7 Judgment No. CCZ 3/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 15/18 Mr Demo agreed with Mr Chimombe that the applicants had no prospects of success in the main application. The reasons given were firstly that the President cannot be barred by a court from complying with a constitutional obligation. Secondly, the applicants could not expect to be granted an order directing that they be paid money which is payable in terms of a statute they claimed is invalid. Mr Kanengoni argued that it was not in the interests of justice for the applicants to be granted direct access to the Court. He argued that s 67(4) of the Constitution does not guarantee to a political party a right to funding based on its mere formation and participation in a general election. He said the applicants failed to show that the Constitution requires that the legislative measures put in place must ensure the availability of funding to every political party formed. Mr Kanengoni took issue with the applicants’ draft order. As the applicants would be approaching the Court in terms of s 85(1)(a) of the Constitution, they had to allege that their fundamental rights as political parties had been or were being infringed by specific provisions of the Act. None of the applicants’ rights had been violated. With regards to para 2 of the draft order, he argued that the Court has no mandate to order the second respondent to facilitate the repeal of a statute. Whilst the Court has power to declare legislation unconstitutional, the applicants did not seek a declaration of invalidity in respect of any provision of the Act. He contended that the President cannot be stopped from performing a constitutional obligation. He prayed that the application be dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale on the basis that the first applicant had approached the Court with the same issues in 2013 and failed. DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES