In reply, counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent opposes the petition in its totality because it does not raise any questions requiring the interpretation of the Constitution. It is therefore misconceived, frivolous and vexatious. 5 Further, that the Constitution establishes Uganda as a democratic society and it operates through the principles of democracy and good governance. That much as the Constitution provides for the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 29, the right guaranteed is not absolute and non-derogable in nature. Thus the respondent in 10 February 2016, during the elections, ordered telecommunication operators and internet service providers to block, shutdown and slow internet and it was not in contravention of the Constitution as alleged by the petitioners. Counsel for the respondent went on to assert that Article 22 (1) and 45 15 of the Constitution protect life and livelihood and blocking of and shutting down of social media and mobile money transfer services during the general elections was not inconsistent with the Constitution and did not in any way deprive the petitioners of their right to life and livelihood. That in addition, the blocking of the same services during the 20 presidential inauguration did not in any way deprive the petitioners of their right to life and livelihood. In addition, counsel for the respondent submitted that the actions of the respondent were permissible under Article 43 of the Constitution and thus were not inconsistent with the Constitution. He explained that 25 in the enjoyment of rights and freedoms prescribed in Chapter Four, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other rights and freedoms of others or the public interest. That the respondent’s blocking, shutting down and slowing down of the internet was done in the public interest. He explained that Article 43 (2) (c) of the Constitution is to the effect 8