The legal position rendered by YALI is in my considered view, very sound at law.
The law states as follows:
*Article 101 (1) A President shall be elected by registered voters in accordance with Article 47 (1) and this Article.*
*(2) The Returning Officer shall declare the presidential candidate who receives more than fifty percent of the valid votes cast during the election as President-elect.*
*(4) A person may within seven days of the declaration made under clause (2), petition the Constitutional Court to nullify the election of a presidential candidate who took part in the initial ballot on the ground that—*
*(a) the person was not validly elected; or (b) a provision of this Constitution or other law relating to presidential elections was not complied with.*
*(5) The Constitutional Court shall hear an election petition filed in accordance with clause (4) within fourteen days of the filing of the petition.*
*(6) The Constitutional Court may, after hearing an election petition—*
*(a) declare the election of the presidential candidate valid;*
*(b) nullify the election of the presidential candidate; or*
*(c) disqualify the presidential candidate from being a candidate in the second ballot.*
*(7) Adecision of the Constitutional Court made in accordance with clause (6) is final.*
Article 101 makes no reference to the Speaker and neither does it mention the Speaker anywhere.
*The provision on the Speaker exercising executive functions only comes into play when a President-elect was elected following a re-run*.
Since there was no re-run in the just past election, the applicable Article is Article 101. Under that provision, an aggrieved party can petition the ConCourt but no reference is made on the Speaker taking over when such petition is filed. If a petition is premised on Article 103 to challenge the just past election, a preliminary objection can be raised as that Article is not applicable to the just past election.