allocation for the same. To this extent she stated the Respondent had discriminated against persons with disabilities although it had not done so intentionally. She testified further that most of buildings used as stations belonged to governments school and churches as such the Respondent could only use them in their existing state. She reiterated that the agents whom the Respondent had engaged to identify these buildings had been instructed to find accessible buildings but that no instructions were given that only ground floor buildings should be identified for this purpose. The Respondent, she stated to this extent overlooked the needs of persons with disabilities. This fact notwithstanding she testified, persons with disabilities would be assisted to get to any levels of the buildings above ground floor where the need arose. RW also confirmed that the report on the findings by the organisation, "SB6? to the affidavit in support, had been given to the Respondent but that the recommendations could not be implemented because the elections budget had already been prepared. As regards, the concerns raised in respect of the blind, RW stated that a Braille template had been acquired which would be used to facilitate the blind voting in the Presidential elections, unaided. However, there had been no voter sensitization on same and neither would the templete be used in the Parliamentary and Local Government elections. The template she stated further, was acquired after the elections budget was prepared. RW went on to conceded that non of the elections agents were experts in sign language and as such, the Respondent overlook the aspect of effective communication between the agents and the deaf. This situation she stated would be remedied by use of assistants who would vote on behalf of the blind in the Parliamentary and Local Government elections. As regards representation of the disabled on the Respondent's National Voter Education Committee, RW testified that, there was a representative from Zambia Agency for Persons with Disabilities, (ZAPD). RW ended by stating that the Respondent can only relocate stations prior to gazetting them to avoid confusing voters who had already been informed of the location of the stations. She also stated that she does not know if the Respondent has power to postpone elections. In re-examination, RW testified thus; it is the policy of the Respondent that stations should be accessible to all citizens although it did not specify to the Town Clerks and Local Authority officers that the rooms used for the stations should be on the ground floors; the Respondent was not able to implement the recommendations contained in the report from the organization because the budget for elections had already been prepared; in a situation where persons with disability can not vote independently, the Respondent had put measures in place for the said persons to be assisted; and the tactile voting guide would only be used in the Presidential elections because the elections budget could not accommodate its use in the other elections. th At the close of the proceedings I directed the parties to file submissions on Thursday, the 15 of September, 2011, by 12:00 hours. They both complied with the directive. In the Petitioner's submissions, counsel for the Petitioner began by stating that Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination against all citizens. Further that, although the Article does not specifically mention persons with disabilities, when it is read with Section 19 of The Persons With Disabilities Act, discrimination on grounds of disability is specifically prohibited. He also drew my attention, in this respect, to the provisions of Regulation 21 (m) of the Electoral (Code of Conduct) Regulations, which, it was argued, also prohibits discrimination on grounds of disability. Counsel went on to highlight the provision of the Constitution pursuant to which the Respondent is established and its functions. He argued, in this respect, that it is incumbent upon the Respondent not to discriminate against persons with disabilities in the exercise of its functions. He went on to highlight the provisions of the Electoral Act on the need for a secret ballot and the rationale for same; the need for stations to be accessible to persons