the people. They thus reiterated their prayers in the Originating Summons which were also advanced in their submission in-chief. That marked closure of the hearing of the petition under examination. Having gone through the submissions by the respective learned friends and after generally and specifically carefully addressed our mind to the ably arguments of both counsel and also considered the wealth of authorities cited for guidance to the Court, we find it necessary to make quick general observation. That general observation is that, the POTA and its associated legislation in Tanzania and those in other jurisdictions, the International instruments inclusive, have become one of the most challenging areas for constitutional Courts called on to determine issues pertaining to fundamental individual basic rights vis-a-vis fundamental public basic rights. So, confining ourselves to the scope of the petition before us, we are specifically sited to resolve the issue whether sections 9(1), 11, 30(1), 31(1), (2), (3) & (4), 34(4), 35, 42(1) & (2), 44(2) & (3) and 54 of POTA are in violation of some fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It will be recalled that, several salient principles have been discussed by the learned advocates for the parties above. With a limited addition, we respectfully find them vital for determining the constitutionality of the impugned provisions hence disposing the issue at hand. Whereas in the case of Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General, (supra) for example, it was held inter aiia that, it is the fundamental rights which the Court is enjoined to guard jealously and not the restrictions. It was further underlined in the case of Jackson Ole Nemeteni and 19 Page 13 of 37