54. This Court recalls that in any event, States are allowed latitude, within permissible limits, to configure their electoral management bodies to satisfy their peculiar local exigencies. In the present case, as the Supreme Court of Appeal found, there was lack of, or inadequate, civic voter sensitization about the registration which led to a low turnout. This was due to citizens not being aware of the need to register to vote as most people thought that the National Identity Registration which they had previously done with the National Registration Bureau qualified them to vote without having to specifically register again to vote. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Appeal rightly ordered that the election be held afresh to ensure that they were conducted in a manner that abides by electoral laws.9 55. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants’ right to equal protection of the law protected under Article 3(2) of the Charter. In light of the foregoing, this Court dismisses the Applicants’ claim. C. Alleged violation of the right to be heard 56. The Applicants allege that the Supreme Court of Appeal unjustifiably denied the First Applicant’s reasonable request for extension of time to file additional documents. 57. The Applicants further aver that the Supreme Court of Appeal failed to discharge its functions when it erred by reconsidering the evidence of what occurred at Msinjiyiwi Polling Station. 58. The Respondent State did not make any submission in respect of this issue. *** Section 17 of the Parliamentary and Presidential Election Act (Chapter 2:01) provides that: “The Commission shall, in accordance with this Act, create the necessary conditions and take all necessary actions for promoting awareness among the citizens of Malawi of the need to register as a voter for the purpose of an election and of the need for their full participation in the election’’. 9 15