offence; two, the whereabouts of the person suspected by the Police Officer to have committed a terrorism offence; three, existence of a property connected to the commission of a terrorism offence; and four, there is certification by the foreign state (if involved) regarding suspect's intercepted and retained communication or attached, forfeited /restrained property. In view of the foregoing discussions and after paying due regard to the guiding principles outlined above, we are inclined to agree with Mr Nyakiha that, the impugned provisions are in conformity with articles 13(6)(a) and 24(1) & (2) of the Constitution in relation to one's right to property and protection of property as well as the right to fair hearing. Regarding sections 35 and 54 of POTA, which are alleged to contravene the rights to-equality before the law, presumption of innocence and fair trial entrenched and protected by article 13(1) &(6)(a) &(b) of the Constitution, we did not as well find substance from the petitioner on how the aforesaid constitutional rights are restrained/limited by the impugned provisions. To our dismay, the petitioner's counsel just generally argued that, what is in the Statute does not conform the practice adding that, POTA has no checking safeguards when its enforcement is abused. He did not address the facilitation the provisions carter to the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings involving offence/s of terrorism or International terrorism and the attendant safeguards attached therein. On our part, we paid keen attention to the catch words- "..... a certificate purporting to be signed by an appropriate authority.... shall be admissible in evidence.... and shall, in the absence of evidence to the Page 33 of 37