The impugned provision which is also quoted above, specifically caters for statutory safeguards against arbitrary abuse of powers by other law actors by empowering Courts tasked to determine Police ex parte application/s in: one, issuing search warrants to seize any property; two, issuing restraint orders prohibiting any person from disposing of, or otherwise dealing with any interest in that property, other than as may be specified in the order; three, appointing a person to take control of, and manage or otherwise deal with, the whole or a part of the property, in accordance with its directions; and four, issuing an order requiring any person having possession of the property to give possession thereof to the person it has appointed. We have no doubt whatsoever that, the catch words in section 42(1)&(2) of POTA to wit, "Where the Court is satisfied, on an exparte application, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that" ;as may be specified in the order".; the Court may, at the request of the Attorney General and, if the Court is of the opinion that the circumstances so require; and "in accordance with the directions of the Court; which relate to determination of ex-parte applications filed in Court by the Police, are absolutely legal safeguards against arbitrary abuse of powers by the investigation and or the prosecution. We hold so because, no ex-parte application can be filed in Court by the Police for its determination unless the same is sanctioned by the Attorney General whom we all know is not an investigative officer. Nevertheless, the Court can only grant ex-parte application if fully satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe on existence of material information stated in that ex-parte application concerning: one, commission of a terrorism Page 32 of 37