in one breath, deny a breach of the Constitution as alleged and in the next breath, lament the failure by Parliament to set a time frame within which laws should be brought into conformity with the Constitution of Zambia as amended by the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016 (henceforth “the Constitution"). [77] The 2nd Respondent further committed to “kick starting” the process of bringing the Electoral Process Act No. 35 of 2016 (henceforth “the Act’1) into conformity with Article 52 (3) of the Constitution while working with the 1st Respondent as the current administration has the necessary political will to do so. [78] In my considered view, the sentiments acknowledge two things: First that the lack of subsidiary law, which gives effect to Article 52(3): amounts to an instance of non-compliance with the Constitution. Secondly, that the responsibility to initiate the process of prescription giving effect to Article 52(3) lies with the 1st and 2nd Respondent. Not only has the prescribing not been done but it is being touted as justification for not doing what Article 52(3) demands. This defence is not tenable for the reasons that follow. [79] Article 52(3) reads: (3) The information contained in a nomination paper and affidavit shall be published by the Electoral Commission, as prescribed, (emphasis added) J32