the reliefs sought must fail as Article 52(3) ends with the word prescribe. Further, that the word "prescribe" is defined in Article 266 to mean provided for in an Act of Parliament. Our decision in the case of Dipak Patel v The Minister of Finance and the Attorney General7 was cited on what is required when the Constitution provides that something should be prescribed. Therefore, that since there is no Act of Parliament that speaks to or brings the Electoral Process Act into conformity with Article 52 (3), the publishing of the statutory declaration of assets and liabilities for presidential candidates could not be done. [34] Mr. Muchende, SC further submitted that it was unfortunate that Parliament has been oblivious to the provisions of section 6 (2) of the Constitution of Zambia Act No. 1 of 2016 which requires Parliament to set a time frame within which laws should be brought into conformity with the Constitution as amended. He stated that there was lack of political will by the previous administration to give effect to Article 52 (3) and that the current administration will kick start the process, in conjunction with the lsl Respondent, to bring the Electoral Process Act into conformity with the constitutional provision because they agree with the Petitioner that transparency and accountability are very important for people to make informed decisions. He however added that there was nothing to suggest chat there was a breach of the Constitution as alleged. It was posited that Regulation 20(2) relied upon by the Petitioner did not speak to presidential candidates. J15