(supra), issues of bail and admission of evidence have ever since also continued to be the domain of the CPA (supra) and Evidence Act (supra). Now that the petitioner and his counsel did not substantiate their general and hypothetical allegations against the impugned provisions or address on the deficiency, if any, of several safeguards as provided for by POTA catering for fundamental basic rights against public rights. Thus, we find the allegations against section 11 of POTA devoid of merit. We have further examined the allegations raised against sections 30(1) and 31(1), (2), (3) & (4) of POTA which is argued to contravene constitutional rights to-privacy, equality before the law and fair hearing as provided for under articles 16(l)&(2),13(l),(6)(a) of the Constitution. It was further argued that, section 30(1) of POTA sets ground for the interference of private communications and it does not safeguard or prescribe specific circumstances, manner and extent under which one's rights can be encroached without prejudicing his right to privacy. Concerning section 31(1), (2), (3) & (4) of POTA regarding right to fair hearing under article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution, the petitioner's counsel argued in his rejoinder submission that the POTA discriminates the Muslim community. However, Mr Nyakiha refuted the allegations above for lack of proof and stressed that, the powers of the Court to enforce the safeguards provided under POTA renders the petitioner's allegations unfounded. On our part, we are inclined to agree with Mr Nyakiha that the petitioner's counsel did not account on how the enforcement of section 30(1) of POTA derogates one's individual rights particularly on the alleged Page 29 of 37