with comparatively less experience in the organisation. Two experienced students, Chair of Consultative Committee Noah Robson and Librarian Aryan Dhanwan, were also among multiple resignations, both citing discontent with the current governance and environment. A spokesperson for the president said the new RO world is chosen to include “a diverse range of legally experienced individuals” who are uninvolved with the old system to avoid bias.
Voice, membership cards, division, and poll
In a rare moment of definitiveness toward the start of Week 4, the Oxford Literary and Debating Union Charity Trust (OLDUT), which owns the Union buildings and manages finances, declared that the rules changes were not validly passed, and that meetings held under the new rules did not count.
As a result the president’s faction presented the rules changes again in the Week 4 debate. After the two sides spent over ten minutes arguing whether to have an argument, the House voted to indeed have an argument.
A contest of lung capacity proved inconclusive, so students voted by count of membership cards in favour of the amendments. However, the opposition faction called for a “Division of the House”, which required every member to walk through the chamber doors either under “aye” or “nay” to vote. The chamber voted in favour of the rules changes 204 to 46 after a slow trundling process.
Yet this did not conclude the saga, as Oliver JL of the opposition faction requested a vote by “poll” conditional upon gathering enough signatures. By gathering sufficient signatures, they put the amendments to a referendum – what Union members are now called to vote on.
Kashmir: A vote of no confidence
At Week 5’s debate, around two dozen gathered outside the Union with posters and chants to protest the motion “This House Believes in an independent state of Kashmir”. They told Cherwell that they object to the two proposition speakers — Dr Muzzamil Ayyub Thakur and Professor Zafar Khan — whom they alleged have anti-Hindu terrorism links. A member inside the chamber launched a vote of no confidence against the president.
Zafar Khan chairs the “diplomatic bureau” of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), an organisation that is currently designated an “unlawful association” by the Indian government. JKLF was a militant organisation throughout the 1980s; however, the organisation has renounced violence and has been calling for peaceful methods. Thakur leads the World Kashmir Freedom Movement (WKFM), an incorporated UK company founded by his father who was accused by the Indian government of spying for Pakistani intelligence. He has previously been booked by the Indian government under the ‘Unlawful Activities Prevention Act’.
Neither JKLF nor WKFM are on the list of UK proscribed terrorist organisations. A spokesperson for the president said: “It would be wholly unreasonable to claim that either speaker has credible anti-Hindu terrorism links.”
Osman Mowafy wrote in a statement: “This motion against me raises questions about the Union’s future as a space for free and open debate on important topics…It is a challenge to the essence of this society, to the right of every President who comes after me to lead with courage and integrity, without fear of backlash for debating the issues that need to be heard.”
Public reception
In a messy and emotional few weeks, both sides have accused the other of racism, undemocratic practices, and derailing debates. Week 4’s debate propelled internal politics into national media after the night’s star speaker Lord Heseltine – who at age 91 is the oldest Union ex-president – walked out, calling the “hijacked” debate “disgraceful”. Week 5’s debate also attracted protests and international media attention.
Within the University, the drama frequents Instagram accounts, student media, and Oxfess. Some members voiced their disinterest in the constitution and that they only want the debates. Amongst non-members, one student expressed amusement at phrasing such as “goons”, while another wrote on Oxfess that “the Union needs to learn that its relevance is contained entirely within its walls x”.
