principles referred above, we are satisfied that the impugned provision is more on protection of public rights against individual or private rights hence well clothed and salvaged by Article 30(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioner's complaint against it is devoid of merit. In the same vein, we have examined the petitioner's complaint against section 11 of POTA quoted above that per articles 13(1), (6) & 26 of the Constitution, the same proclaim supremacy over the Constitution hence rendering other laws redundant adding that the same is too general and denying a person charged under POTA all legal, and Constitutional rights and freedoms thus encouraging abuse of powers and authority and for not observing basic Constitutional rights. It is very unfortunate that the counsel for the petitioner did not substantiate their general and hypothetical allegations we recapped above. Besides, our further review to the part of the rejoinder submission quoted above, in the light of the laws and case law discussed above, it has come to our firm view that POTA was as such enacted to improve the country's legal framework. It is evident that, even before the enactment of POTA in 2002, the Constitution and Statutes like the Penal Code (supra), the National Security Act (supra), the CPA, the Evidence Act (supra) and the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, [Cap. 200 R.E, 2002] to mention a few, for some decades had catered for and promoted both private and public basic rights. For example, whereas some aspects of the present section 9(1) of POTA regarding possession of unauthorized articles, information and espionage were already covered by section 4(1) of the National Security Act Page 28 of 37