the Petitioner had not alleged any infringement of the rights of the disabled by the Respondent, but merely demanded that it make provision for a secret ballot and dignified manner of voting for persons with disabilities. As regard the Respondent's alleged introduction of a tactile ballot guide, PW stated that this was only provided for in respect of the Presidential elections. The Petitioner therefore demanded that the tactile ballot guide be provide for elections in respect of Parliamentary and Local Government seats as well. The failure by the Respondent to provide tactile ballot guides for Parliamentary and Local Government elections amounts to discrimination resulting in the denial of the members of the organisation of their right to a secret ballot. Further that, there is need for the Respondent to mount a public awareness campaign on the use of the tactile ballot guide. He ended by stating that the Respondent should have progressively implemented the demands by the Petitioner from 2006, when the organisation first engaged the Respondent. In re-examination, PW stated that when the Petitioner engaged the Respondent on the issue of the tactile ballot guide, the Respondent confirmed that it had information on the SADC tactile guide which it obtained from Malawi but that it would not implement that system of voting in the forth coming elections. As regards the fact that the Respondent does not own the polling station, he stated that the Respondent could remedy the lack of amenities by providing temporary ramps and choosing positions within the buildings which are on the ground floor and are not on plat forms, or whose entrance is via a very narrow door way. With respect to temporary ramps, he stated that they were movable and as such had no physical effect on the buildings. He also stated that the stations that are not accessible could be relocated to other premises and in doing so regazetted, as it is the Respondent's responsibility to gazette the locations of the stations. The Respondent's witness, RW, was Jocelyn Mubita, the Deputy Director Voter Education. Prior to assuming that position she was Manager Elections and Voter Education. In her evidence-in-chief, RW began by highlight her role as Deputy Director Voter Education. She went on to testify thus in relation to issues raised in the Petition; the Respondent has regulations which guide it in the conduct of elections which do not discriminate against persons with disabilities; issues regarding allegation of discrimination in relation to the exercise of ones right to vote can only be addressed by the laws of the country if provision is made for them in such laws; measures have been put in place by the Respondent to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise their right to vote which include, the following. Firstly, provisions for assistance to be rendered by election agents at the stations. Secondly, introduction of a blind termplete to enable the blind vote on their own. Thirdly, provision for assistance to be rendered by relatives and friends to persons with disabilities in casting their vote. Fourthly, provision for communication with the deaf by election agents during registration exercise. Lastly, provision for buildings used as stations to be accessible to all citizens. She stated in this respect that the buildings used as stations were identified by Town Clerks and other Local Authority officials on behalf of the Respondent, because it was not decentralized and therefore it could not undertake the task itself. Further that the building were mainly government schools and other buildings and churches. The directive to the Town Clerks and local authority officers, RW testified further, was that the buildings should be accessible to all. RW also clarified that no one had complained that they could not properly access facilities at the stations and that no one had been turned away. As regards the furniture used in the stations, RW testified that the Respondent used the desks and chairs found in the schools and the other buildings used as stations. She also stated that, where temporary shelters had been used as stations, the Respondent used card board tables and chairs. Under cross examination, RW conceded that there were no special desks used in the stations designed for the disabled. She also conceded that no ramps have been put in place in buildings with steps as there was no budget