of innocence and fair trial. In a nutshell, we find the petitioner's allegations against sections 35 and 54 of POTA to be devoid of merit in law. Finally, regarding section 44(2) & (3) of POTA, the petitioner alleged that they contravene rights to fair hearing and to form associations or organizations under articles 13(6)(a) and 20(1) of the Constitution. However, we have found nowhere the petitioner or his counsel has substantiated how the impugned provisions contravene the aforementioned rights. Under section 44(2) & (3) of POTA, it is patent clear that, the Minister or a person authorized by him based on information or criminal intelligence reports, may cause the refusal of registration of an applicant for registration as a registered trustees or revocation of registered trustees on ground of being linked with suspected resource support from a terrorist group. However, that refusal or revocation, as the case may be, can be done upon that applicant or the registered trustees being served with copy of the Certificate and notice if the Certificate is determined to be reasonable. In the present petition the petitioner and his counsel did not substantiate the allegations. We do not thus understand how the petitioner will be prejudiced by the decision taken by the Minister or a person authorized by him to act on a tangible information or intelligence report received which is certified and found reasonable to be acted upon for national security. Therefore, we respectfully disagree with the petitioner that section 44(2) & (3) of POTA violates articles 13(6)(a) and 20(1) of the Constitution regarding right to fair hearing and to form associations or organizations. We thus find section 44(2) & (3) to be well clothed and salvaged by article 30(2) of the Constitution. Page 35 of 37