the African Charter and ACDEG, amongst other legal instruments”, in case of postponement of elections. * 87. The Amicus Curiae submits that “[i]n case of a postponement of elections, it needs to be determined who has the authority to decide on a new date, in what process and based on what criteria. They have to take into consideration public health imperatives, the legal framework governing elections in the country concerned, political, operational and financial factors, and States’ regional and international human rights obligations.” 88. The Amicus Curiae submits that “[a]vailable data indicates that States have taken decisions primarily based on specific local or national contexts. National elections were postponed in Chad, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Somalia, with subnational elections postponed in Botswana, Libya, South Africa, Tunisia and Zimbabwe. Postponements varied considerably, from a one-month delay to allow for adjustments made in Liberia to a delay of around ten months in Chad and Ethiopia. The decision to postpone elections has been made by executive bodies, parliaments and electoral bodies.” 89. The Amicus Curiae submits that “[e]lection experts have raised concerns about the lack of consultation with relevant actors and transparency in taking such decisions. Judicial challenges have been brought in several countries in relation to elections during the Covid-19 period. Legislative approval for public health measures and election schedules has been deemed crucial in countries such as Malawi (Kathumba and Others v. President of Malawi), the United States of America (U.S.) (Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm; Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee) and Singapore (Daniel De Costa Augustin v. Attorney General).” 26