The Respondents on their side have denied any wrongdoing. They have refuted the allegation of restricting the Clubhouse. They have also argued that they do not own the Clubhouse. They cannot therefore tell if it is restricted. In the end, they invited the court to dismiss the petition for want of evidence and merit. Before delving into the issues for determination, it is worth stating that the parties were under legal representation. Whereas Mr John Seka, learned counsel, appeared for the Petitioner, Pauline Fridoline Mdendemi, State Attorney stood for the Respondents. We appreciate the industrious work done by the parties' learned counsel. The Petition was heard by way of written submissions. Turning to the issues, the parties agree the following to be the issues for determination in this petition: a) Whether the Government of Tanzania uses the social audio platform Clubhouse and for what? b) Whether access to Clubhouse is a fundamental right of the Petitioner? c) Whether the Second Respondent has restricted access and availability of Clubhouse in Tanzania; d) Whether the aforementioned restrictions [if any] are justifiable e) To what reliefs are parties entitled. To begin with the first issue; whether the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania uses the Clubhouse, the parties have divergent views on this point. The Petitioner was surprised that the Respondents have denied the existence of an official government platform within Clubhouse to necessitate the formulation of this question as an issue for determination. As per paragraph 4 of the Counter Affidavit of Dr Philip Haule Filikunjombe, the Respondents have denied the Clubhouse as an official communication platform of the Government. The Petitioner 4