4 Judgment No. CCZ 3/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 15/18 4. Parties that participated in 2008 and 2013 elections to get US$420 000.00 before any elections are held. 5. Costs be in the cause.” The first respondent opposed the application for an order that the main application be set down for hearing on an urgent basis. He took as a point in limine that, in terms of rule 21 of the Constitutional Court Rules, SI 61 of 2016 (“the Rules”), the applicants ought to have applied for direct access before they filed the main application. He contended that the main application filed by the applicants is not one that falls within the matters which do not require leave to approach the Court directly. There cannot be a case for an urgent hearing of a matter that is not properly before the Court. The first respondent also opposed the application on the basis that the applicants merely assert that the Act is unconstitutional without indicating the specific provisions of the Act said to be invalid. The second respondent opposed the application on the basis that he is incorrectly cited. He averred that the Constitution creates the office of the Speaker of the National Assembly and not the “Speaker of Parliament”. On this ground, the second respondent contended that the applicants were non-suited. The second respondent also raised a point relating to the nonjoinder of the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, the President of the Senate and the Minister of Finance and Economic Development. He alleged that the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs should have been cited as a party because he is the one who administers the Act. The second respondent also contended that the Minister of Finance and Economic Development was a necessary party, for the reason that he administers the Treasury from which the claimed US$420 000 would be paid. With regards to the nonjoinder of the President of the Senate, the second respondent contends that both the National