that any limitation to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in Chapter Four should not be beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society or what is provided for in the Constitution. He concluded that the respondent’s 5 actions were in good faith and therefore justifiable as the instructions, directives and orders given to the telecommunication operators and internet service providers were within what was provided for in the Constitution, and most importantly for the purposes of national security, peace and order. 10 Resolution of the petition The respondent’s counsel raised an objection that the petition does not raise any question for constitutional interpretation. The petitioner’s counsel contended that it does and cited Article 137 (2) (b) of the Constitution. He did not support his arguments with any authorities 15 and left it to court to make its decision on the issue. I think it is a question that deserves consideration before I attempt to deal with the grounds raised by the petitioner, as is provided for under Order 6 rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules. See also Attorney General v David Tinyefuza, Constitutional Appeal No 1 of 1997. 20 In order to give clarity to the discussion, it is important to set down the relevant part of Article 137 of the Constitution; it provides as follows: 137. Questions as to the interpretation of the Constitution. 25 (1) Any question as to the interpretation of this Constitution shall be determined by the Court of Appeal sitting as the constitutional court. (2) When sitting as a constitutional court, the Court of Appeal shall consist of a bench of five members of that court. (3) A person who alleges that— 30 (a) an Act of Parliament or any other law or anything in or done under the authority of any law; or 9