Besides the argument that the banning a newspaper for a sole reason that it interfered with the right of another was harsh as there were some other measures that could have been resorted to which are not as harsh as banning a newspaper which at the end would affect the rights of thousand other readers in the country. It is unfortunately that going through the pleadings and submissions made thereon, we have never found any alternative remedy provided by the petitioner which could be taken in lieu of the act provided under section 9 (b) of the Act. As stipulated under Article 30 (2) of the Constitution, the power exercised under section 9(1) is one to safeguard the rights and freedoms of other people or of the interests of the public as in the case of Julius Ishengoma (supra). Whereby the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held at page 38 that: "Fundamental rights are subject to limitation. To treat them as absolute is to invite anarchy in the society. Those rights can be limited but the limitation must not be arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate to any claim o f state interest [...] under the constitution an individual's fundamental right may have to yield to the common weal o f the society (Emphasis supplied). 21