freedoms and right to privacy. He did not present how the national security can be maintained without having mechanisms capable of detecting, preventing and or controlling incidents leading to destructive incidents against the State which cannot happen without affecting individual citizens. Besides, it is imperative that for the Minister to give general directions or direction with specified description to communication service providers or any particular communication service provider under section 30(1) of POTA it is stipulated that the directions should be those aiming at: one, preventing or detecting offences under terrorism; and two, facilitating prosecution of offences of terrorism under POTA. In view of the above and employing the plain and purposive interpretation methods to section 30(1) of POTA, we find the Minister's powers to issue directions are statutorily confined to the scope provided by the provision. It is for that reason we find implementation of those directions not supposed to subject the recipient communication service provider/s to offend the law/s governing her registration and business license. Therefore, it is not expected that the Minister can just wake up in the morning and issue unfounded direction/s as doing so will subject his arbitral directions/orders to judicial review proceedings. It is with this understanding we find the petitioner's allegations devoid of merit. Regarding sections 31(l)-(4) and 34(4) of POTA quoted above, we equally have no doubt whatsoever that there are adequate safeguards against arbitral abuse of power by the Police. We are inclined to pay regard to the best practice In the Matter of an Application under section 83.28 of the Criminal Code (RE) (supra) and Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury (No 2) (supra) earlier discussed above. Page 30 of 37