On ground No. 8, learned senior state attorney argued that since the Regulations are already in operation, the applicants’ averments can be dealt with by the 2nd respondent administratively. As regards paragraph 10 of the applicants’ statement, it was submitted for the respondents that the Regulations adhere to the principles of natural justice including an adequate right to be heard before imposing any of the prescribed sanctions. And, denying the contents of paragraph 11 of the applicants’ statement, learned senior state attorney argued that the Regulations meet the standard of subsidiary legislation enactment process and, therefore, the Regulations are lawful, reasonable, are not arbitrary and unambiguous, and have been made within the powers provided for under the parent legislation. The respondents’ counter affidavits are, in most part, a replica of what is stated by the respondents in the statement in reply. It is averred, in addition, that the Regulations were made in accordance with the Constitution, the parent Act and other written laws and embody the principles of natural justice. Having sketched the necessary detailed background including the statement, the statement in reply, the affidavits of the Principal Officers of the applicants’ organizations and the counter affidavits of the respondents, I now turn to the issue for adjudication. 10