they decided to allow the said event, they would impose conditions. Among these conditions persons needed to be vetted before addressing a public meeting and the matters to be discussed equally needed to be identified. Section 7 of the Public Order Act made it an offence to contravene Section 5, which was punishable by imprisonment of up to 6 months or a fine not exceeding one thousand five hundred penalty units, or to both. 288. The applicants argued that Sections 5 and 7 of the Public Order Act were unconstitutional as they infringed the guarantees of freedom of expression and assembly in the Constitution. The Magistrate’s Court stayed the criminal proceedings until the constitutional issue was dealt with by the High Court. The High Court declined to declare the two sections unconstitutional. 289. The Supreme Court struck down Sections 5 and 7 of the then Public Order Act for being unconstitutional as they infringed on the freedoms of expression and assembly guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution, respectively. The Court held that Section 5 was not reasonably justiciable in a democratic society. 290. Following that decision, the Public Order Act was amended. 291. In the matter of Resident Doctors Association of Zambia and 51 Others Vs The Attorney-General, the petitioners commenced proceedings before the High Court pursuant to Article 28 of the Constitution. On 27th April 2000, the petitioners conducted a demonstration in order to raise public awareness on the situation in public hospitals and the doctors’ conditions of service. Prior to the demonstration the petitioners on 20th April, 2000 had given written 120