rural and urban development planning, the exploitation and utilization o f minerals or the increase and development o f property o f any other interests for the purposes o f enhancing the public benefit; (c) ensuring the execution o f a judgment or order o f a court given or made in any civil or criminal matter; (d) protecting the reputation, rights and freedoms o f others or the privacy o f persons involved in any court proceedings, prohibiting the disclosure o f confidential information or safeguarding the dignity, authority and independence o f the courts; (e) imposing restrictions, supervising and controlling the formation, management and activities o f private societies and organizations in the country; or (f) enabling any other thing to be done which promotes or preserves the national interest in general. As to the issue of whether the restrictions on access and availability of Clubhouse in Tanzania by the 2nd Respondent are justifiable, that too ought to be examined. However, this issue should not detain us much as we have observed and concluded based on evidence adduced by the parties that there were or there is no such restriction(s). Thus, analysing the said issue in detail is nothing but an academic exercise, which we decline to do. The 1st Respondent has not admitted that it is responsible for the ongoing restriction of Clubhouse. It is incumbent upon the Petitioner proving his case than shifting the burden of proof to the Respondents. The latter will have a task of justifying the alleged restriction under Article 30[2] of the CURT. That the restrictions must pass a three-part test. 26