presidential candidates. The question then is what is the effect of the non-prescription regarding presidential candidates? [63] Article 1(1) speaks of the supremacy of the Constitution and legislation promulgated under it ought to be in furtherance of the constitutional dictates. We accordingly find that there is merit in the Petitioner's argument that the 1st Respondent is mandated to publish the nomination papers and affidavits of presidential candidates by Article 52 (3). However, the same Article 52 (3) requires that this should be prescribed in an Act of Parliament or regulations before the information can be published. In the absence of the prescription for presidential candidates, the 1st Respondent cannot be held to have contravened Article 52 (3) of the Constitution by the non-publication. We reiterate that Parliament was mandated by Article 52 (3) to enact a law to guide this. That law does not currently exist with regard to presidential candidates. [64] This is a very unfortunate situation. We further note that two general elections, in 2016 and 2021, were held without this issue being brought to the fore. We note the assurances by the 2nd Respondent to address this issue. This is commendable. We consequently urge Parliament to address the lapse and expeditiously bring the Electoral Process Act and the Regulations in full conformity with Article 52 (3) of the Constitution with respect to