"... the burden o f proving a fact rest on the party who substantially assert the affirmative o f the issue and not upon the party who denies it: for the negative is usually incapable o f proof." Hence, a mere possibility that the UHURU newspaper was not provided with the right to be heard as alleged by the petitioner will not render the provision of law unconstitutional as held by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in the case of Christopher Mtikila Vs Attorney General [1995] TLR 31 at page 55 that; "The constitutionality o f a statutory provision is not found in what could happen but in what it actually provides for; the mere possibility o f a statutory provision being abused in actual operation will not make it invalid". Therefore, in the absence of such fact we find no basis to claim the violation of Article 13 (a) of the Constitution. We also wish to remind the petitioner that she should be bound by her pleadings and thus she is here to challenge the provision of section 9 of the Media Act for being unconstitutional. Probably that might be different if the UHURU Newspaper was a party to this petition. We also do agree with the argument by Mr. Mpoki that no democracy can be meaningful where the people cannot seek, receive 25