organizations because POTA provides for legal and Institutional framework to protect those rights. It is for that reason, Mr. Nyakiha argued that, there are provisions of among other things on: availability of legal assistance including legal aid, prosecution service, independent Judiciary accessible by any person charged under POTA with the Court charged with responsibility of making decisions to be adhered to by other State organs. For example, referring to section 42(1) & (2) of POTA, he submitted that, the provisions are self-explanatory that where the Court is satisfied on an ex parte application that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is in any building, place or vessel, any property in respect of which an order of forfeiture may be made under section 43, it may issue a search warrant to the Police or restraint order to any person or at the request of the Attorney General appoint a person to take control of and manage or otherwise deal with the whole or a part of the property in accordance with the directions of the Court or require any person having possession of the property to give possession thereof to the person appointed. So, it was Mr Nyakiha's contention that the impugned POTA's provisions ensure prevalence of public safety whereas both individual and collective rights are considered in general, as a whole, not in isolation as was held by the Court of Appeal in the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Daudi Pete (supra). He added that, it was held by the Court of Appeal in the case of Julius Inshengoma Francis Ndyanabo v. Attorney General [2004] T.L.R. 38 that fundamental rights are subjected to sets of limitations. In that case, the Court held: Page 10 of 37