Riding on the analysis by the Majority Article 52(3) requires the publication of a presidential candidate’s declaration of assets and liabilities among other things, in the same manner as candidates at constituency and ward level. This is the purpose Article 52 (3). [80] The prescribing of the modalities of publishing is relegated to legislation because such modalities are "mere practical detail and minutiae” in comparison to the substantive principle established in Article 52(3). The role of the 1st and 2nd Respondent is therefore to facilitate mechanically, the prescribing process so that the mandatory constitutional requirement is achieved. [81] It seemed to me that they did not play their part. I thus became concerned that a serious breach of the Constitution might go un­ acknowledged. My concern deepened with the narration in paragraphs [54] to [56] of the Majority Judgment which relates to the repealed Article 34(5)(b) and its supporting provisions in the repealed Electoral Act and repealed Electoral Regulations as referred to therein. [82] The narration shows that, not giving effect to the constitutional requirement to facilitate public access to the declaration of assets and liabilities of a presidential candidate by enacting the required provisions of subsidiary law is not happening for the first time. There is need for this J33