He further asserted that, sections 31(1), (2) & (3), 34(4) and 35 of POTA contravene the Constitution by violating right to equality before the law, right to be heard and fair trial, right to challenge an order and decision and right to presumption of innocence under articles 13(1),(3) and 13(6)(a)&(b) of the Constitution respectively, when one faces trial in law. Lastly, the petitioner added that, sections 42(1) & (2), 44(2) & (3) and 54 of POTA violate individual's rights to property and protection of one's property, the right to form associations or organizations and the attendant rights to be heard and to fair hearing/trial and presumption of innocence under articles 13(6)(a) 20, 24(1) & (2) of the Constitution respectively. In his affirmed affidavit, Mr. Rashid Ahmed Kilindo averred that POTA contravenes the Constitution for violating some fundamental rights and freedoms of people and it suppresses both rule of law and due process of law hence encouraging abuse of power and authority. He added, mere allegations made recklessly or otherwise regarding commission of offences under POTA renders one susceptible to violation of the rights of freedoms and suffer from the contravention of the provisions of the Constitution. Essentially, it is based on the aforesaid contention that the petitioner craves for four reliefs namely- declaratory order that the State (Executive, Judiciary and Parliament) has Constitutional duty and mandate to observe, protect and preserve the rights and freedoms as guaranteed, entrenched and protected by the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution; declaratory order that the above-mentioned provisions of POTA are unconstitutional, null and void and that the same should be expunged from the Statute books; costs; and any other reliefs as this Court may deem fit to grant. Page 3 of 37