Regarding the supremacy of our Constitution, the counsel argued that the same is provided for under article 64(5) of the Constitution and was so declared in the case of Attorney General v. Lohay Akonaay and Another, [1995] T.L.R 80 and complimented in Rev. Christopher Mtikila v. Attorney General [1995] T.L.R 31 where it was held that: "(i) The Constitution is the basic or paramount law of the land and cannot be overridden by any other law. Where, as in the above provision, the enjoyment of a Constitutional right is 'subject to the laws of the land' the necessary implication is that those laws must be lawful laws. A law which seeks to make the exercise of those rights subject to the permission of another person cannot be considered with the express provision of the Constitution for it makes the exercise illusory". (ii) It is fundamental rights, but not their restrictions, that this Court is enjoined to guard jealously. (iii) the scheme of our Constitution contemplates the full exercise of the fundamental rights enacted therein save as they may be limited in terms of the provisions of article 30(2) and article 31(1)". The petitioner's counsel further argued that, this Court is vested with powers under article 30(5) of the Constitution to declare void and inconsistent all laws inconsistent with the Constitution. They argued, the general objectives in enacting POTA were to provide comprehensive measures against terrorism and cooperate with other States in suppression of terrorism and related matters with the impugned provisions which relate to detection, investigation, apprehension and detention extending to fair trials contending that they instead disrespect fundamental human statutory and constitutional rights through abuse of power and authority. Additionally, they contended that there is no board or authority set to oversee breaches. So, despite the spirit behind enacting POTA, that is, parading suspects into trial, the learned counsel maintained that, to the contrary, the said Page 6 of 37