political, social and economic destiny of the country is predicated upon how they discharge such duties and responsibilities. 9. The Court is mindful that an electoral dispute, particularly one that deals with the national leadership of the country at the presidency level, is one that cannot be taken lightly and that it demands of all actors involved to act with the utmost diligence and scrupulousness. Like other courts have stated elsewhere, we wish to likewise quickly state that this Court stands “in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people…and to the political sphere”. See Bush et al. v. Gore et al. 531 U.S. 98 (2000), at 111, per curiam. Thus, wherever possible, and ideally, elections to public political offices should squarely be determined at the polls, properly, fairly and transparently managed by the relevant electoral management body, being the 2nd Respondent in the present case, without recourse to the courts. 10. At the same time, the Court reckons that “[w]hen contending parties invoke the process of the courts…it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the…constitutional issues [that] the judicial system has been forced to confront.” See Bush et al. v. Gore et al. (as above). The Constitution, under section 10 (1), prescribes that in the interpretation of all laws and in the resolution of political disputes, the provisions of the Constitution must be regarded as the supreme arbiter and the ultimate source of authority. 11. The Judiciary, in this country’s scheme of the separation of powers as envisaged in Chapter I of the Constitution, has, under Section 9, the responsibility to interpret, protect and enforce the Constitution and all laws in accordance with the Constitution in an independent and impartial manner with regard only to legally relevant facts and the prescriptions of law. It is therefore ultimately the duty of the courts to ensure, when properly approached, that political disputes are resolved fairly and expeditiously with the Constitution as the supreme arbiter and the ultimate source of authority. 12. Having said that, the Court is also aware that the task of managing and administering an election, particularly a national election, is a highly involving one that requires substantial preparation time and resources both on the part of the Commission as well as the contesting candidates. Running a successful national election does not come cheap. In other words, the implication of this is that meaningful participatory democracy comes at a substantial national cost. This is a factor which the Court bears in mind as it approaches an electoral challenge such as the instant one. At the 6