notification to the Police Commanding Officer, Lusaka, of their intention to demonstrate. The Commanding Officer rejected the petitioners’ written notice alleging that the demonstration was likely to cause a breach of the peace. Following the refusal, the petitioners requested the Commanding officer to suggest an alternative date, a request that he denied. 292. The petitioners then informed the Commanding officer that they would go ahead with the demonstration and requested police presence. 293. During the demonstration, the police disrupted the petitioners and asked them to disperse on the ground that the demonstration was illegal. The petitioners refused to disperse and they were subsequently arrested and later charged with conduct likely to cause breach of peace. 294. The petitioners contended: (a) that their freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 20 of the Constitution had been violated; (b) that their freedom of assembly and association as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution had been violated by police action and conduct; and (c) that the police action was in its entirety in breach of the Public Order (Amendment) Act No. 36 of 1996. 295. The Court held interlaid that – (i) the march by the petitioners was proper and fell squarely within the ambit of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the rejection of the notification was null and void 121