restricted in Tanzania. The petitioner has spent quite a while on this issue trying to demonstrate that the 1st Respondent has a statutory and constitutional duty to ensure that Clubhouse is available and accessible without restriction. We insist that the right of access to any application is not without limitation. It is not absolute. There are instances where lawful restriction is allowed. The key issue in this case is whether the 2nd respondent has restricted access to the Clubhouse. It is our finding that the issue of restriction of Clubhouse has not been proved. Hence, this issue has been answered in the negative. Whether Clubhouse access restriction is justifiable is the next issue for analysis. Although that is appealing, it may amount to starting with the wrong footing. Therefore, before responding to that issue, we must answer the critical question of whether in the first place, the Clubhouse is restricted in Tanzania. We already held that access to the Clubhouse is a fundamental right of the Petitioner. However, such right has limits. It can be restricted but the restriction must be justifiable under the provisions of Article 30[2] of the CURT. This article provides the following justification for derogations in the enjoyment of fundamental human rights: It is hereby declared that the provisions contained in this Part o f this Constitution which set out the principles o f rights, freedom and duties, does not render unlawful any existing law or prohibit the enactment o f any law or the doing o f any lawful act in accordance with such law for the purposes o f (a) ensuring that the rights and freedoms o f other people or o f the interests o f the public are not prejudiced by the wrongful exercise o f the freedoms and rights o f individuals; (b) ensuring the defence, public safety, public peace, public 25 morality, public health,