The petitioner, advocate Rashid Ahmed Kilindo petitioned under articles 26(2) and 30(3) of the Constitution, sections 4 and 5 of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, [Cap. 3 R.E. 2019] and Rule 4 of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2014, G.N. No. 304 of 2014 to impugn the constitutionality of the above-mentioned provision of POTA. He filed his petition by way of Originating Summons supported by his own affidavit. His specific account on section 9(1) of POTA is to the effect that the provision is challenged for criminalizing mere possession or access of information obtained in usual or ordinary way which is protected by article 18(b), (c) & (d) of the Constitution. Besides, it criminalizes the right to access by workers, servants or employees to working tools or information in the course of performance or execution of their employment which is protected under articles 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution. That, sections 11 and 31(4) of POTA have assumed supremacy against the Constitution due to their generality and deny an accused person all legal and Constitutional rights and freedoms under articles 13(1) and 13(6)(b) of the Constitution. That, POTA derogates article 26(1) of the Constitution by inviting, encouraging and allowing abuse of powers and authority. As regards section 30(1) of the POTA, it is challenged for contravening articles 16(1) & (2) of the Constitution in violating right to privacy by interfering with private communications and does not safeguard and or prescribe the circumstances, manner and extent under which one's rights can be encroached without prejudicing his right to privacy. Page 2 of 37